To: longshadow
From the article:
"I have no inside information, but I wonder if the committee was swayed by the fact that Damadian, although a brilliant inventor, is apparently a creation science nut. ..." Very interesting.
5 posted on
10/31/2003 7:23:04 AM PST by
PatrickHenry
(A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Or try "Virtual Ignore.")
To: PatrickHenry; Right Wing Professor
Very interesting. Indeed; I think there were a few threads on this a few weeks back, and I further believe RWP has the skinny on the Damadian MRI controversy.
If recollection serves, Damadian was a pioneer in Magnetic Resonance research, but it was the other guys (the Nobel Prize winners) who pioneered MR Imaging, which is the technology that is used so extensively by the medical profession today.
But I should let RWP speak directly on the topic; I know he's familiar with it.
To: PatrickHenry
From the article: "I have no inside information, but I wonder if the committee was swayed by the fact that Damadian, although a brilliant inventor, is apparently a creation science nut. ..."Being nuts is not a disqualification for science prizes, although they did scope out John Nash before allowing him on the platform. I think if you look at the prizes awarded to physicists in the early 20th century you could find some justifiably hurt feelings.
11 posted on
10/31/2003 7:50:16 AM PST by
js1138
To: PatrickHenry
How many threads have we got going this morning? My head is going to explode!! Coffee, must have more coffee....
24 posted on
10/31/2003 8:48:26 AM PST by
Ogmios
(Since when is 66 senate votes for judicial confirmations constitutional?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson