Re: It's open season on crooks down here in Texas

On Jan 1, 1:27 pm, Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinleepra...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Dec 31 2007, 9:37 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Dec 30, 10:20 am, Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 29, 12:52 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 29, 11:20 am, Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Danny gets wild praise from economists and psychologists in academia:
"greatest living psychologist", "founder of behavioral economics",
that kind of thing.  That's because the vast majority of them are
total frauds too!

If they really say those things about him they are probably right. You
are most likely wrong about them being total frauds.

BTW, I know you are interested in science, and there is a good
resource that few know about, called Scholarpedia. It is limited in
scope at this time, covering only dynamical systems, astrophysics,
computational intelligence and computational neuroscience, but all
articles are written by the top people in the field (in Krausese, that
would read "total frauds") and are peer reviewed.

BLP

Mr. Pramer, I'm sorry to say this, but you are either a liar or a
fool.  Or, quite possibly, both.

Why do you think so?

BLP- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I give you credit, Mr. Pramer, you aren't afraid of criticism,
and you aren't afraid of open debate.  That's probably because you are
working in an area of applied physics that is relatively closely
connected with the private sector and with practical results.

I teach at a very applied school. I am a mathematician, and am used to
ideas that have no *current* applications. Just because something does
not have obvious applications does not mean it is useless. For
instance, number theory is notoriously lacking in (obvious) practical
applications, but it is useful for mathematicians to know because it
clarifies the structure of other mathematics, as with group theory,
abstract algebra, algebraic topology and a raft of other impractical
areas.

If you *insist* that things be applied, I give you the case of Manfred
Schroeder's reflection phase gratings, based on quadratic residue
classes (an area of number theory). These are acoustic panels that
reflect sounds of different frequencies equally in all directions, and
they are widely used in concert halls and recording studios. Their
design depends on an area of number theory that had *no* practical
applications until Schroeder came along.

It frequently happens that an area of science that was thought to have
no applications at one point in time is found to be vital later. An
example is the time correction due to moving frames of reference in
Einstein's special theory of relativity. GPS satellites all use it now
and it is essential.

But, you are certainly naive if you think that there aren't areas of
academia where bureaucratic control is absolute, and practical results
are nonexistent.

See above.

Kahneman's research is in one of these areas.  It is
easy for anyone to  see in his case, because he isn't a particularly
good mathematician, and his work is quite accessible to the non-
scientist.  The fact that you choose to ignore the fact that his work
has no practical significance, indeed is DESIGNED not to have
practical significance

I very much doubt that.

Another area where bureaucratic control is absolute is research on
controlled nuclear fusion.

Oh nonsense! Really, Jerry, give that one up. Anyone can do research
in controlled fusion. If it was easy, it would be done. There is no
control, there is no conspiracy. It is a hard problem. Science is
driven by ego, and scientists, being smart bastards, are full to the
top. Controlled fusion is not a reality because it is very difficult.
I know you have a theory or two about how it can be accomplished. I
will tell you again what I have said before -- write your ideas down
and send them to a journal for review.

BLP- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Any type of new information may be of use, if it is indeed new
information. There may not be any obvious, immediate application, but
there may well be important ones somewhere down the road. Kahneman's
work is not new information, and he, and everyone he works with know
it. It is well-known, intuitively obvious information, already used
on a regular basis by ordinary people working in a variety of areas:
sales, politics, brokerage houses etc. The game he is playing -- and,
it is most certainly a game -- is recycling intuitively obvious
information as scientific research, and using this as a mechanism to
generate research funding. He is particuarly open about what he is
doing, but many academics are doing work of little value, knowingly,
and using it as a means of geneating grant money simply by following
standard academic procedures, in standard ways.

Why should I bother with the professional review system, given that I
am not a member of this system? I can easily make my views known by
other means.

.