Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
You Must Now Define "original Thoughts"

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Michael W. Pearson on February 23, 2002 16:04:17 UTC

Ya wrote:
"Pardon me for offering advice, but someone of your abilities should be willing to post some original thoughts."

This is illogical. If you can define
"original thoughts," I will not reject the
whole idea as crackpottery immediately.

What is most illogical is that you have
estimated I have some level of ability
but how can you estimate it if you don't know which work is mine?
Have you suggested my posts are mainly the
work of others?
One question: are you saying I use others' work with, or without, attribution? In scientific papers,
there are numerous reference to the work
of others. A small amount of new thought
must rest on a lattice of assembled work
by others. If you think 1,000 words of
blather is original, then I agree I don't
post much of that. I think a ratio
of 1/10 original to 9/10 carefully assembled
work by others
is pretty good. I should probably post
less "original work."

Whoever

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins