Vraagje aan Uncle
 

Uncle, jij als buitenstaander, wat vinjij van echte intellectuelen?

Re: Vraagje aan Uncle
 

"Helles" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> Uncle, jij als buitenstaander, wat vinjij van echte intellectuelen?
>
Bedoel jij echte intellectjuwelen ?

WN.

Re: Vraagje aan Uncle
 

"Helles" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> Uncle, jij als buitenstaander, wat vinjij van echte intellectuelen?
>
>

:)

JC

Re: Vraagje aan Uncle
 

"Helles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Uncle, jij als buitenstaander, wat vinjij van echte intellectuelen?
>

Aangezien ik, beste jongen, nog niemand mocht ontmoeten die
intelligenter/intellectjuweler is dan ik, dien ik mezelf als norm te nemen:
welnu dan, ik ben er niet ontevreden over.

U's

Re: Vraagje aan Uncle
 

Helles wrote:

> Uncle, jij als buitenstaander, wat vinjij van echte
> intellectuelen?

Wat Uwe Hayek er van vind :

Here's a disturbing quote from "Peter Duesberg" from
his book "Inventing the AIDS Virus", about the current
state of medical research in this country.
---------------"The result have been predictable. When
the American Association for the Advancement of
Science was established in 1848, it had 461 scientist
as members. It then reached 36,000 during World War II
and already passed 100,000 during the 1960's. Today it
boasts some 135,000 members and is only one of the
many growing sciences associations. The National
Academy of Sciences, in which membership even today is
a unique honor reserved for a few scientist, started
in 1893, with 50 members. Those ranks swelled past 600
by the mid-1960's and now stands at 1650. The total
number of science doctorates awarded each year has
increased from under 6,000 in 1960 to nearly 17,000 in
1979. By the mid-1980's the ranks of Ph.D's and M.D's
working in science or engineering had swelled to
400,000, a figure that for decades has grown much
faster than national employment. As a result, "Of
every eight scientist who ever lived [in the history
of the world], seven are alive today [in
1969]",similar statistics would hold today. nor has
the pressure for further expansion abated until very
recently, as evidenced in a 1990 policy statement of
the Association of American Universities referring to
an "Impending Ph.D. shortage. Only in October 1995 did
"Science" for the first time begin to worry about the
imminent American Ph.D glut."

"Yet we cannot find among them the eight modern
Galileos, Plancks, Einstiens, Kochs, Pasteurs, or
Mendels that these statistics predict. increasing
numbers of scientist means many more papers published
in scientific journals, with the publish-or-perish
stakes rising constantly. According to one summary,
"The first scientific journal..began publication in
1665. By 1800 there were 100 journals; by 1900, 10,000
journals; today [1969}, over 100,000." by 1986, an
unreadable total of nearly 140,000 papers were being
published each year just by U.S scientist, about
one-third of the world total."

"Such overgrowth in scientific ranks produces
regression to the mean. Competition among large
numbers of scientist for one or few central sources of
funding restricts freedom of thought and action to a
mean that appeals to the majority. The scientist who
is very productive, most able to sell research, and is
well liked for not offending his peers with new
hypothesis and ideas is selected by his peers for
funding. The eccentric, " absent-minded professor"
with "crazy" ideas has been replaced by a new breed of
scientist, more like a "yuppie" executive than the
quirky genius of old academia. These peers cannot
afford a nonconformist, or unpredictable, thinker
because every new, alternative hypothesis is a
potential threat to their own line of research.

Albert Einstein would not get funded for his work by
the peer review system, and Linus Pauling did not (
for his work on Vitamin C and Cancer even though he
received two Nobel prizes). The only benefit of the
numerous cascades of competitive test and reviews set
up by peer review is the elimination of
unsophisticated charlatans and real incompetence. In
sum, the review of too many by too many achieves but
one result with certainty: regression to the mean. It
guarantees first-rate mediocrity. As these armies of
new scientist flood the peer review system, they even
act to suppress any remaining dissension by the few
remaining thoughtful researchers.

Peer review, after all, can never check the accuracy
of experimental data; it can only censor unacceptable
interpretations. A scientist's grants, publications,
positions, awards and even invitations to conferences
are entirely controlled by his competitors. As in any
other profession, no scientist welcomes being
out-competed or having his pet idea disproved by a
colleague. Former Science editor Dr. Philip Abelson
presciently described the pressures against dissenters
who raise questions publicly:

(Skipped)

Few scientist are any longer willing to question, even
privately, the consensus views in any field
whatsoever. The successful researcher-the one who
receives the biggest grants, the best career
positions, the most prestigious prizes, the greatest
number of published papers- is the one who generates
the most data and the least controversy. The
transition from small to big to mega-science has
created an establishment of skilled technicians but
mediocre scientist, who have abandoned real scientific
interpretation and who even equate their experiments
with science itself. They pride themselves on molding
data to fit popular scientific belief, or perhaps in
adding non-threatening discoveries, but when someone
strays outsides accepted boundaries to ask questions
of a more fundamental nature, the majority of
researchers close ranks to protect their consensus
beliefs."

