|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2020 19:51:50 GMT
You remain as ignorant as you clearly are. Do you ever wish you were smarter? I mean if somebody doesn't do something soon Donald Trump will win again in November, impeachment or not. I doubt that's a good thing. Why do you suppose he won in the first place? I think it means his opponents are not really scientific enough. Like you they merely have a childlike and misguided faith in science. Of course I was trying to tell them that they weren't scientific enough before he won, but no one much listens to me. Congratulations. You have a great skill in saying precisely opposing views in two consecutive sentences. Are Trump voters too scientific or not scientific enough? You remind me of the other village idiot Erjenious claiming time and time again that CO2 levels are dangerously low!
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Jan 19, 2020 20:48:05 GMT
Okay, just to be safe, everyone start eating rocks.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 19, 2020 22:12:11 GMT
Do you ever wish you were smarter? I mean if somebody doesn't do something soon Donald Trump will win again in November, impeachment or not. I doubt that's a good thing. Why do you suppose he won in the first place? I think it means his opponents are not really scientific enough. Like you they merely have a childlike and misguided faith in science. Of course I was trying to tell them that they weren't scientific enough before he won, but no one much listens to me.Congratulations. You have a great skill in saying precisely opposing views in two consecutive sentences. