N.Wells
Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote | I agree that it would be wonderful to publish a great looking science paper for a high impact science journal like PNAS or Nature. But like I keep saying: what I write is K-12 level how-to that has the highest impact factor when published by the NSTA, like the self-assembly demonstration was. | What you write is unreadable, so it isn't K-12 appropriate. It's also rubbish, which again makes it inappropriate. Also, K-12 stuff is boiled down from the most significant conclusions, not the the least significant stuff that has never been published, so you are 0 for 3 with respect to K-12 education.
Quote | The core model of the theory is from David Heiserman and follows Arnold Trehub's most basic illustration of the systematics for the human brain. It's Cognitive Science 101 stuff, that I long ago learned and found useful and explained to others so they know about it too. | What you have is not a theory, and it is a perversion of the scientific method, as it lacks supporting evidence, is not potentially falsifiable, lacks operational definitions, has not documented its key assumptions (like cellular intelligence), and gets lots of basic facts wrong about biology, so again it's clearly not appropriate for educational purposes.
Quote | All the information adding up to explaining intelligent (reciprocal) cause/causation events made it necessary for me to call it what it is, and that is not open for discussion that's simply the way science works in regards to a proposed theory for "intelligent cause" that needed development. It's scientifically unethical for me to make exceptions, not an open for discussion issue that needs someone's approval. | There is nothing, not one single thing, that is scientifically ethical about the way you are conducting yourself and presenting your ideas. You are playing with words to smuggle in your conclusions, you aren't addressing criticisms, and you are claiming the authority of people who would be horrified at what you are doing with their ideas. You are also appropriating a name ("intelligent design") without documenting the requisite intelligence and despite the fact that you are calling on emergence and self-similarity, which are contradictory to each other and are also antithetical to design.
Quote | If though you are saying that I need a science journal based media event just to make a lot of academically noisy hoopla of my own then that sounds like fun, should be possible. | Would you care to try that sentence again, but in comprehensible English this time? Quote | My thought is still to make a "best of" for systems biology, from the online book. Already have the most highest impact factor sentence imaginable, to start it off with. There would be no addressing of political issues or "evolutionary theory" just wall to wall summary of the "Theory of Intelligent Design" for scientists who somehow did not already learn about this. |
"Most highest impact factor sentence imaginable"????? Really? Writing like that is not going to convince anyone that you have anything worthwhile to say. No one will learn about your ideas, and you are simply wasting your time.
|