Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the opposite--a good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, perhaps especially his/her own. 

No, this is not accurate.  A good scientist is as certain as the current evidence allows.  She is not more skeptical of her own position simply because it is her own.  It only became her own position BECAUSE of the amount of evidence she has found in its favor.  

What you probably meant to describe is a scientist's theory.  She should work just as hard disproving her theory as proving it.  However, in the end, we are human and a good scientist knows this and so relies on peer review BECAUSE she knows she might be partial to her own theory--even though she thought she did her best to disprove it.  If her theory passes peer review, then she can be as confident of her theory as anyone else and need not be any more skeptical of it than anyone else.

You seem to be describing science as a free-for-all in which all ideas have equal certainty and skepticism.  I know you know that is not a true representation.  Yet there are degrees of skepticism that you seem to hang on to.  These are the same degrees of skepticism that Intelligent Design proponents rely on.  They revel in giving science this wimpiness that seem to applaud.   Watch out for what you advocate.  It can come back to haunt you.





On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

     Science is not just about a careful and systematic approach to expanding knowledge; it is also a way to share that goal with other interested parties. That is why we develop academic fields and subfields. One person cannot simply declare himself right; positions are subject to peer review.
    Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the opposite--a good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, perhaps especially his/her own. Even when evidence seems overwhelming, as it is for evolution and global warming, a good scientist presents those as the best current explanation of the evidence, not as a final and definitive answer. This may seem wimpy to some, but it is a cornerstone of what good science is all about.
    When someone wants to offer a new way of seeing things within the academic fields, it is customary to present a Review of the Literature in some form or another. Those who propose the new way of seeing things are under the obligation to show that they have reviewed the current literature and understand it before they offer something new. That doesn't mean presenting the weaknesses of that view, but presenting its strengths. The burden, as it should be, is not on the status quo position, but on the person who is proposing the new view to explain why it better accounts for the observed facts.
    I don't present this as a post to Brad; like many on the list, I find discussions with Brad unpleasant and unproductive. But I think it's important to assert ground rules that can make it possible for us to discuss issues in a useful way.
    It is  helpful to know what most experts currently believe about a topic. We should be able to post that without fear of attack.

Craig


On 12/6/2010 9:51 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:
> Karl,
>
> I'm sorry you're angry but remember, YOU took it to the list and YOU
> are the person who is angry. And YOU are the person who called me a
> "troll", which is OK. That's what angry people do. No problem.
>
> But as long as were here, let's let the list look at your definition
> and let them decide if it is what we (Karl and Brad) are looking
> for, which is the kind of definition you say "can be found in any
> decent grammar text".
>
> These are your words exactly, from 02dec10. "My definition: The past
> perfect in English is a compound tense that combines the primary
> past tense with the perfect, which is a secondary tense system. The
> past perfect prototypicaly functions to locate an event prior to a
> second past event."
>
> I replied, (this is exact): "Don't be impatient. We're getting
> there. The question was, How do you define it? Tell me what the past
> perfect is." And you replied, "The past perfect functions to locate
> an event prior to a second past event". So if I say, "I went to the
> store yesterday and bought potatoes", the past perfect functions to
> locate the prior event, going to the store, from the second event,
> buying the potatoes? 'Zat how it works? Or do you want to adjust
> your definition? And you replied, "No, I don't want to change it. It
> is correct." So, ATEG, here is the definition: "The past perfect
> functions to locate an event prior to a second past event". Is it
> good or is it not-so-good? Is it what we're looking for? or can we
> do better? (Remember, we're talking about Teaching Grammar. That's
> what this is all about.)
>
> .brad.06dec10.
>
> ------------------------- *From:* Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask] *Sent:* Mon, December 6, 2010
> 8:39:21 PM *Subject:* Re: common irregular verbs
>
> Pot, meet kettle. Everyone else on the list agrees with Eduard. For
> my money, the real arrogance is in thinking that you are the only
> one who knows the truth about the perfect.
>
> Further, my discussion about the perfect with you was off the list,
> and you have just misrepresented what I told you in private to the
> entire list.
>
> For the record, I gave you a definition, and then I corrected your
> imprecise paraphrase of my definition. I did not back away from it.
>
> I should have known that you were too stupid to understand the
> distinction.
>
> Also, I stand by my use of the perfect in my last message to the
> list. It's Standard English, and the only thing you demonstrate by
> trying to ridicule it is your complete ineptitude as a judge of
> English grammar.
>
> Once again you have demonstrated why you deserve to be shunned, and I
> deeply regret my folly in writing to you.
>
> This will be my last message to you. I am adding you back to my idiot
> filter.
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
> select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/