harry wrote on Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:19:02 +0100:
"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" wrote in
message news
harry wrote on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:40:33 +0100:
"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" wrote in
message news
I have contacted two historians on science. One has found the webpage
ok
and suggested a correction i have included in last
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/r...e/history.html
Other wrote
{BLOCKQUOTE
Your project looks promising and interesting! }
but adds he wait to the complete version of the website for a final
evaluation,
{BLOCKQUOTE
I wish you a good fothcoming, I will look on your homepage in some
weeks again.
}
How different from unfair criticism by amateur Tom Roberts!
Your reaction is understandable but I think that you are not being
fair he he is not an historian of science, but there is no need to
rub it in. Such comments -- even if true --are close to name-calling,
and not useful at all.
I think i have been kindly. In my opinion, Roberts words were *very*
unfair
That's why I wrote:
"Your reaction is understandable "
{BLOCKQUOTE [Tom Roberts]
That website displays the bias of its author much more strongly than
than any defensible view of the history of science. It is revisionist
history at its worst
}
Also in point 10 of Roberts' (and Siegmar Schleif) FAQ
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/
experiments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_S R
one can read
"Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at error bars."
I am rather sure that Roberts uses that phrase to warn his readers
about certain incorrect literature.
I have remarked Roberts 'amateurism' on history of relativity by a
similar motive.
If Roberts is not a historian of science -of course Roberts is not-
then he would avoid to write unfair postings as that of above.
You gave him Tit-For-Tat. That is very understandable.
--
I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt
Again: I do understand it, but I don't think that giving tit-for-tat is
in line with your guidelines. You could have stated the same - to the
same effect concerning yourself - without mentioning names.
Regards,
Harald
I have thought about that and you are completely right.
Originaly I did guidelines for avoiding crap, insults, nonsense, dogmas...
The final goal for guidelines is improving newsgroup experience in some
way. If most people follows the guidelines the newsgroup will become more
civilisated.
But i have failed to follow my own guidelines strictly.
One of my bigest failures here and on sci.physics.foundations, and
sci.physics.research has been i have given voice (i.e. importance) to
people who i would have given little or even none.
Thinking about that mistake now, i would re-read Tom roberts criticism of
the webpage and would ask:
What *real* importance has what Tom Roberts wrote?
Is Roberts message really important how to take it into account (i.e.
seriously)? Or can it be simply ignored?
Who did aplaud Roberts message? Dono? That says everything...
In conclusion, i will do an effort to avoid hooks :-) and follow
guidelines *strictly*.
--
I apply
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt