|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Vandemann phd
PhD DISSERTATION, at UCLA
Vandeman, Michael Joseph, 1943- Chemical description of food taste preferences among Black-, Japanese-, and Mexican-Americans derived by means of nonmetric multidimensional scaling by Michael Joseph Vandeman. 1973 So Mike maybe you would like to tell us how a phd in food tasting preferences allows you to comment on the environmental impacts of mountain biking from a scientific perspective? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Vandemann phd
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:01:26 AM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
PhD DISSERTATION, at UCLA Vandeman, Michael Joseph, 1943- Chemical description of food taste preferences among Black-, Japanese-, and Mexican-Americans derived by means of nonmetric multidimensional scaling by Michael Joseph Vandeman. 1973 So Mike maybe you would like to tell us how a phd in food tasting preferences allows you to comment on the environmental impacts of mountain biking from a scientific perspective? EVERY Ph.D. in a science teaches the scientific method. DUH! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Vandemann phd
EVERY Ph.D. in a science teaches the scientific method. DUH! So why did you abandon it in favour of diatribe, ad-hominem and disingenuous logic ? The scientific method is to postulate and test and tell the results as they are. Your approach is to decide the conclusion and then try and fit the evidence to that. You're a disgraceful excuse for a scientist. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Vandemann phd
Vandeman you are not qualified to comment on environmental issues. This is obvious. Go back to your food tasting old chum.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Vandemann phd
Should you be surprised? Vandeman isn't an ecologist or conservation biologist. He is a desperate old man on a meaningless search. I think the weakenesses in his arguments are clear. He also doesn't help himself by promoting other people's pain and misfortune, which makes him appear to be a sicko.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Vandemann phd
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 8:59:35 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
EVERY Ph.D. in a science teaches the scientific method. DUH! So why did you abandon it in favour of diatribe, ad-hominem and disingenuous logic ? The scientific method is to postulate and test and tell the results as they are. Your approach is to decide the conclusion and then try and fit the evidence to that. Apparently, you think that if you tell a lie often enough, it will become true. It isn't working, is it? Every time you say something, I refute it. Try telling the truth, for a change! Idiot. You're a disgraceful excuse for a scientist. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Vandemann phd
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:45:47 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 8:59:35 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: EVERY Ph.D. in a science teaches the scientific method. DUH! So why did you abandon it in favour of diatribe, ad-hominem and disingenuous logic ? The scientific method is to postulate and test and tell the results as they are. Your approach is to decide the conclusion and then try and fit the evidence to that. Apparently, you think that if you tell a lie often enough, it will become true. It isn't working, is it? Every time you say something, I refute it. Try telling the truth, for a change! Idiot. You're a disgraceful excuse for a scientist. Yeah right Mike. You have refuted stuff all. What you have shown repeatedly is your lack of understanding of science. I think you are in the same camp as those lunatics you believe human induced climate change is a hoax. Tell me Mike how does it feel to belong to flat earth society? Is it working our well for you? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Vandemann phd
You tell the truth for a change Vandeman. Are you a conservation biologist?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Vandemann phd
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:59:35 AM UTC+12, Blackblade wrote:
EVERY Ph.D. in a science teaches the scientific method. DUH! So why did you abandon it in favour of diatribe, ad-hominem and disingenuous logic ? The scientific method is to postulate and test and tell the results as they are. Your approach is to decide the conclusion and then try and fit the evidence to that. You're a disgraceful excuse for a scientist. I don't think Vandeman would qualify as a serious scientist when it comes to the natural world or conservation biology. He is a psychologist. I laugh how he says because I have a phd I am therefore an expert in mountain biking and wildlife. This is like saying because I have a Phd in American history I am an expert on econometrics, engineering and medicine. Just because you have a phd doesn't make your opinion an expert one in every single field or discipline. In Vandeman's case as his phd is in psychology not wildlife biology or conservation he can't comment as an expert. I have noticed he tries to cover up his lack of credability by referring to his website and his so called "papers" (including that very old and short literature review), not answering the questions he is asked, using abusive language or trying divert attention away from the issue by promoting the pain and misfortune of those who have suffered serious mountain biking accidents. Pathetic but entertaining stuff. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Vandemann phd
Apparently, you think that if you tell a lie often enough, it will become true. It isn't working, is it? Every time you say something, I refute it. Try telling the truth, for a change! Idiot. Mike, to refute something you have to provide facts ... not your opinion :-) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What happened to Mike Vandemann | JD[_3_] | Mountain Biking | 4 | February 9th 11 01:09 AM |
What happened to Mike Vandemann | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 28 | January 25th 11 08:16 PM |