You’ve insulted my integrity as a scientist, said I add nothing to scientific discourse, and said I have brain rot. Only after all that shit you threw at me did I become unpleasant and call you an idiot.
Look in a fucking mirror.
And once again, what the fuck do you even know about science? What re your fucking credentials? Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question Mr. astrology is great, but I’m not so sure about gravity?
Nowhere did I say that I was more confident in astrology than gravity. In fact, several times now I’ve said that I do not believe in astrology, and that I do believe in gravity. I have repeatedly acknowledged the vast relative difference in their supporting evidence. I only claimed that your statements that all astrologers were con-men and all horoscopes were fundamentally vague were incorrect, by virtue of the absolute nature of the claims. My only positive claim was that there is a non-zero possibility that there is an incidental correlation between approximate date of birth and certain personality traits. Not that it’s probable, not that it isn’t unlikely, but that at some future date we might find some effect, totally unrelated to the stars and planets in their courses, that corresponds to certain other effects.
I said only that absolute certainty is brain rot. If you hadn’t claimed absolute certainty, it would not apply to you. I provided several authoritative scientific sources which reiterate that absolute certainty is fundamentally unscientific, falsifiability being central to the concept of scientific thought. You then persevered in your insistence on the unambiguous truth of unfalsifiable facts.
You claimed to be more of an expert on the philosophy of science than Einstein, Sagan, and Feynman, by virtue of the irrelevant matter of time and technology. As if the fundamental precepts of the discipline have changed because we have more data and better processors. Science is science, fundamental uncertainty in science is one of those definitions like 2 + 2 = 4, or that carbon had 6 protons. No amount of experience supercedes axiomatic properties.
I haven’t revealed any credentials, because credentials are irrelevant to science. That’s the point. It’s a methodical approach to incremental knowledge increase based on rigorous rationality, appropriately supported by evidence and reason. It’s only after your repeated disrespect to that fundamental property that I partially abandoned civility.
This is why I question your reading comprehension. This is why I question your logical literacy. This is why I have serious doubts that you are the scientific professional you claim to be. This is middle school stuff. If you had any scientific education, you would know better.
Science fundamentalism is a cancer that erodes the dignity of scientific pursuit. People like you who claim absolute certainty in the name of science are the cells that propagate that cancer.
Yeah, see? You keep making banal statements like this. Credentials mean nothing. Sure, they might lend an initial air of credibility, but real credibility ultimately lies in evidence and reasoning. Generally those with high credentials support their claims with evidence and reasoning, but it is not the credentials themselves that provide credibility. That would be another deeply unscientific belief. Another for the growing mound.
It wouldn’t surprise me if, assuming you are a research chemist, you are so hopelessly mired in The Game that you actually base credibility on titles and credentials instead. That hypothesis would be consistent with your observed behavior. And yet, credentials meant nothing to you in the case of Einstein, as you were so eager to point out, and you are certainly no Einstein.
God you’re a dumbass, and know fuck-all about science. People are judged on their credentials, which guess what, includes their published research. You’re actual peer-reviewed research is part of your credentials.
And you just keep waxing philosophical, because you have nothing to actually go on. You have no credentials. No peer-reviewed papers, no actual scientific experience. you’re just a schmuck.
There’s that science fundamentalism again, and the piss-poor reading comprehension. Credentials only have value in that they imply adherence to good practice. Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name. You fundamentalists are preventing science into a religious cult of personality.
Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name
And peer-reviewed papers will reflect that dumbass. You keep accusing me of bad reading comprehension, when you’ve shown it time and timer again.
And if you feel so strongly about this why don’t you enter the sciences and actually try to make a change?
Go ahead and write that grant application about how you’ll disprove the very existence of gravity. Go ahead, I’ll wait and see how well that gets funded.
You know companies that pursue scientific pursuits outside of academia still publish their work. They also tend to hire people with masters and doctorates from well-regarded academic institutions.
You’ve insulted my integrity as a scientist, said I add nothing to scientific discourse, and said I have brain rot. Only after all that shit you threw at me did I become unpleasant and call you an idiot.
