> "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:1116421113.176958.75780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 
> Traveler wrote:
> > There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a
> >      scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but
> >      is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the
> >      average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that
> >      he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question
> >      as anybody else. Voodoo science is not about understanding nature
> >      but about working at being so incomprehensible or so arcane to
> >      one's fellow human beings as to be regarded as brilliant. The
> >      weapon of choice of a voodoo scientist is mathematics. The truth
> >      is that a scientist's understanding of a phenomenon is inversely
> >      proportional to the number of math equations he uses to describe
> >      it. Neither Newton's gravity equation nor the equations of
> >      General Relativity explain why things fall. But what better way
> >      is there to hide one's cluelessness while presenting a façade of
> >      erudition than to use obscure equations to erect an impregnable
> >      mountain of obfuscation? Voodoo science is guru science.
> >
> >
> 
> Well, it's a shame that you've had such a bad experience trying to
> learn this stuff, and are so frustrated by the experience, that you've
> chosen to shift blame to those who failed to teach it to you.
> 
> I agree with you that the test for whether you understand something is
> whether you can explain it to your grandmother and she'll believe you.
> However, there is a limit to that. An explanation to a layman can at
> best make the explanation *plausible*. However, if the layman wants
> more, wants to be convinced that another explanation is not equally
> plausible, then one has to dig deeper and apply some tools. This is
> because physics is inherently a quantitative science. Plausible notions
> are a dime a dozen. What distinguishes plausible notions is whether
> they can *accurately* predict observable behavior, at least accurately
> enough to distinguish one plausible notion from other plausible
> notions. It is simply not true that one explanation can be made
> convincing enough to the layman that other plausible explanations are
> ruled out, without applying the tools.
> 
> This is the difference between learning physics enough to grasp its
> plausibility (and that's where most laypeople sit) and learning physics
> enough to *do* physics (and that requires the work and training that
> physicists submit themselves to).
> 
> There is, unfortunately, no shortcut.
> 
> This is true of any profession, not just of physics. I can pretend I
> understand how my car engine works. But until I've learned how to take
> one apart with my own hands, know how to use what tools for what parts,
> what sequence of assembly is required, what a part should look like
> when it is fine and what it should look like when it is not fine, how
> some parts are built better than other parts, what choices to make in
> diagnosing a problem and then what choices to make in fixing the
> problem, what to look for in evaluating the performance of the engine
> -- until I learn all those things and spent the time doing that, then I
> can't pretend to be a mechanic.
> 
> PD

Does PD stand for pedophile or pederast? ...AHAHAHAHA.... ahahaha...
AHAHAHAHA.. ahahaha........AHAHAHAHA.... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA..
ahahaha........AHAHAHAHA.... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.. ahahaha.....

Louis Savain

The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm