social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world

  • 63 Replies
  • 4628 Views
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2014, 12:40:23 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

I'm having a hard time finding any real scientists that performed these hoaxes in the links you provided.

You weren't trying hard enough. Or you're suffering from confirmation bias (quotes below taken from wikipedia link):

John William Heslop Harrison, FRS[1] (1881–1967), was Professor of Botany at King's College

The Schön scandal concerns German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön (born 1970 in Verden) who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs with semiconductors that were later discovered to be fraudulent.

Haruko Obokata (小保方 晴子 Obokata Haruko?, born June 29, 1983) is a Japanese stem-cell biologist and the Research Unit Leader of the Laboratory for Cellular Reprogramming at RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology

Scott S. Reuben (born 1958) is an American anesthesiologist who was Professor of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts and chief of acute pain at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts before being sentenced to prison for healthcare fraud.


Eoörnis pterovelox gobiensis is a fictional bird, a humorous hoax by Lester W. Sharp, professor of botany, Cornell University, United States.


Is that enough, or would you like more...?

So, when those guys were doing these hoaxes and not adhering to the scientific method, they were being scientists?

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2014, 12:42:12 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2014, 12:42:27 PM »
Actually, even professional scientists can do things that are unethical. There can be scientists that are just not good at their job. They are human after all. But pointing at hoaxes and bad science as evidence that the whole field is corrupt, or that they are all wrong or mostly wrong, isn't reasonable. Fraud exists in probably any profession you could name. There are crooked mechanics and plumbers out there. Does that mean that nobody really knows how to unplug a drain or fix an engine? Or that the majority of plumbers are untrustworthy?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2014, 12:44:17 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because they are involved in a hoax?

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2014, 12:44:55 PM »
Actually, even professional scientists can do things that are unethical. There can be scientists that are just not good at their job. They are human after all. But pointing at hoaxes and bad science as evidence that the whole field is corrupt, or that they are all wrong or mostly wrong, isn't reasonable. Fraud exists in probably any profession you could name. There are crooked mechanics and plumbers out there. Does that mean that nobody really knows how to unplug a drain or fix an engine? Or that the majority of plumbers are untrustworthy?

I was proving that ausgeoff was wrong when he claimed that "all scientists use the scientific method." They clearly do not.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2014, 12:45:25 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

You look at their work and judge for yourself. Peer review, while certainly not a perfect system, tends to catch bad science before it gets published in a journal.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2014, 12:50:35 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

You look at their work and judge for yourself. Peer review, while certainly not a perfect system, tends to catch bad science before it gets published in a journal.

You are free to believe that. I do not. It irks me when people suggest that all scientists can be trusted at all times. As you rightly say, they are people and will sometimes lie, manipulate data, leave out contradictory data etc.

The worship of 'science' is worrying.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2014, 12:59:29 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

You look at their work and judge for yourself. Peer review, while certainly not a perfect system, tends to catch bad science before it gets published in a journal.

You are free to believe that. I do not. It irks me when people suggest that all scientists can be trusted at all times. As you rightly say, they are people and will sometimes lie, manipulate data, leave out contradictory data etc.

The worship of 'science' is worrying.
Who says all scientists at all times?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2014, 01:00:41 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

You look at their work and judge for yourself. Peer review, while certainly not a perfect system, tends to catch bad science before it gets published in a journal.

You are free to believe that. I do not. It irks me when people suggest that all scientists can be trusted at all times. As you rightly say, they are people and will sometimes lie, manipulate data, leave out contradictory data etc.

The worship of 'science' is worrying.

I think it is fine to respect and consider to be the best way to understand the world. What's worrisome is the worship of scientists. Not science in and of itself.

*

Socratic Amusement

  • 636
  • An Exercise in Witty Exploration
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2014, 01:08:45 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because it is a self-correcting system. Indeed, this list of hoaxes is evidence of that.

So, thank you for helping my side.
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2014, 01:28:38 PM »


The worship of 'science' is worrying.
Yes this worshiping of science is ridiculous. Put up on a pedestal, wearing a white coat, over inflated ego and half of them paid good money to study drivel. Its just a job, like everybody else has, just a job.
Ancel Keys, who knows how many people have suffered because of this fraud,
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 01:32:08 PM by tappet »

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #41 on: July 25, 2014, 01:34:48 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because it is a self-correcting system. Indeed, this list of hoaxes is evidence of that.

So, thank you for helping my side.

That is a neat and tidy conclusion, but invalid. The list of (known) hoaxes suggests that some scientists lie. It does not suggest that all hoaxes have been exposed or that a hoax will be exposed within a particular time frame.

It also does not necessarily prove that anything that has not been shown to be a hoax is therefore, not a hoax, or is not bad science.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

Socratic Amusement

  • 636
  • An Exercise in Witty Exploration
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #42 on: July 25, 2014, 01:44:19 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because it is a self-correcting system. Indeed, this list of hoaxes is evidence of that.

So, thank you for helping my side.

That is a neat and tidy conclusion, but invalid. The list of (known) hoaxes suggests that some scientists lie. It does not suggest that all hoaxes have been exposed or that a hoax will be exposed within a particular time frame.

It also does not necessarily prove that anything that has not been shown to be a hoax is therefore, not a hoax, or is not bad science.

It does, actually. Because there is no time frame for disapproval during the peer review process. Indeed, Aristotelian physics were held as true for a very long time. But the scientific method proved that school of thought to be invalid. They didn't take it on faith, and trust centuries old convention.

Hell, we have thousands of people around the world, every single day, trying to disprove even the most common and accepted scientific theories.

And yet, they still hold up.

While entirely possible that our current understanding of theories will be refined in the years to come, the chances of a hoax having slipped through for any length of time is so astonishingly small as to in practice be nonexistent.
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #43 on: July 25, 2014, 02:35:20 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because it is a self-correcting system. Indeed, this list of hoaxes is evidence of that.

So, thank you for helping my side.

That is a neat and tidy conclusion, but invalid. The list of (known) hoaxes suggests that some scientists lie. It does not suggest that all hoaxes have been exposed or that a hoax will be exposed within a particular time frame.

It also does not necessarily prove that anything that has not been shown to be a hoax is therefore, not a hoax, or is not bad science.

It does, actually. Because there is no time frame for disapproval during the peer review process. Indeed, Aristotelian physics were held as true for a very long time. But the scientific method proved that school of thought to be invalid. They didn't take it on faith, and trust centuries old convention.

Hell, we have thousands of people around the world, every single day, trying to disprove even the most common and accepted scientific theories.

And yet, they still hold up.

While entirely possible that our current understanding of theories will be refined in the years to come, the chances of a hoax having slipped through for any length of time is so astonishingly small as to in practice be nonexistent.

Nothing but theories. A 'scientist' can spend his entire life investigating a convoluted theory.

What you guys get muddled up on is the difference between science and technology. Technology can increase the processing power in your phone. Or the battery life. Applied scientists are of use. Theoretical scientists are not.

Your obvious mistake is to lump all 'scientists' together.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

Socratic Amusement

  • 636
  • An Exercise in Witty Exploration
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #44 on: July 25, 2014, 02:38:20 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

Because it is a self-correcting system. Indeed, this list of hoaxes is evidence of that.

So, thank you for helping my side.

That is a neat and tidy conclusion, but invalid. The list of (known) hoaxes suggests that some scientists lie. It does not suggest that all hoaxes have been exposed or that a hoax will be exposed within a particular time frame.

It also does not necessarily prove that anything that has not been shown to be a hoax is therefore, not a hoax, or is not bad science.

It does, actually. Because there is no time frame for disapproval during the peer review process. Indeed, Aristotelian physics were held as true for a very long time. But the scientific method proved that school of thought to be invalid. They didn't take it on faith, and trust centuries old convention.

Hell, we have thousands of people around the world, every single day, trying to disprove even the most common and accepted scientific theories.

And yet, they still hold up.

While entirely possible that our current understanding of theories will be refined in the years to come, the chances of a hoax having slipped through for any length of time is so astonishingly small as to in practice be nonexistent.

Nothing but theories. A 'scientist' can spend his entire life investigating a convoluted theory.

What you guys get muddled up on is the difference between science and technology. Technology can increase the processing power in your phone. Or the battery life. Applied scientists are of use. Theoretical scientists are not.

Your obvious mistake is to lump all 'scientists' together.

The scientific method is the scientific method.

Unless you can show a flaw in the conclusion or methodology, which is what the method wants you to do keep in mind, your protestations are hollow and pointless.
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2014, 02:41:03 PM »
Are these 6 million scientists, all astrophysicists or Earth shape experts or does their work vary?

As I said earlier,  and as you too seem confused by the term sceptimatic, a "scientist" refers to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.

Their academic qualifications vary; Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, Ph.D degree etc.  The point is that all scientists adhere to the scientific method.  The flat earth hypothesis does not satisfy any definition of the scientific method.

All 'scientists' adhere to the scientific method? What about the ones who don't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
http://list25.com/25-greatest-scientific-hoaxes-in-history/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-seven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes.html#.U9KqK6bXarg

Good luck trying to wriggle out of this one.

If they are not utilizing the scientific method, then they are not being scientists.

Wow, that was hard.

And how do you know if they used the 'scientific method'?

You look at their work and judge for yourself. Peer review, while certainly not a perfect system, tends to catch bad science before it gets published in a journal.

You are free to believe that. I do not. It irks me when people suggest that all scientists can be trusted at all times. As you rightly say, they are people and will sometimes lie, manipulate data, leave out contradictory data etc.

The worship of 'science' is worrying.

I'd be wary of anyone who said "people from group X can be trusted at all times" while "worshipping" them. However the behaviour of some people towards group X has nothing to do with whether the conclusions of group X are correct or not.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #46 on: July 25, 2014, 02:41:42 PM »

I was proving that ausGeoff was wrong when he claimed that "all scientists use the scientific method." They clearly do not.

Sorry legion, but you weren't "proving me wrong"  LOL.  You just don't get it do you?

Your task—as a flat earther—is to produce empirical evidence that supports your belief that the planet is some sort of flat, planar shape.  The scientific status quo is that it's spherical.

Therefore there's really no point in you citing half a dozen "scientists" who've perpetrated or been the inadvertent victims of hoaxes.  In the overall scheme of things that these forums are all about—a purportedly flat earth—that sort of stuff is totally immaterial.  Rather than trying to denigrate the scientists who've produced unequivocal evidence for the proof of a spherical earth, and denouncing the sciences that support this position, you need to provide empirical evidence of your own to prove your claim of a flat earth.

One doesn't win a debate—any debate—by demonising the evidence of their opponent;  one has to provide their own sound evidence to succeed at a debate.

Thus far, you and your flat earth peers have provided not one single piece of viable scientific evidence that would indicate anything other than that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

The other point you obviously don't understand is that every one of these admitted scientific frauds, delusions, or deliberate misrepresentations have been exposed AND corrected by a plethora other scientists.

So—for the benefit of the flat earth pedants here—I'll rephrase my claim to read "All legitimate scientists use the scientific method".


*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #47 on: July 25, 2014, 02:45:29 PM »

I was proving that ausGeoff was wrong when he claimed that "all scientists use the scientific method." They clearly do not.

Sorry legion, but you weren't "proving me wrong"  LOL.  You just don't get it do you?

Your task—as a flat earther—is to produce empirical evidence that supports your belief that the planet is some sort of flat, planar shape.  The scientific status quo is that it's spherical.

Therefore there's really no point in you citing half a dozen "scientists" who've perpetrated or been the inadvertent victims of hoaxes.  In the overall scheme of things that these forums are all about—a purportedly flat earth—that sort of stuff is totally immaterial.  Rather than trying to denigrate the scientists who've produced unequivocal evidence for the proof of a spherical earth, and denouncing the sciences that support this position, you need to provide empirical evidence of your own to prove your claim of a flat earth.

One doesn't win a debate—any debate—by demonising the evidence of their opponent;  one has to provide their own sound evidence to succeed at a debate.

Thus far, you and your flat earth peers have provided not one single piece of viable scientific evidence that would indicate anything other than that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

The other point you obviously don't understand is that every one of these admitted scientific frauds, delusions, or deliberate misrepresentations have been exposed AND corrected by a plethora other scientists.

So—for the benefit of the flat earth pedants here—I'll rephrase my claim to read "All legitimate scientists use the scientific method".

Amongst all your waffle, the one question I have is:

How does one determine what a legitimate scientist is?
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #48 on: July 25, 2014, 02:48:08 PM »
Geoffrey: you blundered into this thread claiming, and I quote: "all scientists use the scientific method". Just admit that you were wrong and not all do, and the thread can continue on track.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #49 on: July 25, 2014, 02:53:16 PM »

Ancel Keys, who knows how many people have suffered because of this fraud,

Uh... Ancel Keys wasn't a "fraud" as you put it.  He was a well-respected food research scientist.  Again, you've been sucked in by some paranoid alties into believing their bizarre but unfounded claims.  You really need to carry out some of your own research before simply parroting stuff wholesale from CAM sites (as you've obviously done here).

And to be totally transparent with your claim of fraud, you need to cite references to the numbers of people that you allege have "suffered" because of Keys.

So...?


*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2014, 02:55:56 PM »

Ancel Keys, who knows how many people have suffered because of this fraud,

Uh... Ancel Keys wasn't a "fraud" as you put it.  He was a well-respected food research scientist.  Again, you've been sucked in by some paranoid alties into believing their bizarre but unfounded claims.  You really need to carry out some of your own research before simply parroting stuff wholesale from CAM sites (as you've obviously done here).

And to be totally transparent with your claim of fraud, you need to cite references to the numbers of people that you allege have "suffered" because of Keys.

So...?

As usual, you demand references for views you disagree with but fail to provide any for those that you believe in.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 02:58:48 PM by legion »
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2014, 02:58:25 PM »
Geoffrey: you blundered into this thread claiming, and I quote: "all scientists use the scientific method". Just admit that you were wrong and not all do, and the thread can continue on track.

I note that you haven't yet addressed my comment re:  "Thus far, you and your flat earth peers have provided not one single piece of viable scientific evidence that would indicate anything other than that the earth is an oblate spheroid."

Can you please let me know of half a dozen accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model—in order that I can check their qualifications and theories?  So far, no flat earther has been able to comply with that simple task.

—Can you?


*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2014, 03:02:05 PM »
Geoffrey: you blundered into this thread claiming, and I quote: "all scientists use the scientific method". Just admit that you were wrong and not all do, and the thread can continue on track.

I note that you haven't yet addressed my comment re:  "Thus far, you and your flat earth peers have provided not one single piece of viable scientific evidence that would indicate anything other than that the earth is an oblate spheroid."

Can you please let me know of half a dozen accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model—in order that I can check their qualifications and theories?  So far, no flat earther has been able to comply with that simple task.

—Can you?

Geoffy, you have failed to name the six 'scientists' who believe in the flat earth model and have also failed to provide any evidence that six million (I assume mainstream) 'scientists' believe in the spherical earth.

