RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2006,15:55   

stevestory wrote:
It was a Ph.D in economics. His thesis was entitled "Inefficient Markets in Religious Apologetics: Identifying New Profit Opportunities in Selling Jargon to Morons"

That was very, very, funny.

I havenít commented on this thread before. By way of introduction, I'm an Engineer and a member of NCSE.

Have commented occasionally on PT, TT and UD, but I don't usually have anything to contribute unless it relates to engineering or modeling.

On the topic of jargon, my one experience at UD was back in March and was typical; I stopped posting there after a polite and on-topic comment of mine was suppressed by DT. I was commenting on the differences between the ID useage of the term "design" and the engineering useage of that term.

I've heard scientists complain that ID proponents misuse science terms. Well, in my not-so-humble opinion, their uses of "design" and of "specification" often don't match engineering useage. (But this is not misuse except when they are claiming that being Engineers gives them authority on the topic of "design.")

Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]