Look in a fucking mirror.
And once again, what the fuck do you even know about science? What re your fucking credentials? Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question Mr. astrology is great, but I’m not so sure about gravity?
Nowhere did I say that I was more confident in astrology than gravity. In fact, several times now I’ve said that I do not believe in astrology, and that I do believe in gravity. I have repeatedly acknowledged the vast relative difference in their supporting evidence. I only claimed that your statements that all astrologers were con-men and all horoscopes were fundamentally vague were incorrect, by virtue of the absolute nature of the claims. My only positive claim was that there is a non-zero possibility that there is an incidental correlation between approximate date of birth and certain personality traits. Not that it’s probable, not that it isn’t unlikely, but that at some future date we might find some effect, totally unrelated to the stars and planets in their courses, that corresponds to certain other effects.
I said only that absolute certainty is brain rot. If you hadn’t claimed absolute certainty, it would not apply to you. I provided several authoritative scientific sources which reiterate that absolute certainty is fundamentally unscientific, falsifiability being central to the concept of scientific thought. You then persevered in your insistence on the unambiguous truth of unfalsifiable facts.
You claimed to be more of an expert on the philosophy of science than Einstein, Sagan, and Feynman, by virtue of the irrelevant matter of time and technology. As if the fundamental precepts of the discipline have changed because we have more data and better processors. Science is science, fundamental uncertainty in science is one of those definitions like 2 + 2 = 4, or that carbon had 6 protons. No amount of experience supercedes axiomatic properties.
I haven’t revealed any credentials, because credentials are irrelevant to science. That’s the point. It’s a methodical approach to incremental knowledge increase based on rigorous rationality, appropriately supported by evidence and reason. It’s only after your repeated disrespect to that fundamental property that I partially abandoned civility.
This is why I question your reading comprehension. This is why I question your logical literacy. This is why I have serious doubts that you are the scientific professional you claim to be. This is middle school stuff. If you had any scientific education, you would know better.
Science fundamentalism is a cancer that erodes the dignity of scientific pursuit. People like you who claim absolute certainty in the name of science are the cells that propagate that cancer.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
God, what a joke.
Yeah, see? You keep making banal statements like this. Credentials mean nothing. Sure, they might lend an initial air of credibility, but real credibility ultimately lies in evidence and reasoning. Generally those with high credentials support their claims with evidence and reasoning, but it is not the credentials themselves that provide credibility. That would be another deeply unscientific belief. Another for the growing mound.
It wouldn’t surprise me if, assuming you are a research chemist, you are so hopelessly mired in The Game that you actually base credibility on titles and credentials instead. That hypothesis would be consistent with your observed behavior. And yet, credentials meant nothing to you in the case of Einstein, as you were so eager to point out, and you are certainly no Einstein.
Keep playing The Game, mixologist.
God you’re a dumbass, and know fuck-all about science. People are judged on their credentials, which guess what, includes their published research. You’re actual peer-reviewed research is part of your credentials.
And you just keep waxing philosophical, because you have nothing to actually go on. You have no credentials. No peer-reviewed papers, no actual scientific experience. you’re just a schmuck.
There’s that science fundamentalism again, and the piss-poor reading comprehension. Credentials only have value in that they imply adherence to good practice. Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name. You fundamentalists are preventing science into a religious cult of personality.
And peer-reviewed papers will reflect that dumbass. You keep accusing me of bad reading comprehension, when you’ve shown it time and timer again.
And if you feel so strongly about this why don’t you enter the sciences and actually try to make a change?
Go ahead and write that grant application about how you’ll disprove the very existence of gravity. Go ahead, I’ll wait and see how well that gets funded.
Yes, for that paper. Past work is not evidence for future work.
I see the problem. When I say “science” I mean science.
When you say “science,” you mean academia. I agree with most of your statements as they apply to academia. Academia is not science.
You know companies that pursue scientific pursuits outside of academia still publish their work. They also tend to hire people with masters and doctorates from well-regarded academic institutions.