A Guide to Effective Scientific Communication

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrase ---------- It has long been known.

Translation ----- I haven't bothered to look up the reference.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrase ---------- It is believed.

Translation ----- I think.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrase ---------- It is generally believed.

Translation ----- A couple of other guys think so too.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrase ---------- Typical results are shown.

Translation ----- The best results are shown.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrase ---------- The 4 hour sample was not studied.

Translation ----- I dropped it on the floor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrase ---------- The 4 hour determination may not be significant.

Translation ----- I dropped it on the floor, but scooped most of it up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrase ---------- The significance of these results is unclear.

Translation ----- Look at the pretty artifact.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrase ---------- It has not been possible to provide definitive answers.

Translation ----- The experiment was negative, but at least I can publish the data somewhere.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrase ---------- Much additional work will be required.

Translation ----- This paper is not very good, but neither are all the others in this miserable field.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phrase ---------- I want to thank X for assistance with the experiments and Y for useful discussions on the interpretation of the data.

Translation ----- X did the experiment and Y explained it to me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</pre><!--mstheme--><!--mstheme-->

Hehehe, the next-to-last one, "much additional work required" was actually used by a presenter at a conference I recently attended, and everyone in the audience nodded knowingly...oh, but the other interpretation of that is:

"since nobody else in this field seems to be able to tie their own shoelaces, can I pretty please have some more grant money?"

Hey ~s~ - I tell you - it's hiding behind words to disguise equivocal results - here's the sort of thing we're taught ... publish or die. don't perform any experiment which isn't publishable (either way). when all else fails - I (I being not me) have friends you know (who'll accept whatever I throw at them (because I'll accept whatever they throw at me)) - these days one can ask for a certain reviewer - and there she goes - wave goodbye to the now departed last remnants of respectability formerly held by the peer review process.
Unfortunately peer review ain't what it's cracked up to be - most reviewers throw their reviews at inexperienced phD students ->- try to get out of doing any work (because it's anonymous, is expected to be performed for free, is not known about (really) by anyone - cannot be used on a CV) ...

....I...have friends you know (who'll accept whatever I throw at them (because I'll accept whatever they throw at me)) - these days one can ask for a certain reviewer - and there she goes - wave goodbye to the now departed last remnants of respectability formerly held by the peer review process.

SB,

In your opinion, is this skirting of guidelines specific to:

A) your university
B) the universities within your region
C) England
D) Western Europe
E) all peer review

Hehehe, the next-to-last one, "much additional work required" was actually used by a presenter at a conference I recently attended, and everyone in the audience nodded knowingly...oh, but the other interpretation of that is:

"since nobody else in this field seems to be able to tie their own shoelaces, can I pretty please have some more grant money?" LOL :D

I would hate to have to worry about if I was going to get paid or not!

I bet that's stressful!

sadly ... no money, often great pain, no visibility through the anonymity of the process of peer review ->- takes its toll ->- the med sci environment is particularly tough - and so priorities are forged - these priorities inevitably revolve around personal career development - peer review doesn't really figure.
I've peer reviewed a large number of papers ->- pretty much all bounced down from on high ... ... ...

sadly ... no money, often great pain, no visibility through the anonymity of the process of peer review


Originally Posted by SB_UK
- these days one can ask for a certain reviewer - and there she goes - wave goodbye to the now departed last remnants of respectability formerly held by the peer review process.

These two statements do not jive. The comment about the "respectability formerly held by the peer review process", is very disturbing and should be explained in a straight forward manner. Also, my posts are being eliminated from this thread. POOF...and gone. No pm or nothing. Something smells very fishy here. Barbyma used to comment about this and called it censorship, I guess that sort of biased behaviour finally got to her.

I would hate to have to worry about if I was going to get paid or not!

I bet that's stressful!Well, if it makes you feel any better, that particular researcher recently received a very generous grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Barbyma used to comment about this and called it censorship, I guess that sort of biased behaviour finally got to her.Well, that and the constant wheel-spinning. It makes no sense to continue to preach only to the converted. Those that really need to understand simply refuse to let go of their current beliefs.

As always, I continue to be available if anyone alerts me to a particularly interesting conversation! (Thanks, Scuro!)

On topic - in my field, and the many other related fields I must keep up in, reviewers rarely "pass off" to grad students (although they may involve them). BUT, that doesn't stop anyone from royalling &%$^ing up and publishing crap. Every journal has at least some - on average about 75% from my estimation.

This is why I am always so adamant that people cite their sources (so I or another reader can look up the study) and that they learn to evaluate the quality of research for themselves.

Here's a little anecdote about the review process: I have a pretty important piece about to go to print in a very high-quality journal. When we submitted the piece over a year ago (it's pretty long, so it took awhile to fit it in) one of the reviewers made a stupid comment that we needed another experiment to show something obvious. Well, we hustled and got the study done and written into the piece and sent it back. The editor chose a new reviewer for the revisions who basically said, "What did you do that experiment for? That wasn't needed." So, we ended up taking it out.

Good thing, though, because that experiment led to another that I did just as a kind of "aside", but THAT one gave me some pretty interesting results and a basis for another piece!

Ah, I am one of the converted! I love to watch the pretty wheels spin! They go nowhere, but spin so colorfully!

Try the world of education if you want to hear "data-driven decision-making" bullsh*t! NCLB? Just a profit machine for the testing companies! IMHO! I can speak eduese-but it is nonsense and leaves the children behind. But enough rant and rave. I get on a roll, but I would be preaching to the choir!

RADD

Well, if it makes you feel any better, that particular researcher recently received a very generous grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Well that's good! :)

BTW, are most researcher's salaries totally based on grants, or are grants just icing on the cake up in above the base salary they receive from an institution or research company?

I'm also curious, if a grant would have a tendency to bias the researcher who receives the grant toward the view's of the people who provided the grant money.

I believe that it depends on the particular researcher. Keep in mind that my line of work tends to be more on the applied end with physicians than with research, but I believe that many researchers (such as the one I mentioned above) are also university professors. They receive a salary for their teaching as well, although keep in mind that tenure is often based upon the number and quality of studies that one publshes for some fields.

I actually wouldn't worry so much about where the grant money comes from, although it could be a concern. In medicine, much of it comes from the various arms of NIH....even the alties can get some studies funded by NCCAM, although pretty much every studies has come up negative despite their best efforts (for this reason, I like to think of NCCAM as the "Michelson-Morely" of medicine).

But even for studies funded by grants from a private organization, let's say a drug company, the study still has to get published by a journal and reviewed by others in the field. Barb notes that crap still gets published (also see my notes on the "ADHD and Lead" study), but it does serve to limit the obvious bias. Also, one of the reasons why you hear people ***** about methodology is because a well-run experiment or study should be constructed in such a way as to limit observer bias to the greatest extent possible. Ideally, a published piece should be a logical argument which covers all possible challenges, even those that are (as Barb mentions) dumber than dog excrement.

Now, this should not be confused with the policy papers that are often put out by my fellow analysts. When I write a policy paper, it reflects the opinions, advocacy, and goals of my organization, but my affiliation makes it obvious that I represent docs, so no big deal. On the other hand, policy analysts who are far better (and far better paid) than I will work for "think tanks" in DC that often put out policy papers which further their goals. Unfortunately, these papers are often also referred to as "studies," which is technically true in that they often study a particular issue or action, but they are not independently peer-reviewed and often do not abide by scientifically rigorous methodology. Even more unfortunately, news organizations often fail to comprehend the difference, so for instance they might treat a study on the effects of Medicare funding from the Cato Institute as being equally valid as a sutdy on the subject from NIA. Think tank studies often cherry pick data or report it in the best possible light for their goals.

And finally, there are official government reports, usually fiscal ones, from agencies like OIG, OMB, GAO etc. While these are often very technically accurate and honest, it is common for politicians to limit by statute what information they may examine or how they may examine it, such as a budget estimate that is required to presume that mandated spending cut targets will be met even when everyone and their dog knows that congress will not actually make those budget cuts. In this case, it often becomes garbage in-garbage out.

This is why it is such a big deal where something was published. A Cato institute paper that suggests less government regulation and a greater reliance on free markets is like a study on medicinal marijuana appearing in "High Times," neither neutral nor surprising. A similar study in American Policial Science Review, on the other hand, would be far more enlightening.

BTW, are most researcher's salaries totally based on grants, or are grants just icing on the cake up in above the base salary they receive from an institution or research company?
The majority of researchers are indeed university professors. They do not receive a salary from the grant. Most grants are used to pay for equipment, research assistants (grad student & post-doc salaries), and travel expenses to conferences.

There are a number of researchers, however, that do not teach. They are usually called "research faculty" and they are not on the "ladder" for tenure. These people usually get a grant (which usually includes a sum to be paid to the institution for facilities & such), then get a university to take them on (not too difficult). Research faculty's salaries are usually paid through the grant, but managed by the institution, so the amount is somewhat regulated.

That's in the academic world, where a large percentage of research is completed.


I'm also curious, if a grant would have a tendency to bias the researcher who receives the grant toward the view's of the people who provided the grant money.The largest grant providers are government entities that have no "view" to speak of. However, I've heard that in engineering there are many private companies funding research. This is an issue that is hotly debated right now. Biotech is another area that seems to have some problems with funding "bias".

Institutions often adopt policies to prevent bias, though, by ensuring that all products remain property of the university and by limiting the dictates they will allow in the contracts.

I will say that there are often rumors that NIDA (National Institute of Drug Abuse, one of the NIH) funding is often given with the understanding that the results will necessarily portray drug as dangerous. But that's also an odd situation, in that it's a highly politicized field, and one where the party line doesn't always follow the medical evidence.

That being said, good data does come out of there, studies of ketamine and PCP abusers led to the discovery of the NMDA receptor, and research into NMDA antagonists is leading to novel Alzheimer's treatments, which were completely unexpected.

... when all else fails - I (I being not me) have friends you know (who'll accept whatever I throw at them (because I'll accept whatever they throw at me)) - these days one can ask for a certain reviewer - and there she goes - wave goodbye to the now departed last remnants of respectability formerly held by the peer review process.
Unfortunately peer review ain't what it's cracked up to be - most reviewers throw their reviews at inexperienced phD students ->- try to get out of doing any work (because it's anonymous, is expected to be performed for free, is not known about (really) by anyone - cannot be used on a CV) ...

I e-mailed Barbyma and asked her about this take on peer review. This is what she had to say.

Every journal is different and every discipline has its "norm", but some do allow you to choose one of the reviewers (there are usually 3 in addition to the editor). The purpose of this isn't to allow bias, but to ensure that the person evaluating the paper actually understands the specific field.

It's actually pretty difficult to keep the process totally blind. People tend to follow a path of research, maintain their opinions about theories & methods, and have a somewhat recognizable writing style.

I really don't think the peer-review process is as bad as all that. It has some politics, but it is mostly still a pretty rigid process for respectable journals.
I've also asked a friend of mine who is a researcher at a local Unversity here in Toronto to comment also. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say and how it compares to Barbyma's and SB's take.

I've also asked a friend of mine who is a researcher at a local Unversity here in Toronto to comment also. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say and how it compares to Barbyma's and SB's take.

Oh boy what we need on this thread , one more scientist? Two scientist working in the field , one analyzer, two people from the medical profession isn’t enough for one of the two teachers on a thread whose opening post is based on humor? The silly has become way tooo serious.

I think - A third scientist will have a third opinion. (that ought to help)


Ah, I am one of the converted! I love to watch the pretty wheels spin! They go nowhere, but spin so colorfully!

Hmmm I see much of the direction taken in this thread as being a reason WHY! (opinion diversity intolerance-in my opinion :p )

The silly becomes serious and the serious is ignored because it is drowned out by the conflict arising from the totally silly-silly I know! The disappearance of the usefulness to be gained works much the same way that humor disappeared in this thread.

Universal laws apply universally.


Try the world of education if you want to hear "data-driven decision-making" bullsh*t! NCLB? Just a profit machine for the testing companies! IMHO! I can speak eduese-but it is nonsense and leaves the children behind. But enough rant and rave. I get on a roll, but I would be preaching to the choir!

Medicine doesn’t fair much better unfortunately . We in medicine are lucky in that doctors in general have a low BS tolerance when compared in school administration. So we do get to move along a bit faster, but medicine does have it's share of "plant food"

There are a few facts missing in the midst of all this serious silliness

1) Lab life is very different from real life, because. . .
2) Information is one thing application is quite another.
3) The only sure things in life are still death and taxes.

Oh boy what we need on this thread , one more scientist? Two scientist working in the field , one analyzer, two people from the medical profession isn’t enough for one of the two teachers on a thread whose opening post is based on humor? The silly has become way tooo serious.

I think - A third scientist will have a third opinion. (that ought to help)2 - scientist
1 - analyzer
2 - healthcare
2 - teachers

That is an interesting mix! :D

I expected that my original post would spark some interesting conversations about scientific studies, methods, and the semantics used (and abused) in science, which is why I stuck my thread in the "scientific discussions" section of our forum. :)

I would have been disappointed if our scientists and analyzer didn't throw out some comments about my post. I mean who could relate more to the humor in my original post than them?? They deal with this sort of stuff every single day of their lives.

However, I was rather surprised by one of our teacher's responses! :)

Do you think we may have a closet scientist on our hands! LOL :D

Perhaps they missed their true calling??? :)

Oh boy what we need on this thread..

and there she goes - wave goodbye to the now departed last remnants of respectability formerly held by the peer review process
Many won't see the significance of such a public statement. I do. If someone wants to publicly state that the scientific process has been corrupted, surely you and the other overseers will allow me to publicly explore the statements validity. To do otherwise would be to show bias.

Scientists are human too.
It's nothing more than that really.
A little strong to extrapolate my statement into the entire field of science being corrupt - the ->- *point* -<- is more that fad, what's in vogue - subject matter which is more likely to be published in a decent journal - is dictated by some chap - or some chap and his friends - the power players in a field - who dictate the direction in which that field'll extend.
I've no idea on the position of Rustle Barker-Lee in the ADD community - but if he is an important voice - whose friends cover similarly leading positions within ADD research - it's reasonable to assume that the pattern which ADD research will take - will be in line with this group of researchers - won't fly in the face of the previous work of these researchers - and these guy's'll have an eye on maintaining their influence - and not being usurped.
If you can see that the essential point is that scientists are human, and the scientist has no guarantee of a wage folowing his or her grant ending (at least in the UK) - I think it's pretty clear that 'self-preservation' enters into the decision process for behaviour.
Peer review is fine - can work well - but seriously - just think about it for a second.
In a competitive environment - how many people do you know who'd give up valuable time to perform a community duty?
To re-iterate - ther'e no real benefit to the reviewer - it's a thankless task.
Having said that - in my last review - I helped the authors to such an extent that they placed me into the acknowledgements of their publication - nice ... yes ... unexpected ... yes ... but providing me with any benefit in any way - *no*.
I believe that reviewers should be paid something - just kinda' like teachers - it can take a whole day of intense effort to break through some poorly written - poorly thought up scientific experiments --- and that's just the start of the process ...
All scientists are pushed to publish in English - and trying to knock some 'English-as-a-second-language scientist' manuscripts into shape (for completely understandable reasons though - it's real difficult for these guys - and this isn't a dig at them) - is painful.

The consequence of reviewing n == loads of manuscripts over the last 15 years - I would say - is less about a development of a wider breadth of scientific understanding - and more about extreme OCD in formatting text.

Imagine eyes which're fine tuned to the presence of the number of spaces after dots ... ... ... maybe it shows in my style {here :-)} ...

... incidentally 1,2,3 (above) ... and I realise that the forum software has broken them back to one ... to satisfy my OCD ...


dots ... ... ... maybe


I really can't see why any of what I've written above isn't basic common sense.
It's nce to believe that there's a haven of absolute objectivity lurking within scientific objectivity - but there isn't.
Some are - some aren't.
If there are only a couple of people who're sufficiently well-versed in the ins and outs of your sub-discipline - within the sub-discipline of medicine within which one happens to be working - and if they are called upon to review your work --- don't you think that these guys might be friends with you? And might have some form of unspoken reciprocal agreement?
Of course you won't find any of this openly spoken about - but ...*come on*...

I'm going to re-iterate once again - the point which I want you to take away from this post
- *not* that the scientist is bad - or corrupt - or the science is poor - or a lie
--- the important point is that the scope of ideas with a field is limited - the ability for young scientists to enter into a field and make a decent contribution to that field - generally relies on being in with the power axis in that field.
In a scientific world in which precedent is lauded - one can imagine that failure to pay attention to precedent - that is, adopting a novel strategy - especially one which looks good - might invalidate certain precedents - might invalidate certain paradigms in motion - will not be greeted with the enthusiasm which one might hope.

Many examples here - most relating to a paradigm shift within a field. The larger the shift - the more violent the counter-reaction.

I believe that clinical psychology is in the middle of exactly such a paradigm shift ... the question of nature vs nurture in mental disorders.
Note - I am only referring to mental disorders - psychological disorders - disorders of the mind.

If you track back through our disagreements - they arrive at that basic question - of - mental disorders - for the most part a condition of nature (genes - for instance) ... or nurture (environment - particularly learning) ... ... ...

These two statements do not jive.To re-iterate.
Scientist 1 asks for Reviewer 2 or 3.
Reviewer 2 or 3 knows Scientist 1 because his name is on the paper.
Scientist 1 doesn't know (for sure) - if Reviewer 2 or 3 has been chosen - will never know for sure - unless Reviewer 2 or 3 says so (this isn't common - I don't think) - but Scientist 1'll usually be sufficiently canny to know whether Reviewer 2 or 3 has been chosen - by style of writing.

To illustrate - I'm pretty sure that all of us on this thread - would be able to identify the author of an anonymous bit of text - knowing only that the author was one of us.

So - the other half of the badly jiving comments to which you are referring - relates simply to the anonymity of the process - and (just as in the post above) - the 'total pain - no gain' scenario of the peer review process - which drives the capable to dump their reviews on their less capable minions.

Are the two ideas now dancing harmoniously with one another?

I e-mailed Barbyma and asked her about this take on peer review. This is what she had to say.HEY! I didn't say you could broadcast that!

(the publishing dieties might strike me down!:D)

I can speak eduese-but it is nonsense and leaves the children behind.Reflect this sentence in on science and you have it.
eduese changes - but keeps the -ese
children changes - becomes (SS)Science -
- but otherwise
3 points.

I've no idea on the position of Rustle Barker-Lee in the ADD community - but if he is an important voice - whose friends cover similarly leading positions within ADD research - it's reasonable to assume that the pattern which ADD research will take - will be in line with this group of researchers -I gotta disagree as well as provide my version of enlightment on RB's position.

My answer: it depends on what you call "the ADD community".

If you are referring to practioners and patients, he's probably revered.

I, however, prefer to think that the real research (sorry McTavish, whereever you are...) is done in settings that are actually designed to conduct research and by those trained to do it.

Now, I'm not saying that a practitioner can't be a good researcher; I know a few that manage to do both AND teach. BUT, that's not the norm.

Now, the position of Russ B in the academic/scientific community that actually researches attention is nonexistent. Very, very few of my colleagues even know who he is.

There is nothing to fear from the direction AD/HD research is taking. It's still following the path of discovery. Public perception might be a different story, however.

In a competitive environment - how many people do you know who'd give up valuable time to perform a community duty?
To re-iterate - ther'e no real benefit to the reviewer - it's a thankless task.
SOOO not true in my field, at least.

Everybody reviews. The benefits include review toward tenure, respect from the scientific community, and an increased probability that one's own research will be published (from the respect, not so much the contacts).

Don't underestimate that first one, either. There are 3 area in which academics must participate: teaching, contributions to science (research), and service. Reviewing falls into both the science and the service. Service includes committee work, grant review, being a board member, etc.

Without all three, nobody gets tenured.

Having had the pleasure (?) of both authoring and reviewing peer-reviewed articles which were subsequently published, I can say that publication is, in many cases, a function of the quality of one's ability to argue their findings. In my case, it was easy to take a stand on what the data inferred and equally easy to find previous research to support the findings. The sheer fact that the researcher is able to choose research to support their own work creates an inherent bias. Credibility of the researcher, based in large part on their arsenal of previously published research, is also a big selling point for any piece of research. So yeah, i'm published, three times, in professional journals, reviewed by peers. I could easily take the same data and argue a completely opposing finding, because, as we often forget, raw data does nothing except demonstrate correlation or lack thereof (and its strength). The inference, the conclusions, are always subjective.

I've no idea on the position of Rustle Barker-Lee in the ADD community Flame bait and a red herring at the same time.
Barbyma fell for it. lol

HEY! I didn't say you could broadcast that!

(the publishing dieties might strike me down!:D)
I'm a baaaaaaad boy.;)

...wave goodbye to the now departed last remnants of respectability formerly held by the peer review process
To re-iterate.
Scientist 1 asks for Reviewer 2 or 3.
Reviewer 2 or 3 knows Scientist 1 because his name is on the paper.
Scientist 1 doesn't know (for sure) - if Reviewer 2 or 3 has been chosen - will never know for sure - unless Reviewer 2 or 3 says so (this isn't common - I don't think) - but Scientist 1'll usually be sufficiently canny to know whether Reviewer 2 or 3 has been chosen - by style of writing.

To illustrate - I'm pretty sure that all of us on this thread - would be able to identify the author of an anonymous bit of text - knowing only that the author was one of us.

So - the other half of the badly jiving comments to which you are referring - relates simply to the anonymity of the process - and (just as in the post above) - the 'total pain - no gain' scenario of the peer review process - which drives the capable to dump their reviews on their less capable minions.

Are the two ideas now dancing harmoniously with one another?
May be you simply overstated your point in the passion of that creative writing moment. People react to absolutes. Your tints and shades of the following posts did a much better job of painting a realistic picture for me, of what you see in your world.

Service includes committee work, grant review, being a board member, etc.Not too sure which committee - but grant review is prestigious - and for instance ->- on the Wellcome Trust (UK biomedical charity - world's largest either straight or biomed charity (can't remember) - there's a list of who reviews for them).
This is a high visibility - highly prestigious - high power - position to be in.
But quite different to reviewing a paper for some mediocre journal (Impact factor <10) --- if board member relates to (editorial) board member - then similarly prestigious - there's a list in the Journal - often at the start - and these guys can be petitioned to publish one's paper - he'll then use one of his guys to review - they're kinda' the well connected social nodes who hand off publications for peer review.
OK - so here's an example of the last paper I had accepted Feb/Mar 06 -
the editor to my boss - Professor of Medicine ... Dear S... (not me), {Deleted - lots of social stuff about their last meeting together} - How nice to see a submission to my Journal - I have pleasure in attaching the reviewer's comments - shouldn't be much effort to address these issues, J... (editorial board member) ->- paper was accepted for full publication soon after ...

I'm addressing the issue here of reviewing a paper for publication in a Journal - this - I believe is the most important 'community' (unpaid) - aspect of work by the scientist.

My choice of Rustle BarkerLee is solely for the purpose of my knowing that you know who he is - not addressed to B. but to S. - not a red herring at all - if I mentioned some other sciguy - you wouldn't understand context. So - to extend this idea - we've bounced Executive Function around some - I'm not even going to mention my view on EF - because you already know that I believe that it's a poor metaphor (and not tight construct) - with no genuine credentials justifying its existence within clinical psych literature (darn) --- (incidentally we didn't cover ToM) - however - imagine if a 'Young Turk' were to steam into ADD's backyard with a more probable explanation of reality - rubbishing EF at the exact same time - and of course all of those including (most notably) RBDarby - who - I get the distinct feeling - has been an EF champion over the years ->->- though as I write - I could easily be wrong about ourbee - I'm no RB-ite.

As an interesting side issue - I seem to remember McT mentioning that RB charges big$ for the general public to view a lecture by the 'good' Dr. - OK so that's not what science is about - we lecture for free - start charging and the lecture will become shaped to attract an audience.
Please forget your great adoration for RaB for a second - and see that the urge for RBBargey to charge for an audience in his presence - is making the point which I am trying to make - which is that tasks which the scientist is expected to undertake for no gain whatsoever ->- are doomed to failure.

So - why am do I not approve of charging for a scientific lecture -?- simply because the prestige of delivering a lecture - the complete lack of anonymity of the process - its usage on a CV and on a grant application - *are enough* - the rest is just plain greedy. And to re-iterate that none of the above (list in this paragraph) - relates to the peer reviewing process - it's anonymous.

Great points Buffalo - it's important for the problems within the scientific process to be brought out - if only as the most important precursor to change.

Also - regarding change and publication - take a look at the BMC journals - 'genome biology' and the PLOS journals - the publication process is changing radically - so I've published in the former and know the editor - the vision in the latter suite - good stuff! sci-guys.

Since publications make grants - what do we see in biomed research - ho lordy - rapid proliferation of Journal numbers - it's almost gotten to silly levels now ...

Too many Journals - too much information to digest - I'm currently in with the purely automatic - automatic extraction of information - (x)ML result representation of studies - to increase accessibility to information - to promote the metaanalysis - which is the future of science.

- that is - putting it all together
- and permitting the negative study - and preventing the ridiculous positive bias which we observe in the publication process.

p<0.05 - paper alive!!!

grrr!

HEY! I didn't say you could broadcast that!

Oxidants happen! :D

Many examples here - most relating to a paradigm shift within a field. 8 nickels = a paradigm :D

For meadd! :D

The Constant Consonant Theorem

The quantity of consonants in the English language is constant. If omitted in one place, they turn up in another. When a Bostonian "pahks" his "cah," the lost r's migrate southwest, causing a Texan to "warsh" his car and invest in "erl wells."


Please continue on my friends! :)

Just think of me as a television commercial that pops in occasionally to remind you to take a potty break! hehe :D

... <-- some dots for SB! :)

Please continue on my friends! :)

Just think of me as a television commercial that pops in occasionally to remind you to take a potty break! hehe :D

Seek, you are having far too much fun. :p

Seek: Just think of me as a television commercial that pops in occasionally to remind you to take a potty break! hehe :D Scuro: Seek, you are having far too much fun. :p Lest I be left in the dust of seek's wild, untamed guide to scientific communication, I jest had to have a little fun with the scientific mind. I practice on my chemist husband daily. Artists just want to have fun! Remember Spock was half human! You have permission to laugh, it is logical! :D

And now, a word from the scientific politeness matron. This is a test, only a test, of the emergency potty break announcement system. Getting PO'd? Ticked off? Just plain tired of scientific jargon? Peer into the stall of your nearest restroom, nothing like a discussion interrupted by the flush of a urinal! A break can be the catalyst for a paradigm shift. Although that would not be approved attire on What Not To Wear!Prevent getting pi**ed off by taking regular potty break throught your forum posting day! This is a test, only a test! Did you pass-------? (solid, liquid, or gas?) It really does matter!

Now, that you are rested and refreshed, move on to the next element of the discussion! Perhaps you will find the process for cold fusion! Just make sure someone puts the notes in a journal for review!

RADD-"elementary my dear Watson," sneered Holmes. "No sh*t Sherlock," spake Watson over the obviousness of the solution! Now, you all will hold me in suspense until you reach the 7% solution! 7% of people on this thread will agree on one topic for one hour! :D

Thank you, Scuro and Seek,for creating my humorous writing prompt for the day. Now, how do I get some grant money for my education research? Data, where is my driver?

~~*:)*~~ a pattern for SB!

Flame bait and a red herring at the same time.
Barbyma fell for it. lolOh, I didn't "fall for it". I know perfectly well what response I'll get to that comment. Don't forget that I've made similar comments in the past and even many that are normally my advocates have gotten hot under the collar about it (like you, sweetie!).

But I still think it's worth saying.

Oxidants happen!

8 nickels = a paradigm Actually....

4 nickels = a Paradigm!

8 nickels = 2 paradigm!

:)

... <-- some dots for SB!9/10


~~*:)*~~ a pattern for SB!1/10

now - 100 lines young woman Radd is Badd - by now - at this late stage on your exponential curve - {young lady} - you should be aware of SB's fear of iconic yellow LSD ridden acid-house smileys - 'they're watching us' - who watches the watchmen? ... no no no {young lady} ...
... ... ... far better ...
~~*:-)*~~
Now 100 lines (with [c]C,[c]V disabled ... {menu still works though}*

* hint

"I'm h-a-p-p-y ... ~~*:-)*~~ ..."

ps

~ ~ * :-) * ~ ~

The other day I was reading a book about helium and I just couldn't put it down?

Speaking of books!

'The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" ("I found it!") but rather "hmm....that's funny..."' -- Isaac Asimov

I like that one!

New Scientific Development

Grand Prize Winner

Antigravity

When a cat is dropped, it always lands on its feet, and when toast is dropped, it always lands with the buttered side facing down. It is proposed to strap buttered toast to the back of a cat; the two will hover, spinning inches above the ground. With a giant buttered cat array, a high-speed monorail could easily link New York with Chicago.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programing. :)

... <-- SB dots

I think I might right SB into my novel! And RADD is BADD! 100 lines of what? Prose? Done! It tends to a pattern in my life lately! :D :) :D Up to 4 murders needing scientific explanations!-learning to communicate in forensicish! Bag him Danno!

Oh, and DNA testing takes days-weeks, not minutes like on TV! Poor DNA testing labs will have all sorts of mad customer!

What does a chemist say at the end of prayers? Amine.

Now the ability to laugh in the midest of too much silly seriousness that is the best find ever. I am sure the moderator of this section HF needed the laugh more than I did.

I especially enjoyed Seek's buttered cat! I wonder if they can empirically test this theory- :p No real inforamtion reason really I simply want to see this. Then again I have always wondered if birds truly did explode if they eat to much rice. . . . .I have yet to see a bird explode in mid-air. All I have ever seen them do is eat the rice and fly off. . . . . .




The quantity of consonants in the English language is constant. If omitted in one place, they turn up in another. When a Bostonian "pahks" his "cah," the lost r's migrate southwest, causing a Texan to "warsh" his car and invest in "erl wells."


Please continue on my friends

Mos texcelleint piont ym frend.



This is a test, only a test! Did you pass-------? (solid, liquid, or gas?) It really does matter!

Well it would if you forgot to pull down your pants. . :eek: . . .then go for the gassss. (Okay I can’t use another ‘s’ for three page)



Actually....

4 nickels = a Paradigm!

8 nickels = 2 paradigm!

Not much a *ale there *eek maybe we *hould give them a buy one get *econd one half price. ;)

*= for the benefit of all non-dyslexics and non-teachers of dyslexia. . . . . :p

~ There is more than one way to screw up the english language. There is letter reversals and word mis-haps. Life is really fun when one does both.~

100 lines of what?Oi vey!!! I can see you using the phrase - {preRaddmom} (aged 3 3/4 yrs) - addressing her teacher - 'oi!!! teach' - '100 lines of what?' ... and then snorting bullishly.
{{{s n o r t}}}
And whilst I'm here - 'so called teacher of mine' continued preRadd (aged 3 3/4) equally defiantly - like a matador bullishly facing a bull ... - 'one day, I'm gonna' have your job and do it n times better than you - where n > than your IQ'
... ... and all this pre- preRadd's (aka pre's-) first lesson in differentiation.

In answer then to pre's first iteration and then reiteration post-pre's post ... 100 lines of what? ... dunno.

alles klar?

: - ... ... ... )

AntigravityPhysical basis of divining rods used by unmarried Uncles in locating suitable spouses*?

*Extrinsically similar but intrinsically different to the babe electromagnet.

Physical basis of divining rods used by unmarried Uncles in locating suitable spouses*?

*Extrinsically similar but intrinsically different to the babe electromagnet.
Or perhaps the seriousness of a dear old aunt?

:eyebrow:

... accompanied by wisdom no doubt - also.
... :-)

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by *§au§age§*

Antigravity
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

LOL @ *§au§age§* :D (Must have been dinner time!) :)


Physical basis of divining rods used by unmarried Uncles in locating suitable spouses*?Dars warter in dat dare cavern cap! :)


(*More) New Scientific Developments

Runners-up


Effects of Deforestation

The earth may spin faster on its axis due to deforestation. Just as a figure skater's rate of spin increases when the arms are brought in close to the body, the cutting of tall trees may cause our planet to spin dangerously fast.


Chinese Underdevelopment

Communist China is technologically underdeveloped because they have no alphabet and therefore cannot use acronyms to communicate ideas at a faster rate.


Why Yawning Is Contagious

You yawn to equalize the pressure on your eardrums. This pressure change outside your eardrums unbalances other people's ear pressures, so they must yawn to even it out.


Rednecks & Braille

If an infinite number of rednecks riding in an infinite number of pickup trucks fire an infinite number of shotgun rounds at an infinite number of highway signs, they will eventually produce all the worlds great literary works in Braille.

and butterflies taste with thier feet!

Flies suck up and regurgitate when they feed! Yum!

and butterflies taste with thier feet!
Flies suck up and regurgitate when they feed! Yum!
therefore
and ........flies smell with their feet!
as would yours (...pong... - that is)

:-)

...were you to skinnydip in flygurg. Yum!(my) for your tummy!

(*More) New Scientific Development


Honorable Mentions


Why the Earth rotates

Birds take off at sunrise. On the opposite side of the world, they are landing at sunset. This causes the earth to spin on its axis.


How to make your car go faster

The reason hot-rod owners raise the backs of their cars is that it's easier to go faster when you're always going downhill.

