But budgets sounds to me more like accounting and finance than science. What am I missing?
<edit>
Never suggested you should. You haven't exhausted the entire human race in your listing. Real science means working in the establishment then does it? Are there no 'real scientists' outside it?
Last edited:
Yep, I'm unfamiliar with the term in this context.
FrankWW said it was 'hard science' - he didn't say it was engineering. Do enlighten me please, I'm all ears
OK, so you didn't actually read the CRT paper and clearly if you read my paper, you didn't understand it. That's OK, you're not the intended audience. Stick to Time magazine.
Taken from your company's website
And further:
I'm surprised that you aren't aware of any of this?
So you didn't read the CRT paper before putting this on your company's page?
I note the careful placed reference to baby bottle in the above & saw that somebody found 12 references to baby bottle in your scientific paper - I did the analysis myself & found 37 references. A carefully orchestrated payload of emotional material in a scientific paper!
And further:
I'm surprised that you aren't aware of any of this?
So you didn't read the CRT paper before putting this on your company's page?
I note the careful placed reference to baby bottle in the above & saw that somebody found 12 references to baby bottle in your scientific paper - I did the analysis myself & found 37 references. A carefully orchestrated payload of emotional material in a scientific paper!
Last edited:
John, I absolutely do not understand what you're talking about, but I suspect you don't, either.
The CRT paper (which you evidently didn't read but have cited several times- do you even have a copy?) has nothing to say about anything other than BPA. It is a review of regulatory recommendations (there are many such reviews, others come to different conclusions), which was not a topic of our paper. If you understood our paper (which you clearly don't), you would see that it concentrates on testing plastics which do not contain BPA (that's what "BPA-free" in the item you just quoted means), it does not review regulatory standards, so the conclusions of one particular review (not an experimental paper) among many regarding regulatory standards for BPA have nothing to do with our research.
Stick to Time, it's probably more useful for you. Reading journals articles means actually reading them (not drawing incorrect conclusions from abstracts) and having a basic background in the field so that you understand the terminology, the methods, and the context.
The CRT paper (which you evidently didn't read but have cited several times- do you even have a copy?) has nothing to say about anything other than BPA. It is a review of regulatory recommendations (there are many such reviews, others come to different conclusions), which was not a topic of our paper. If you understood our paper (which you clearly don't), you would see that it concentrates on testing plastics which do not contain BPA (that's what "BPA-free" in the item you just quoted means), it does not review regulatory standards, so the conclusions of one particular review (not an experimental paper) among many regarding regulatory standards for BPA have nothing to do with our research.
Stick to Time, it's probably more useful for you. Reading journals articles means actually reading them (not drawing incorrect conclusions from abstracts) and having a basic background in the field so that you understand the terminology, the methods, and the context.
Pity you can't reply without ad-hominem attacks !
The CRT paper is referring to BPA & it's possible adverse health effects due to it's estrogenic activity (EA). The CRT paper is not denying that BPA has EA but finds a lack of estrogen-dependent effects on health.
Your paper's stated objective:
Your paper's results state
I'm afraid that your paper is light on objective science but heavy with inference & emotional baggage.
A perfect example of the subject of this thread
The CRT paper is referring to BPA & it's possible adverse health effects due to it's estrogenic activity (EA). The CRT paper is not denying that BPA has EA but finds a lack of estrogen-dependent effects on health.
Your paper's stated objective:
So what! EA has no health issues at the doses mentioned.
Your paper's results state
So what! Show how this effects health or it's of no consequence!
I'm afraid that your paper is light on objective science but heavy with inference & emotional baggage.
A perfect example of the subject of this thread
Last edited:
John, you can say the same incorrect things again and again, but they're still incorrect. I assume you still haven't actually read the CRT paper to which you repeatedly refer? You don't understand the difference between BPA and EA, and you don't seem to grasp the basic science.
As I said, that's OK, scientific papers aren't intended to be understood by anyone regardless of their intellectual abilities and backgrounds. They are written for other scientists and intelligent non-specialists, and presuppose a basic background, understanding of common terminology and methods, and an ability to read fluently and with good comprehension. If you're actually interested in gaining enough of a background to understand the literature and be able to make informed critiques, I can certainly suggest some reading for you- I can't guarantee that you'll learn anything, but I can guarantee that without a basic background, your critiques will continue to be totally off point.
Of course, if your motivation is purely a personal grudge because I have refused to endorse the questionable hifi gadgets that you sell, then I don't think I can get past that emotional barrier to basic education.
Apparently, the scientific community disagrees- this is one of the most active research areas in biology. The CRT paper you haven't read doesn't say this anywhere- nor would it, that's a meaningless sentence.
As I said, that's OK, scientific papers aren't intended to be understood by anyone regardless of their intellectual abilities and backgrounds. They are written for other scientists and intelligent non-specialists, and presuppose a basic background, understanding of common terminology and methods, and an ability to read fluently and with good comprehension. If you're actually interested in gaining enough of a background to understand the literature and be able to make informed critiques, I can certainly suggest some reading for you- I can't guarantee that you'll learn anything, but I can guarantee that without a basic background, your critiques will continue to be totally off point.
Of course, if your motivation is purely a personal grudge because I have refused to endorse the questionable hifi gadgets that you sell, then I don't think I can get past that emotional barrier to basic education.
Apparently, the scientific community disagrees- this is one of the most active research areas in biology. The CRT paper you haven't read doesn't say this anywhere- nor would it, that's a meaningless sentence.
Of course there's lots of research in this area - as you are demonstrating with PlastiPure & CertiChem - it's a highly lucrative area as is all science that instills irrational fear in the public. You can then witness the phenomena of people trying to sue over BPA in consumer products.
Just do a search for "sue over BPA" - mostly women who are suing! See a pattern here? (Baby bottles!)
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.