UNQUOTE

Uwe Hayek.

--
To be controlled in our economic pursuits,
is to be controlled in everything -- F.A.Hayek.

Magna est veritas et praevalebit
(great is truth, and shall prevail)
-- Del Kennedy

Government is not the solution,
government is the problem.
-- Ronald Reagan.

Re: Vraagje aan Uncle
 

"Hayek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Wat Uwe Hayek er van vindt :
>
> Here's a disturbing quote from "Peter Duesberg" from
> his book "Inventing the AIDS Virus", about the current
> state of medical research in this country.
>

Niet overtuigend, Hayek.
Het authentiekste geluid dat ik de laatste tijd hoorde was het
universalistische gekraai van een verdwaalde haan die mijn erf - terecht -
als het zijne beschouwde.
Hij vertoeft ondertussen elders.
Maar af&toe hoor ik uit de verte zijn magistrale kukeleku - dat de
stompzinnigheden van bepol compleet overbodig maakt.

U's

Re: Vraagje aan Uncle
 

"Uncle's" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> "Helles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Uncle, jij als buitenstaander, wat vinjij van echte intellectuelen?
> >
>
> Aangezien ik, beste jongen, nog niemand mocht ontmoeten die
> intelligenter/intellectjuweler is dan ik, dien ik mezelf als norm te
nemen:
> welnu dan, ik ben er niet ontevreden over.
>
Beter een goed gedacht van jezelf dan een slecht van een ander.
Je moet nodig eens buitenkomen. Dan komt je meteen iets of iemand tegen die
intelligenter/intellectjuweler dan jij.
Maar wacht liefst nog een paar dagen tot de grootste hitte achter de rug is.

JC

Re: Vraagje aan Uncle
 

"JC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Beter een goed gedacht van jezelf dan een slecht van een ander.
> Je moet nodig eens buitenkomen. Dan komt je meteen iets of iemand tegen
> die
> intelligenter/intellectjuweler dan jij.
> Maar wacht liefst nog een paar dagen tot de grootste hitte achter de rug
> is.
>

Die hitte stimuleert me juist.
Heb vandaag in de ZOV regio als pc-dokter 4 huisbezoeken succesrijk
voltooid.
Bij 1 ervan mocht ik een glorieuze sprong van jawel W3.1 naar WME (WXP paste
niet op deze boerenbuiten-competoeter) realiseren.
Heerlijk.

U's

Re: Vraagje aan Uncle
 

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:54:07 +0200, Uncle's wrote:

> "Helles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Uncle, jij als buitenstaander, wat vinjij van echte intellectuelen?
>>
>
> welnu dan, ik ben er niet ontevreden over.
>

U's intellect put zijn kracht dan ook uit het schaamhaar van zijn
(ingebeelde) Magrebijnse schone.

M

Re: Vraagje aan Uncle
 

"Uncle's" <[email protected]> schreef op di 21 jun 2005 16:54:07 al dan
niet correctsgewijs in news:[email protected]:

> "Helles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Uncle, jij als buitenstaander, wat vinjij van echte intellectuelen?
>>
>
> Aangezien ik, beste jongen, nog niemand mocht ontmoeten die
> intelligenter/intellectjuweler is dan ik, dien ik mezelf als norm te
> nemen: welnu dan, ik ben er niet ontevreden over.
>
> U's
>
>

Antwoord eens op de vraag aub.

--
VGQ

Re: Vraagje aan Uncle
 

Quasimodus wrote:

> "Uncle's" <[email protected]> schreef op di 21 jun 2005 16:54:07 al dan
> niet correctsgewijs in news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>"Helles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>
>>
>>>Uncle, jij als buitenstaander, wat vinjij van echte intellectuelen?
>>>
>>
>>Aangezien ik, beste jongen, nog niemand mocht ontmoeten die
>>intelligenter/intellectjuweler is dan ik, dien ik mezelf als norm te
>>nemen: welnu dan, ik ben er niet ontevreden over.
>>
>>U's
>>
>>
>
>
> Antwoord eens op de vraag aub.

Als hij een ter zake doende antwoord zou geven, zou hij geen
buitenstaander (meer) zijn.

--
Karel "de Jazz" Jansens

"Ceterum censeo Belgicam delendam."
(Cato, 'Pro Gerolphe')