Ok, back on track! :)

(*Update)

Phrase ---------- It has been long known

Translation ----- I haven't bothered to check the references


Phrase ---------- It is known

Translation ----- I believe


Phrase ---------- It is believed

Translation ----- I think


Phrase ---------- It is generally believed

Translation ----- A couple of outher guys think so too


Phrase ---------- There has been some discussion

Translation ----- Nobody agrees with me


Phrase ---------- It can be shown

Translation ----- Take my word for it


Phrase ---------- It is proven

Translation ----- It agrees with something mathematical


Phrase ---------- Of great theoretical importance

Translation ----- I find it interesting


Phrase ---------- Of great practical importance

Translation ----- This justifies my employment


Phrase ---------- Of great historical importance

Translation ----- This ought to make me famous


Phrase ---------- Some samples were chosen for study

Translation ----- The others didn't make sense


Phrase ---------- Typical results are shown

Translation ----- The best results are shown


Phrase ---------- Correct within order of magnitude

Translation ----- Wrong


Phrase ---------- The values were obtained empirically

Translation ----- The values were obtained by accident


Phrase ---------- The results are inconclusive

Translation ----- The results seem to disprove my hypothesis


Phrase ---------- Additional work is required

Translation ----- Someone else can work out the details


Phrase ---------- It might be argued that

Translation ----- I have a good answer to this objection


Phrase ---------- The investigations proved rewarding

Translation ----- My grant has been renewed


Phrase ---------- Synthesised according to standard protocols

Translation ----- Purchased from Sigma


Phrase ---------- Handled with extreme care throughout the experiments

Translation ----- Not dropped on the floor


Phrase ---------- While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions.

Translation ----- The experiments didn't work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it.


Phrase ---------- The most reliable values are those of Jones

Translation ----- Jones was a student of mine.


Phrase ---------- It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding.

Translation ----- I don't understand it.


Phrase ---------- A fiducial reference line on the specimen.

Translation ----- A scratch.


Phrase ---------- These results will be in a subsequent report

Translation ----- I might get around to this sometime, if pushed/funded.


Phrase ---------- In my experience

Translation ----- Once!


Phrase ---------- In case after case

Translation ----- Twice!


Phrase ---------- In a series of cases

Translation ----- Thrice!


Phrase ---------- A definite trend is evident

Translation ----- These data are practically meaningless.


Phrase ---------- Although some detail has been lost in reproduction, it is clear from the original micrograph

Translation ----- It is impossible to tell from the original micrograph.

... SB dots

Phrase ---------- It is proven

Translation ----- It agrees with something mathematical

... this I like - because it's well known that biomedbods fear the mirror image of ~ turned 90o CCW - and - since many manuscripts rely on this chappie and his Greek friends ... one can only surmise that the important details relating to the pitfalls of mathematical methodology - have long since been forgotten.
What has happened - has been a kinda' repetition** in use of the same statistical test (precedent negates the need to understand what one is actually doing) - until some clever bloke comes along with a new test (usually pretty similar to the previous) - for repetition
->-
goto ->- **


~u c~ -<- Seek waving :-) ... {period} ... it's all a bit silly ...

... the problem we observe here(ADDF) - is that there's a kinda' clamouring for scientific publications to back up claims ->- *but* scientific medical literature is geared towards portraying conditions as severe chronically debilitating childhood disorders -<- because these are the one's which get most funding (we're in a world of finite funding) ->- and there it is (again!) ... the nature of the beast.

A researcher who makes out that his disease is *not* a severe chronically debilitating childhood disorder - runs the risk of losing out (financially) - to a slightly more severely chronically debilitating childhood disorder - when the money comes to be divvied up.

Yet another example - surely common sense *again* - accentuating the postive [within medical literature] don't put $§au$§age$§ on the humble sausage chasing scientist's plate.

A researcher who makes out that his disease is *not* a severe chronically debilitating childhood disorder - runs the risk of losing out (financially) - to a slightly more severely chronically debilitating childhood disorder - when the money comes to be divvied up.Ah so. It is much the same with school funding for student support.

... the problem we observe here(ADDF) - is that there's a kinda' clamouring for scientific publications to back up claims ->- *but* scientific medical literature is geared towards portraying conditions as severe chronically debilitating childhood disorders -<- because these are the one's which get most funding (we're in a world of finite funding) ->- and there it is (again!) ... the nature of the beast.

A researcher who makes out that his disease is *not* a severe chronically debilitating childhood disorder - runs the risk of losing out (financially) - to a slightly more severely chronically debilitating childhood disorder - when the money comes to be divvied up.


And here we have another example for the list:

PHRASE: "Researchers are predisposed to find a correlation between X and Y" (var: "Researchers are presidposed to find a correlation between X and Y for financial reasons")

TRANSLATION: "The vast amount of research on the subject has shown a correlation between X and Y, and I have no good data to refute it."

And of course there's

Yet another example - surely common sense *again* - accentuating the postive [within medical literature] don't put $§au$§age$§ on the humble sausage chasing scientist's plate.
PHRASE: "Researchers will never report this finding because it is too controversial/won't result in funding/is too complicated for them to understand."

TRANSLATION: "Research has so far failed to substantiate or has actively disproved my hypothesis."

Also:

PHRASE: "This is surely a common sense example..."

TRANSLATION: "I can find no empirical evidence whatsoever to cite in support of the following assertion..."

Ah so. It is much the same with school funding for student support.
Actually, the reason why schools are given funding for support of students with physical and cognitive disabilities (including learning disabilities and ADHD) is because there are a number of services that the school district is legally required to provide. The additional funding is an attempt to avoid having an IEP become an unfunded mandate.

I mean, if you guys want to stop funding that, be my guest. But then you'd have to stop providing special education services to a large number of children whose academic performance would likely suffer as a result.

Actually, the reason why schools are given funding for support of students with physical and cognitive disabilities (including learning disabilities and ADHD) is because there are a number of services that the school district is legally required to provide. The additional funding is an attempt to avoid having an IEP become an unfunded mandate.

I mean, if you guys want to stop funding that, be my guest. But then you'd have to stop providing special education services to a large number of children whose academic performance would likely suffer as a result.Hyperion, by "you guys", do you mean the taxpayers?
* many students with ADHD do not require an IEP or need special education services
* ADHD does not qualify as a funded disability in many places
* there are guidelines for funding set by the government, not the schools. Students are put into categories. As the numbers go up, it often becomes more difficult to meet the criteria for funding.
The additional funding is an attempt to avoid having an IEP become an unfunded mandate.Sorry, come again?

Hyperion, by "you guys", do you mean the taxpayers?Errrm, "taxpayer" is a term, technically speaking, that applies to every single US citizen, as well as a number of legal immigrants. Actually, if you include sales tax in there, then it includes every single human being living in this country (except Delaware, I guess). Surely I do not intend to disparage 300 million human beings.

* many students with ADHD do not require an IEP or need special education services
Firstly, do you have a citation to back up that assertion? And secondly, this is actually irrelevant. Some students with ADHD do need IEPs. This is especially true when they have comorbid learning disabilities, as many people with ADHD often encounter, but even without LD issues, ADHD children sometimes do need IEPs and support. Under IDEA, schools are required to provide reasonable assistance when necessary to provide the student with a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Under the act, schools must provide students with disabilities who require assitance with an IEP.

ADHD does not qualify as a funded disability in many places
True, the relevant law states:

(3) Child with a disability (A) In general The term “child with a disability” means a child—
(i) with mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this chapter as “emotional disturbance”), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and
(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

(B) Child aged 3 through 9 The term “child with a disability” for a child aged 3 through 9 (or any subset of that age range, including ages 3 through 5), may, at the discretion of the State and the local educational agency, include a child—
(i) experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in 1 or more of the following areas: physical development; cognitive development; communication development; social or emotional development; or adaptive development; and
(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode20/usc_sec_20_00001401----000-.html

Sorry, come again?
I was saying that if the government were to cease to provide additional funds for schools for students with disabilities, then requirements under IDEA to create an IEP and to provide the services specified under each child's IEP would amount to an unfunded mandate. Social workers, school counselors, psychologists, occupational or behavioral therapists, do have to be paid for their work.

So I don't think that schools are pressured to claim that particular diagnoses are more severely debilitating than they actually are simply to gain funding. School funding for students with disabilities exists because of the extra expenses incurred by schools in dealing with children with disabilities. Because federal law mandates that certain services be provided, the federal government provides funds to help cover that extra cost.

T1

TRANSLATION: "... research ..."
TRANSLATION: "Research ..."
TRANSLATION: "... empirical ..."
t2
TRANSLATIONs of my post cannot be found by employing a standard dictionary of current dogma.

T3
TRANSLATION: "rigidly adhere to the prevalent pattern of thought within medical science and you would be a fool to express any sentiments other than those expressed by the 3 in T1"

Because T3 and t2 therefore T1 completely misses the point.

- Once again -

If you are looking forwards.
Then you will not appreciate that there is another perspective which may be afforded by looking backwards.
This metaphor works better if I switch forwards and backwards - but somehow I feel that you would object to switching the words - so just for you ... as above.

This thread is an expression of problems associated with current scientific methodology - is it so difficult to entertain the thought that a flawed methodology might not be bolstered with other approaches.

