Jim said

> If your intent is to 'wharehouse questions' in anticipation
> of someday answering them or in anticipation of someday
> once again going back again to 'mine for gold' - I'd
> say it was pretty thin ore and an occupation you will
> never satisfy ...

etc etc etc

I take it that this is your way of saying that you didn't look at the
Oncology Professor's website to see what he has to say and have no intention
of doing so. Or have I misunderstood you?

I agree with MANY of the sentiments that you express. But not all.

> My complaint with this question-asking per se is when it is
> used as a substitute for real research,

Agree. Not what I intended, as I imagine you realise..

> when used as means
> to fear-mongering and exciting the public as means to notoriety,
> publication numbers and book sales.

Agree.

> A diatribe on the general nature of science as 'just simply asking
> questions' lacks the complement side where researchers work hard to
> answer those questions and are not content to simply rest on their
> laurels.

Agree. Not, as I imagine you realise , what I was suggesting.
My description was, of course, a very informal description of the scientific
method.
Refer to Karl Popper's material for the definitive thinking behind much of
this.
One site of many

                http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/

> Some of us are in eternal pursuit of fact versus fiction
> and 'bad science', conjecture and hyperbole and find a plethora of
> 'useless material' published for whatever ulterior motive to be
> just so much muddying of the waters.

Agree, to some extent. "Useless material" may also provide information
although more dilute - and often enough about something other than the main
subject of enquiry..

> Give us the stillness of a mind un-cluttered with all but the
> essentials of the problem to be studied or researched - a mind
> devoid of ulterior motives, politcal agendas, bias and 'noise',
> a mind capable of grasping the subtleties, interactions and
> complex couplings between components and elements -

Good work if you can get it ... :-)

> - IOW, I'd rather not be saddled with someone else's doubts,
> lame questions or self-imposed restrictions when solving a
> problem.

Saddled with - no. Self imposed restrictions - no. But you have to DEAL with
others doubts and questions.
Labelling enquiries "lame" is a dangerous start if attempting to establish
what twist reality has taken in any particular case - and reality is usually
far more twisted than we ever expect it to be).



        Russell

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu