> I don't claim to be a scientist. I claim to be a Metallurgist. I do have
> a scientific background, as do many of my friends and colleagues. I
> chose to pursue an educational route accredited by the Engineering
> Council. That's what makes me a Chartered Engineer.

Sunday November 1st you wrote "I'm both an engineer and a scientist" so 
you did in fact claim to be a scientist. (Sleepy taught me to call people 
out on things like that. Thanks Sleeps!)

As for 'Chartered Engineer' I suggest you stop bragging about that. It's 
just too easy to disintegrate that pedestal you think you are on.

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jun2003/Engineer_Test.htm

Those jokes have a grain of truth... (Al? You agree?)

It's especially dangerous to brag to people you don't know anything 
about. That could really come back to bite you in the ass.

It's not whether or not you're an engineer, it's whether or not you're a 
good person that's important in life. Keep going around beating your 
chest about your job and you'll likely have a very empty existence.

BTW I applaud your scientific background. I'm sure it makes you a better 
engineer - sincerely. I get that. It just makes sense.

> Your language, ad hominem condescension and aggression don't scream
> 'scientist' to me.

As for "language, ad hominem condescension and aggression" I reread our 
posts and have to say I was responding to your ante in this regard and I 
still think so after a review. From my perspective you're the one 
escalating the language and lowering the tone here. I believe it's 
because you still miss the point I made in my first comment about 'bad 
science'. My evidence: you insist on repeating 'read the book'. I'm not 
talking about the book! Or it could be because you don't know who you are 
speaking to and making some very poor assumptions.

Since DB understood my point right off, I thought I might yet get it 
through to you by pointing out that we have two different perspectives - 
you know, point out you're not in my shoes. I have over 30 years of 
working with engineers. I spotted right off you were sounding like one. 
To me, I thought 'Aha. This may be part of the problem communicating 
here.' I know from experience it's a different world. I told you it is 
sometimes frustrating to work with engineers. You should recognize that 
as proof I really do work with engineers. I disagreed when you started 
painting science and engineering with the same brush because, well, you 
were wrong. Then you wrote the 'science is a prostitute' reply. You 
completely lost any chance of convincing me or any other scientist that 
you understand science at that point. You sounded like a real asshole at 
that point. Have you ever googled 'engineers are assholes'? There's only 
104000 hits. As Lou would say 'Try harder.'

> Science is open to theory and argument.

Spare me. I don't recall preaching to you what engineering is (I will 
confess to pointing out what engineers are like - but that's your fault 
for acting like such a classic case!). Possibly you don't realise what 
you sound like to others.

> You do a lot
> of shouting from an apparent position of certainty. I have never found
> an open and honest scientist deny doubt so comprehensively.

I don't recall saying anything here that required a +/-. I can assure you 
there's the proper uncertainties on all my reports to clients. This is 
uklc. Totally different.
 
>> It certainly has absolutely no bearing on the use of the term 'bad
>> science'.
> 
> Read the book, then argue from a position of knowledge of the book.

Anyway, here's the thing, until you figure out, with me at least, that 
some thought is required in a debate, and preaching down to and insulting 
your opponent is not a substantive argument, we're not going to get 
anywhere. You're hung up on what the book has to say about 'bad science' 
and I am not talking about that. I had a simple thought that 'bad 
science' was another one of those unhelpful terms that is becoming part 
of the vernacular of the unscientific. It doesn't make the life of any 
scientist easier. I think there are negative consequences from it's use. 
I am not arguing that what the author writes about under that title is 
not good stuff. It certainly looks like it is. I know about that stuff 
already and I don't have to read that particular book.

My only point was I think people should stop using the term 'bad science' 
and I gave my reasons.

And finally, just to stop you from yelling at me again to 'read the book' 
I would like to point out that it's not even on sale here. But I do 
happen to own (and have read) 'Lies, Damned Lies and Science' which is 
much the same thing. Except that author didn't use the term 'bad science' 
in the title.

Johnny-it's-been-a-lot-of-fun-writing-this--Thanks!