- & -
just for you ... (prior to a ritualistic burning of straw men and women and [matchstick cats and dogs] {Lowry})

1-This does not mean that anything which I offer here - represents a methodology for bolstering the current flavour of empirical principle.
It means that other methods exist to extend the currently highly parochial flavour of empiricism into the underlying principle of 'science.'

Unless one understands mind - a little better - one cannot understand the side-issues related to having a mind - and their effects on the scientific method.
And once again - this isn't a statement that 'I am right and you are wrong' - try and see the *point* and not any personal affront.

Try and see that it is completely pointless to offend another - to insult another - at this point in our evolutionary path - man really should be better than that.

And that the statement that 'we don't like strangers, not round these parts' - is the very antithesis of scientific thought ... aspiration towards objectivity cannot exist within an environment of emotional lability - if you *want* the empirical method to work - if part of your worldview will collapse if it fails - then you have lost objectivity - and perhaps the key requirement (that is aspiration towards objectivity) - which underlies scientific thinking.

So - to reiterate - do you want to be correct? Do you take pleasure in belittling the thoughts of others? Remember that attacking science isn't per se an attack on any individual. Does an attack on the current flavour of scientific methodology initiate your emotional reaction?

If so - you do not have a dispassionate viewpoint - lack objectivity - have not learnt to strive towards abstracting oneself out of the scientific issue which is being addressed.

- Scientific writing, even at its poorest - does not seek to engage the emotional reaction.
The emotional reaction, however, is engaged by cheap soap operas and films with Meg Ryan playing a ditzy but good-hearted ADDer.

And yes - an understanding of mind provides a unique perspective in on why man reacts emotionally to ideas - the drive to conform is encoded within the mind - and each time one attempts to force another to comply - one is expressing a lower evolutionary characteristic ...

...otherwise described as 'Do you wanna' be in my gang?'

OK - so maybe I'll try again ... from another perspective ...

QUOTE1:
TRANSLATION: "The vast amount of research on the subject has shown a correlation between X and Y, and I have no good data to refute it."
QUOTE1 ENDS:
'Vast amount of research' has an inherent bias.
So called 'good data' is generated from studies with a bias.
Good data could be derived if we were to obtain funding to perform a study which does not have the inherent bias which I have just described.
Please take a look at BuffaloPC's recent thread to observe his description of this bias.
Once again - simply adopting a mildly skeptical view on your own favoured paradigm should permit you to observe the bending of objectivity in the face of pragmatism.
We are not prisoners of empiricism - empiricism was meant to set us free ... I'll try and attract Tammy's attention on this question - meadd823 wrote a section on a thread which has been removed - *remarkably* enlightening - about the actual idea within the mind of the originator of empiricism - (John Locke) - and the extent to which his intentions in formalizing the method - were *not* satisfied by his methodology.
From memory - part of the post was drawn from an MS encyclopaedia - maybe Encarta online ...

QUOTE2:
PHRASE: "Researchers will never report this finding because it is too controversial -1- /won't result in funding -2- /is too complicated for them to understand. -3-"
TRANSLATION: "Research has so far [failed]-4- to substantiate [or has actively disproved my hypothesis.] -5-"
QUOTE2 ENDS:

-1-
no - it is outside of the current paradigm - How can a researcher describe something which the researcher is not looking for?
A silly example ... the month in which one is born leads to mental disease
December ->- D for depression
April ->- A for autism

Now (to repeat) -
- this is a *silly* example to illustrate the point -
- of course - month of birth is *not* on the radar of current thinking -
... that understood ...

- since month of birth is *not* on the radar of current thinking - month of birth cannot be tied into disease.

*However* - *sure* - month of birth could (here) - be tested (by empirical means) - just that no-one's looking.

Extending this idea forwards a little - imagine if one were to show that one could not alter the month of birth of kids either now or in the future (and ignoring the prognostic value in this test - because that's carrying this idea wayyy tooo farrr!!! ... )
... that this information were to sweep aside all of the current paradigms - that is ->- that the variance component attributable to month of birth as explanatory variable for mental disorder >far>greater>than> a minimal set of orthogonal variables (constructed from the best of the rest) - {simply} - the remaining principal (variance) components ->-
... that this basic idea would not be greeted well by any with vested interest in previous paradigms.

-2-
... don't underestimate - 'won't result in funding' - I don't like pulling rank on anybody - but don't tell me that you understand the painful process of awaiting a decision on a grant - we're talking *here* about whether one can pay one's mortgage - whether one has somewhere to work - *please* do not attempt to offer an opinion - until you've been there.
Currently - as in *right* now - I've a friend who's on the point of nervous breakdown awaiting news on whether her grant has been renewed - and whether she can continue to live in the UK.
Scientific research has become heavily politicised - and as ever - with those gifted in political rhetoric - alongside politics comes corruption.

-3-
'too complicated' ->-
arrogant - wouldn't dream of using this idea.

-4-
[failed] - how can the word failed be used if no attempt has been made?

-5-
"has actively disproved" -> if anything which I describe has been actively disproven by others - it shouldn't be hard to find that evidence and present it - instead of repetition that "you're wrong because sci says so."

QUOTE3:
TRANSLATION: "I can find no empirical evidence whatsoever to cite in
support of the following assertion..."
QUOTE3 ENDS:

No - go to my section in reply to QUOTE1 and also -1- in reply to QUOTE2

QUOTE4:
...you guys...
QUOTE4 ENDS:

... Do you really not see the point which l'm (lm) is making?
Simply ...
1-a condition has a characterization
2-in our current world - that characterization has an effect on the mechanism for dealing with that condition
3-that condition may be characterized inaccurately through lack of knowledge on that condition or through personal agenda

... and so - from the above statement it is clear that nowhere within it is the comment that ...
ADDer kids should not be helped when struggling at school ->-

... that idea is wholly incorrect -
- and once again - to reiterate -
- the subject under scrutiny (here, recently) is the gulf between reality and facade within current society of X.

tow the party line or improve party rhetoric?
... only one will ensure re-election - the other - a gamble.

Please take a look at BuffaloPC's recent thread to observe his description of this bias. He is a "She", BTW! :)

Interestingly, I did the exact same thing SB! For some reason I have a tendency to apply a male gender bias to the word Buffalo even though I am sure there are female Buffalo's! LOL :D

I'm just glad that you thought the same thing, so I don't feel so silly! I'm hopeing that I haven't yet called her "Dude" in one of my other posts! LOL :D

Oh, and great posts Hyperion and SB. You two create some very interesting reading! :)

(B) Child aged 3 through 9 The term “child with a disability” for a child aged 3 through 9 (or any subset of that age range, including ages 3 through 5), may, at the discretion of the State and the local educational agency, include a child—
(i) experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in 1 or more of the following areas: physical development; cognitive development; communication development; social or emotional development; or adaptive development; and
(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.I'm still trying to figure out exactly why AD/HD does not qualify as a "Funded" disability. I seems like it should!

I'm still trying to figure out exactly why AD/HD does not qualify as a "Funded" disability. I seems like it should!Here's the short version: Student is unable to do the regular curriculum. Student is given an Individual Education Plan.

... don't underestimate - 'won't result in funding' -Hmmm, like AIDS research?

yes - I used to work in HIV - the guy (world leader) was booted out of GSK - for the reason which you and I know that you're alluding to -
- Wellcome (purchase by Glaxo) - were the world leading anti-viral development company ...

... here's the spin on HIV -

'imagine the kudos in develping an effective HIV drug'

... enough to make one shrug in disbelief at the absence of *any* motivation in sight ... even remotely associated to human suffering.

Buffalowhat's a girl supposed to think?
buffalo by name - baboon by photograph.
In my day yagirlwuzagirl ... and now they've become chimaeric.
oi vey!
I just can't keep up!

I remember when the profile on the toilets was all you needed.

Girls with skirts
And men without.
Girls with long hair.
And men without.
Girls on the left.
And men *always* right.

And now - the number of wrong long-haired men with a skirt called McDonald - with a farm - with a cow and a pig - and ... well you just would not believe.

So thanks Seek - you go girl!
And can I stop you right there.

... :-) ...

what's a girl supposed to think?
buffalo by name - baboon by photograph.
In my day yagirlwuzagirl ... and now they've become chimaeric.
oi vey!
I just can't keep up!

I remember when the profile on the toilets was all you needed.

Girls with skirts
And men without.
Girls with long hair.
And men without.
Girls on the left.
And men *always* right.

And now - the number of wrong long-haired men with a skirt called McDonald - with a farm - with a cow and a pig - and ... well you just would not believe.

So thanks Seek - you go girl!
And can I stop you right there.

... :-) ... LOL :D Corndog comes to mind, not $§au$§age$§! LOL:D

Which then makes me wonder if you even know what the slang term "Corndog" means. hmmm.... interesting.

Does Old Macdonald have a farm in the U.K. too?? :)

hehe :D

IF SECRETARIAL DUTIES WERE PERFORMED BY A SCIENTISTS...

A letter which was dictated to read....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the desk of: ELAINE ROBINSON

Anyday, October 31, 2006

Dear Jerry,

We regret to inform you that we have reanalyzed the current fiscal situation in the
company and have come to the decision that the position which you currently hold
will be phased out in the next few months. As you have been a loyal employee for
the past twenty years, we will be offering you an early retirement package which will
hopefully fulfill all of your requirements. We wish you the best of luck in your future
endeavors and hope that you will stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Elaine Robinson, CEO

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would instead read if performed by a scientist....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Fiscal Responsibilities in the Company Superstructure

Robinson, Elaine (CEO), et al.

The following treatise describes the results of the most recent findings of the study
of monetary fluctuarions in the area of resource management, especially with regard
to the placement and distribution of human resources. There is an indication from the
data wich has been presented (see Figure 1a) that the future fiscal situation will
indicate deficiencies. While this is counter to the previous results (Company profile,
2000 and 2005), we feel strongly that the data suggests a realignment of personnel
placements, although we do not discount other avenues of readjustment (for a review,
see Memo #17, 2006). While the analysis is not complete, the projection of the curve
(Figure 2) indicates that the changes which we propose should occur within a time
frame amenable to stabilizing the situation.

Previous results (Employee Profile, 1995-2005) have suggested other possible scenarios
but the present situation (Figure 3) causes our group to re-evaluate. Owing to the
enormity of our proposal, certain allowances have been established (Table 1) to deal
with the current findings and we will soon present more findings regarding the extended
time vector (data not shown, in preparation).

Note added in proof: Further analysis has indicated a strong preference for the sacrifice
of specific variables, with particular reference to Jerry.

...

Firstly, do you have a citation to back up that assertion? And secondly, this is actually irrelevant. Some students with ADHD do need IEPs.

I am soo sure Andrew has had enough of my un-medicated discoveries thought I would share with you guys. . . . :D

Impulsive thought. . . . .
If it is irrelevant why would any one want to bother looking for citations? :confused:


Some with ADD do need IEP’s other do not, not all IEP’s are actually academic related directly speaking.




This is especially true when they have comorbid learning disabilities, as many people with ADHD often encounter

A behavior problem will qualify you for an IEP faster than a learning disability, in my experience.

Meadd823 wonders if Hyperion has noticed he is speaking American school system stuff to one person from the UK and another from Canada, both whose school system my differ drastically - which would explain the brief moment of wtffring!





I'll try and attract Tammy's attention on this question - meadd823 wrote a section on a thread which has been removed –

My attention has been attracted hopefully I will get this looked up before the phone company cuts off our DSL service, cut off is scheduled some time any time today. Yes we paid the bill, we are moving. . .to be on cable internet at the new place I hope by weeks end. We have moved except for a few things here and there mainly our computers.

Jonh Locke sources

Thoughts on Education (http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/locke.htm#Sensitive%20Knowledge%20of%20the%20Exter nal%20World)

What people need is not intellectual insight or theological dogma, but practical guidance. Locke seems less confident than he was in the Essay of the possibility of a rational science of morals. "It should seem, by the little that has hitherto been done in it, that it is too hard a task for unassisted reason to establish morality, in all its parts, upon its true foundation, with a clear and convincing light.... It is plain, in fact, that human reason unassisted failed men in its great and proper business of morality."

Along with this view went a profound conviction of the importance of education, and of the breadth of its aim. It has to fit men for life -- for the world, rather than for the university. Instruction in knowledge does not exhaust it; it is essentially a training of character ***End Quote
~underlining mine~

Plato Stanford (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/)

John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher, whose association with Anthony Ashley Cooper (

Much of Locke's work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke's anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. ***End Quote
~Underlining mine~


By the way my DSL service has been cut off sense Friday? Hmmm I forgot- :p

PHRASE: "Researchers are predisposed to find a correlation between X and Y" (var: "Researchers are presidposed to find a correlation between X and Y for financial reasons")

TRANSLATION: "The vast amount of research on the subject has shown a correlation between X and Y, and I have no good data to refute it."

It isn’t necessarily the results that are challenged but the interpretation thereof. Those are based upon the subjective and one subjective opinion is about as good as another.

The thinly veiled interjection of these references I am choosing the high road. My interpretation of this You are experiencing an irritation (no matter how briefly) and wish to mention this without causing an all out battle of the post resulting in closures, staff stuff , unpleastaries. I can respect this.

What I do question is the reaction to the diversities in views. Your perspective is personal to you I understand this as mine is to me. However your point of view is not a reflection of me ,the reverse is also true. No one among us has cornered the market in absolute right. This I have learned in debate communities over the last six months.

I believe this would be an interesting discussion, however we have been unable to achieve the ability to do so without un-necessary emotionalism and pointless accusations. As I mentioned to Scuro in another discussion it isn’t the diversities them selves that is the problem it is they way they are handled. I have been guilty of this same tendency to be reactive. However I have taken measures to correct this problem within my self.

I am doubting if all concerned have been practicing getting their point of view openly challenged, logic shredded ect. . . Unless the tolerance for diversity and ability to tolerate open challenges to our dearly held points of view has increased there is no reason to expect a discussion now would be any more productive than it has in previous attempts.

I am also not in charge of any one else’s decisions, and I do enjoy a good exchange of ideas even if diversity results in conflicting opinions. . . .which is what a debate is (minus the insults, name calling and accusations) . . . true debates is a civilized and even a polite exchange. I will admit I have had some interesting discussion on debate forums but so far they have been unable to match the intellectual abilities and diverse perspectives offered by this community.

I believe few who find their way into these discussion realize the amount of potential held captive by diversity intolerance, and the inaccurate notion of having the only possible "correct answer". . . . . .we are all drawn to these things because yes they are stimulating they awaken that resistant attention span and increase our ability to focus on what would other wise be tedious research and expand our own perceptions even as we are building the rational behind our own point of views in an effort to refute the opposing one.(or wake up those executive functions with a good ole shot on adrenaline- wording matters not) Being challenged in this manner is emotional ,energy, motivation to drive us toward more knowledge. . . .researching to refute a well thought out opposition is learning fast , furious, accessing hyper focus. Debates is intellectual and emotional expansion sententiously – it is learning expanding the meadd823 way!


Science is built upon challenges of popular opinions without the energy created by opposing perceptions science would have died long ago. To clip the wings of those who challenge main stream presentation to silence those who dare to present a unique perspective is to reduce science to religion based upon mere superstition. Science like genetics, and societies is an eco system whose very survival is dependant upon the existence of diversity.

PS if you guys do suddenly learn how to have a civilized debate please wait until I am back on line next week! :p

what's a girl supposed to think?
buffalo by name - baboon by photograph.
In my day yagirlwuzagirl ... and now they've become chimaeric.
oi vey!
I just can't keep up!

... :-) ...
No harm done, chalk it up to my uncanny tendency to "manswer"

;)

No harm done, chalk it up to my uncanny tendency to "manswer"

;)I love it!

No harm done, chalk it up to my uncanny tendency to "manswer"

Actually I shall second this admiration, I rather liked the name buffalo PC from the beginning, then reading your post really sold me.

On a debate forum for the first five months I simply used a few initials as a user name and had a pic of a tornado. I was called dude all the time. I think it is the directness that really throws every one off. . . . .one of my ADHD traits. I am not willing to spend gobs of mental energy beating around a bush. By the time I make it 2/3rd the way around said bush I have normally lost interest in present conversation and have begun moving onto to the next . . . . this only serves to confound and confuse all involved so why bother. . . . .fertilizer like box thinking is already in over abundant supply without my contribution .

I think that the directness probably has a lot to do with it. I am male, obviously, but in my workplace most of my coworkers are female (although demographics being what they are, many of the physicians I deal with are male...however, it is female coworkers who I see on a daily basis vs. seeing physicians less often).

I've noticed that men and women in general (note: not as individuals) tend to state opinions and ideas differently. Again, in general, I have noticed that when a woman states an opinion or conclusion, no matter how certain she may be, she always states it in such a way as to imply that she is seeking a consensus, and is open to any suggestions that anyone might have.

Men, in general, have a tendency to state opinions as being solid conclusions even when they may not be entirely certain, because there is an assumption that if someone disagrees, they will speak up and say something. They wish to make their position on a particular matter known and established in a more confrontational manner.

Now, I don't think that this is necessarily biological, but probably more of a sociological phenomenon. I should also notice that it is definitely not universal. I know many women who are physicians, attorneys, executives, etc who most definitely do the "speaking with certainty" thing, and I've met men who do the "speaking as if looking for a consensus" thing (and I've also known many women who will speak as if they mean the latter when they really mean the former...akkk, bad memories of ex-girlfriends).

I think that the directness probably has a lot to do with it.

Hmmm I am often accused of being as subtle as a train wreck. . . .think you may have a point.. . .

No harm done, chalk it up to my uncanny tendency to "manswer"

;) Ya gotta love a gal that can "manswer" and talk wine! :D

Someone I know, used to always depict his opinions, as 'facts'.

His tone would mimic the 'authoritative' tone , and he would assume the 'aggressive-defensive' position, when he was doing this.

I used to endearingly refer to him, as a bully.

I've come to understand the reason why he did it, however, it didn't lessen the 'irritability' factor, I felt, when he did this.

It took many years, before I finally was totally fed up, and started claiming the phrase 'who says?', after each of his 'factual declarations'.

I wasn't looking for 'citations', per se...my motive was to make him aware that his 'utterings' were comprised of 98% of 'his opinions', and therefore mine were equally as 'valid'.

It was a huge effort, on my behalf, because he fought that...with all of his 'being'..

But I was determined, and felt this a worthy cause, so I didn't give up my 'fight, either.

With the passage of time, he decided that my 'effort', made 'sense' to him.

And with the passage of time, we BOTH learned, from one another, a wealth of knowledge neither of us could obtain from any book, magazine, or other text source...most of it based on each other's 'opinion', but knowledge that made incredible 'sense', to each of us individually, at that specific 'time wedge', in our lives.

good 'ole Locke - thanks T.


What people need is not intellectual insight or theological dogma, but practical guidance.
=>= rrreality is internal; the internal environment is defined by the individual him or herself - not instated by authority without the individual's participation.
For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition.

=>= rrreality is internal; the internal environment is defined by the individual him or herself - not instated by authority without the individual's participation.
Reason and morality arise from the same origins. The mind
is a logical structure - reason is logical thought - morality is defined on logical premises.
Full on ADD leads to an enforced moral consistency (please use "enforced moral consistency" on ADDF for more - if you like).
The positive side of Locke's anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both

=>= rrreality is internal; the internal environment is defined by the individual him or herself - not instated by authority without the individual's participation.
In a sense - perhaps - opposition to authority as a mechanism for societal development (evolution - in a sense).towing the party line
or improving paty political rhetoric
only one ensures re-election
the other - the craps
~Incidentally~
[basic craps] ->- http://www.gamblingtimes.com/bascraps.html
[tough craps] -> [gambling, "mugs game"] Yahgoogly Search terms.

Someone I know, used to always depict his opinions, as 'facts' ...this is an overwhelming truth and allows us a path into the very mechanism of communication.

Imagine - that on ADDF - we have multiple characters - characterized as actors - each of us - characters - individually characterized on each of our internal stages of consciousness. All different characterizations - hopefully similar - kinda' like Russian dolls - each a separate copy - varying granularity - of each of us - within each of our own minds.

Our awareness of (rr)reality - truly - the observation of a play in real time with belief that the play is actually RRReality. Actually happening - and not a consequence of mind.

... from which "pense, donc je suis" {jesu is} {f}->- "cogito ergo sum" {l}... arises.

In the case of the ADDer - the capacity for mapping others to higher granularity - arises through our capacity for developing a rrreality more rrReal ... a more efficient storage (logical) space (mind) for information within the same physical space (skull).

The accuracy,granularity,complexity with which we characterize each actor upon our own internal stage - the more *effective* communication can be - and so to re-iterate from a different angle - the better one knows another - the more information is conveyed by the same number of words.

If I read 'wtffry' from Tams - it means something a little different to Nova usage - 'quantum leap into wtffry space'
- weeeeeee! -
... :-) ...
stuck on gluons! lepton meets neutron in the cauldron of wtf fryin' fission space - (yes chips and salt) ... (well...duh!!!) ... "sea air, hunger" ...

An incapacity to map another's rrreality ->-'''
[[[- empathy revealed ->- or rather failure thereof - the key aspect of the core dysfunction in autism]]]
->-''' leads to a failure in a key component of communication
***- to map another's reality [within our own internal model for mapping our own reality (rrreality)]***.

->-

[within our oto map another's realitywn internal model of rrreality]

->-
And thereafter - we observe the consequence of ... a failure to communicate.
Someone I know, used to always depict his opinions, as 'facts'

Hey Buffalo,
I adore your pictures - and had to mention - that the friend mentioned previously - awaiting news on a grant - to stay in this country - shares your name ... :-) ... bizarre coincidences ... anyhow - her home San Vincenzo - lovely on many levels - most notably bar the relative paucity of Italian academic research funding ... higher primates ... slothful sea mammals and birds with a penchant for soaring - nice :-) ... ... ... incidentally - sorry ... :-) ... comedy and majesty.

* ADHD does not qualify as a funded disability in many places

True, the relevant law states:

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> (3) Child with a disability (A) In general The term “child with a disability” means a child—
(i) with mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this chapter as “emotional disturbance”), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and
(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

(B) Child aged 3 through 9 The term “child with a disability” for a child aged 3 through 9 (or any subset of that age range, including ages 3 through 5), may, at the discretion of the State and the local educational agency, include a child—
(i) experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in 1 or more of the following areas: physical development; cognitive development; communication development; social or emotional development; or adaptive development; and
(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode20/usc_sec_20_00001401----000-.html

Why doesn't ADHD qualify as a funded disability??? According to the same link that Hyperion provided above, ADHD is listed as a "Specific learning disability".
(30) Specific learning disability

(A) In general

The term “specific learning disability” means a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.


(B) Disorders included

Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.


(C) Disorders not included

Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage."Minimal Brain Dysfunction" is the old name for ADHD, is it not?

Am I missing something here?

Hey Buffalo,
I adore your pictures - and had to mention - that the friend mentioned previously - awaiting news on a grant - to stay in this country - shares your name ... :-) ... bizarre coincidences ... anyhow - her home San Vincenzo - lovely on many levels - most notably bar the relative paucity of Italian academic research funding ... higher primates ... slothful sea mammals and birds with a penchant for soaring - nice :-) ... ... ... incidentally - sorry ... :-) ... comedy and majesty.
Thank you so much! I'll keep my fingers crossed for your friend that she is able to stay. They literally bar the funding, or do you mean they divert the monies away from the research?

Seek, are you able to get the link provided by Hyperion to work? Cut and paste doesn't work for me. I would love to see who is still using the term minimal brain dysfunction.

Seek, are you able to get the link provided by Hyperion to work? Cut and paste doesn't work for me. I would love to see who is still using the term minimal brain dysfunction. Yes, I sure am! That's where I got the "Minimal Brain Dysfunction" information from! :)

Lets try it again!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode20/usc_sec_20_00001401----000-.html

Ok, try that! :)

It's werid how it doesn't turn into a hyperlink when it's posted! :confused:

Here is a hyperlink (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode20/usc_sec_20_00001401----000-.html) I created that you can try too!

Hopefully one of those two will work for you! :)
...

Thanks, Seek, the hyperlink worked. Now, are we to assume that someone in government is still using the archaic term "minimal brain dysfunction"?

Actually, I think that term is quite appropriate for the government...

Oh, you mean with the choice of clinical terminology, ummm, yeah.

Actually, I think that term is quite appropriate for the government... LOL :D RIGHT! :)

... that's the funny thing though isn't it - in a sense we're told the highest we can aspire to is President -{hidden message - government good} - and yet juxtaposed against thus - record apathy-dislike of the people of many-all countries for their politicians - (hidden message - government bad) ... there sure is a problem - and the problem lies with three magical words ...'enforced moral consistency' ... morality amongst politicians (->- leaving aside the issue of a working definition of morality* - which'd be some fun (in generating)) ...
-{hidden message - government good}
-{hidden message - government good}

aaah! - {if only} ... :-) ...

->- leaving aside
->->- "aside" -<-<-
* morality is intrinsic - a 10 point checklist ain't gonna get you a morality (the certificate signed by Michael Morality Maybe ... but ~morality~ - no - *sadly* - not.

Morality bears a striking relationship with logic - and ... well ... if only the mind were a logical structure and the ADDer mind encoded a new 'better' form of logical structure *as* the fundamental distinction between ADDer and nonADDer

--- geeze
-- imagine that!

--- geeze
-- imagine that! ... 'll never happen in the future ...

--- geeze
-- imagine that!'ll never happen in the future ...
-coz it's happening right now.

{the transition}