Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd
From: todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: Omni-Americans
Message-ID: <1236@uop.edu>
Date: 9 Mar 88 19:17:47 GMT
References: <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <2790@gryphon.CTS.COM> <1221@uop.edu> <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Organization: Uop Ethernet Gateway
Lines: 71
Summary: big difference


There is a big difference between comparing the true genius of
men like Einstein, Newton, and Tesla--

With the foolishness of new age crystal worship, UFO-ology, and
psychological reletivisms.

Such comparisons are mere rhetoric, and perhaps this is why your
cross disciplinary interests were mentioned, to add weight to the
arguement.

It adds no weight to me, if Carl Sagan or some other "respected"
opinionator says something that is out to lunch, he/she/it better
back it up with persuasive arguments, or just go get his picture
on the cover of Omni or the Enquirer.

Time will tell, and experience has already told me the PREMISE of
Omni's approach is bad. If they were truely interested in Scientific
analyses, they would do it! Omni does not involve itself with that.

The system of Science is to tear down theories with other theories.
(i am aware this is a simplification, and i have no desire to write
about the scientific method, i presume you (collective) know what it is)
Omni's system is to say that since the concept is to be one of
editorialism and analyses, then that is what they will do.
And any form of editorializing is acceptable.  Too bad.

Unfortunatly, it is approached as a rhetoric to the method, and  not
with the emphasis on truely discovering the answers, by any real method. 
This technique serves to stroke the brains of those who enjoy a mix
of real ideas with imagination.

I have found with the study of science, or history, (or life) that
what is really going on, outstrips fiction if you take the time to
look.  The details of discovery and formations of opinions is far
better than Omni-esque attempts at mimickry... mimickry loaded with
psuedo reality.

Their argument is not one of science, but one of rhetorical epistomology
and it is done badly with bet-hedging where no expertise exists.

You want to find out? Read Physics Today, Physical Review Letters,
et. al. Professional Journals will tell you better what is going on
than anything off a newsstand, the trouble is, that is too much work
for *some* (most) people.

Maybe you like Omni, I see it as part of a growing problem of armchair
expertise in this country, that serves no other function than that of
making the truth harder to percieve.

Perhaps some might think that calling a spade, a spade is bad.
I have *had* it with the worship of thin-headedness.

And I mean worship. Such things are guarded with uninformed opinions,
and propagated by those who wish to conform to such models.

I see nothing to be proud of in such a system.

Understand, Omni, although it can be enjoyable is essentially a science
fiction rag, not a masterpiece of informative literature.

To compare "them" to Einstien's or Tesla's minds, and say that this
is the same as poor Joe pseudo-scientist struggling to prove something
is right there between the word "Bullshit" and the word "Crap" in my book.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ uop!todd@uunet.uu.net                                               + 
+                 cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa                     + 
+                                 {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd  + 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------