neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk
Tue Mar 18 11:44:26 EST 2003
stan_gorodenski at asualumni.org (Stanley A. Gorodenski) wrote in message news:<3E70FBE2.9651F2D9 at asualumni.org>...
> I question that this is Niel's message given the bad grammer and spelling. This
> is atypical of him. Someone else may be using his email address.
Thanks Stan, You are both right and wrong entirely simultaneously.
It was not me in that it wasn't my style and was sent without my
knowledge, but I did actually write it. I didn't intend for what I
wrote to go to the list in that form. I have been away and while away
I had limited access to the net. I had read all these silly postings
and thought of replying my only route to the net was a text only
interface to the server that held my website. I have a program there
that allows me to send emails out. However I quickly realised that I
couldn't properly edit or change a single letter of what I wrote. So
banged out what were really notes for me personally to form the basis
of an argument when I returned home. I later used the system to send a
one-line email to someone to tell them I was away and would be in
touch on my return. I think I messed this up and sent my notes to the
list. I apologise for this and any offence caused.
Here is the argument. I grow tired of debunking Paul Cherubini's
rubbish; for rubbish it is. As science goes I would rate it along the
lines of thinking that Louis Armstrong was the first man on the moon.
:-) He has been caught multiple times on many lists, misquoting,
distorting or just posting statements that are not truthfull. On one
list his his conspiracy theories were so nasty, hurtful and vicious
that he was thrown off. (Take note Mark Walker.)
On lists with a high proportion of professional scientists it isn't
necessary to debunk him because sombody usually derides him first
before I need to.
First of all the conspiracy theories don't add up. For the general
thrust of his argument to be true a great number of people must
deliberately be acting dishonestly.
Secondly his arguments are often contradictory. For example he says
that no deforestation is taking place AND deforestation is taking
place and it is good for the butterflies. It all depends on which ever
he can use to paint scientists as evil.
Science is a search for the truth. In evaluating scientific statements
it is key to work out the competance of the person making this. A
while ago we saw Patrick Foley, a world class expert in his field,
expound on this in debate. In knowing whether it is valid it is
necessary to know the competance and expertese of the person
One key message about Paul Cherubini that we know about goes to his
competance. What we know about his medical history casts a doubt.
In her book "Four Wings and a Prayer". The author Sue Halpern
publishes an account of an interview with Paul Cherubini where he
apparently openly admits that very similar theories to those which he
posts here and in other places were described by his psychiatrist as
"paranoid". _Read_the_book_ She is obviously convinced, like many,
that he has "a screw loose".
I post the evidence of his medical history not to be nasty but because
it is relevant in judging his compentance.
Science tells us, for this has been extensively researched, that some
people are more credulous than others. Science also tells us that
people who become good scientists are less credulous than average. The
science has been further studied and shows that there are reasons for
this that affect other aspects of the way the brain works. It is
fairly obvious anyway.
More about this later.
I'd rather not be personal about this so I shan't use names. If you
analyse the comments made by some of his supporters they tend to fall
into 2 camps.
Firstly those who support an extreme political position. This can be
very extreme from the guy who thought it reasonable that the US
government was surveiling the population with Black Helicopters, to
the example I found only yesterday, the person connected to an
organisation whose web site is linked to from the
front_page_of_the_Klu_Klux_Klan's_ website! Extreme indeed!
Secondly amongst people who support Cherubini are those who are, to
chose the politest word I can find, "Credulous" . They have a tendency
to accept and believe things where other people wouldn't. Scientific
study demonstrates that the best scientists are not "credulous". In
fact they are the opposite.
Now to the point I made about psychometric testing. Perhaps with
hindsight I would not have made this point but since it escaped by
accident I'd better explain it. Companies use these techiques for
recruiting and examining employees. A particular factor that implies
credulity (or that credulity forms a part of) can be assessed and it
has other consequences for ability other than in science. Some people
are using their company email ("work") addresses.
These can be detected by people searching the net for the company
name. Your boss might see it.
It is likely that top company executives have some measure of at least
mild dislike for people who are "Credulous". (The research tend to
bear this out.) Do you really want to be upsetting a boss?
Don't believe me. Don't believe Cherubini. Don't believe the credulous
ones. Find out what I am saying is true by researching it yourself. I
post against this man not just because he campaigns to facilitate
extincions of creatures like the Miami Blue but because he is
anti-science and dangerous. Just ask the cop he put in hospital!. (See
my other posting)
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
Bog National Nature Reserve
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l