Stop calling everyone who points out that you are a fool a flat earther, and back up your claims.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2014, 03:03:28 PM »

Ancel Keys, who knows how many people have suffered because of this fraud,

Uh... Ancel Keys wasn't a "fraud" as you put it.  He was a well-respected food research scientist.  Again, you've been sucked in by some paranoid alties into believing their bizarre but unfounded claims.  You really need to carry out some of your own research before simply parroting stuff wholesale from CAM sites (as you've obviously done here).



And to be totally transparent with your claim of fraud, you need to cite references to the numbers of people that you allege have "suffered" because of Keys.

So...?

As usual you demand references for views you disagree with but fail to provide any for those that you believe in.

No problem legion.  Here's one of my reference sources for Ancel Keys:  The Truth About Ancel Keys: We’ve All Got It Wrong.

Can you now cite a reference to your claim that I've got Ancel Keys' works/theories wrong, or that he was a "fraud"?


*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #54 on: July 25, 2014, 03:07:34 PM »

Stop calling everyone who points out that you are a fool a flat earther, and back up your claims.

Can you please confirm that you're a genuine "round earther"?

I also note that you've chosen not to—as have ALL flat earthers so far—address this question:

"Can you please let me know of half a dozen accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model—in order that I can check their qualifications and theories?"

So... can you name names?  Yes or no.  Simple question.  Simple answer please.


*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #55 on: July 25, 2014, 03:28:57 PM »

Stop calling everyone who points out that you are a fool a flat earther, and back up your claims.

Can you please confirm that you're a genuine "round earther"?

I also note that you've chosen not to—as have ALL flat earthers so far—address this question:

"Can you please let me know of half a dozen accredited scientists that accept the flat earth model—in order that I can check their qualifications and theories?"

So... can you name names?  Yes or no.  Simple question.  Simple answer please.

Why does is matter if I'm a "round earther"? You have been asked time and again to substantiate your claim that "six million scientists believe in the round earth model".

You seem to be one of those people who finds comfort in believing what everyone else does. Even going so far as to make up statistics. Maybe you would be better off joining a church.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2014, 03:33:15 PM »
I'd be interested to know as well legion. You've implied that you are not a flat earther, but you talk so much like one. What's wrong with just answering the question?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #57 on: July 25, 2014, 06:20:10 PM »
I'd be interested to know as well legion. You've implied that you are not a flat earther, but you talk so much like one. What's wrong with just answering the question?

So... firstly legion won't divulge to us whether or not he's a flat earther, or a round earther.  The only option left is that he's a troll.

He also refuses to name even half a dozen flat earth scientists.  Why is this?  Because he can't LOL.

—The guy is full of it.


?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2014, 11:05:36 PM »

No problem legion.  Here's one of my reference sources for Ancel Keys:  The Truth About Ancel Keys: We’ve All Got It Wrong.

Can you now cite a reference to your claim that I've got Ancel Keys' works/theories wrong, or that he was a "fraud"?
Nice link Geoff. lol
You have linked us to a site that is promoting ruminants
Seriously you can not expect me to read drivel that promotes eating raw vegetation. No wonder they are defending the fraud Keys. lol
People are waking up to the lies Geoff. lol
Have a look at your Time Magazine its full of science. lol
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/time-magazine-we-were-wrong-about-saturated-fats/
The link you have posted is dated 2011 please keep up Geoff.
I vaguely remember Denise Minger from the link you posted destroyed a few years back "The China Study" done by another scientific fraud, Cambell. lol
Then after you have ditched the fat and upped the sugar you can use some more bogus science aka The Friedwald Formula,
To mathematically calculate ldl cholesterol with your raised trigs to then be handed some Lipitor.
Gotta love science.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 11:41:53 PM by tappet »

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: social interaction and personal relationships in a modern world
« Reply #59 on: July 26, 2014, 12:09:21 AM »


  Here's one of my reference sources for Ancel Keys:  The Truth About Ancel Keys: We’ve All Got It Wrong.
By the way , check out your reference sources [Denise Minger] qualifications.
Now that's a "LOL" if ever I have seen one.