Vandeman applying Republican tactics to the environment

On 01 Jun 2006 15:50:54 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

"Edward Dolan" wrote in
news:YLGdnZyDJ_qRFePZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@prairiewave .com:


"Jules Augley" wrote in message
. uk...

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:d5jeg.14940$B42.8239@dukeread05...

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:25:54 GMT, "Jules Augley"
wrote:


"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:mGodg.14536$B42.2924@dukeread05...

"Jules Augley" wrote in message
. uk...
I am not a purist like Vandeman, but like him I do not like
bikes on my
sacred trails. He is more right than you are despite what your
freaking
research brings out. I am the quintessential hiker and I do not
like bikers polluting my scared trails. That is what you have
to wrap your
mind around. Unless and until you do, you are irrelevant.

Another self-procalimed expert, wow, I really stumbled onto a
gold mine
of intellect here. I am irrelevant? As then are you, Mr Dolan.

Goodbye

FYI - I and others have been pointing out vandeman's lack of
substance for
many years (google group search "vandeman")
The only thing that has changed with his statements, opinions,
postings
and claim of information is the date on the calander. He has
answered several "calls for papers" from various conferences and
symposiums and has
been allowed to present his paper(s) because they fall within the
guidelines of the topics of the conference. He has not been
"invited" as a
keynote speaker. He has not been listed in the publicity
information as an
invited and featured speaker or expert. He then uses these 15
minute speaches to an audience likely made up of other presenters
as some reference of authority.
You might even find some interesting references, ideas and links
to information by checking the Google group search "vandeman" and
all that
has been posted to challenge his opinion or refute his
statements. Good luck with your efforts. It seams there are still
teachers involved
with and concerned for their students' progress.

I dont mean to step on anyones toes pointing out vandemans lack
of credibility. I do know a lot of people have been taking the time
to do this
for a while. I guess he will never actually be what he purports to
be, I foolishly thought he was objective, my mistake, you cant
argue objectively
with him,

Very funny. When did you EVER try to do that?!


seems obvious to everyone else reading this, except Vandeman and his
"logic blinders"
in fact you cant argue at all when, as you point out, he mistakes
his opinion for evidence.... Hes bizarre creature, sadly he also
has the potential to do a lot of harm. Im only glad hes confined
himself to a small
part of california (I am in the UK) and the probability of me ever
seeing
him in real life is close to zero. Actually, he could form a good
case study
for students . It would highlight exactly how to be completely
unobjective
and pass it off as truth or fact. I remember a teacher of mine, a
few years
ago, used a website of another vandeman-like person to highlight
some pseudoscience (i.e. not peer-reviewed). The website was about
how we humans
should voluntarily go extinct by refusing to have children, his
name was,
amusingly, Les U Knight.

Anyway, it feels like bashing a head against a brick wall when
arguing objectively with vandeman, cos he doesnt do it. Keep up the
fight.

When I asked you to produce some EVIDENCE, you stonewalled. What's
this about being "objective"?! You REFUSED to tell where your
students were trying to publish their junk science.
===
Can't you READ? He has already stated the paper is being considered
and is not yet a "publishable manuscript". It is also his student's
work so he likely has no access to it beyond the general findings
which he has only eluded to (and you assumed to be derogatory to
your POV in the first place). The paper is in consideration and
therefore any discussion of who negotiations are actually with would
be inappropriate. Beyond any of your silly accusations above, might
I remind you Mr. Vandeman, we on this ng have been asking you for
YEARS to produce peer-reviews of your writings (which you claim
exist) and EVIDENCE that your statemnents are recognized by anyone
else with authority or credit for comparison. We have been
requesting a schedule of events so it may be possible to actually
see you present, see the audience in attendance, see their reactions
to your presentation, perhaps even ask some questions of detail on
the presentation in front of these "peers" you reference, yet you
stonewall and refuse.
You have NO RIGHT to question this person on method, ethics or
science. You are insulting the entire scientific process by doing
so.

I will restate this again, in the hope that MV will realise why I
cant post the report (or maybe he just doesnt read things?). The
report HAS NOT BEEN MARKED, therefore it would be illegal, not to
mention completely inappropriate to post any of the actual report he
has written until AFTER the student has received his grades. Please
read that until it sinks in MV.

As for my objectivity, you are hardly an expert on that topic so no
one can take your comment seriously there. I originally posted a
reply in this thread, as it was cross-posted to sci.environment. That
three letter abbreviation stands for Science. Science, as I have been
taught by ALL of my teachers, professors and peers, depends on an
acknowledgment that objectivity is the ideal and is to be strived
for. There are thousands of reports, papers and other published works
with scientists openly criticising their own work and pointing out
where that ideal may be compromised. That is what HONEST scientists
do. They do not start with an opinion and then denounce work that may
not agree with that opinion, that, MV is called SUBJECTIVITY.
Popperian scientific method, which I may add is influenced by David
Humes', who has a memorial in our hometown (thats Hume and me, big
hint there Dolan and MV) philosphy, depends on striving for
objectivity. If you claim to be an expert in the scientific method,
then pass off your opinions with no objective or empirical basis as
scientific evidence, then you are a scientific fraud. You could do
everyone a huge favour and read up on Poppers, his influences and the
people he influenceds' work, maybe then you can approach your topic
more scientifically.

Has it ever occurred to Jules Augley that science and the scientific
method is vastly overrated. And there is nothing more overrated on the
face of the earth than the scientists themselves. But like all his
breed, he buries his head in meaningless research and hides behind his
degrees. My contempt for such types runneth over! Any old mediocre
politician could make mince meat out of him in a thrice!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota





Ed,
Lok around you, almost everything that you see that is man made was a
product of a scientist. The computer you are actually harrasing him on
is a producy of a scientist.

Do you have a point? So was the atomic bomb, but that doesn't make it
a good thing.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande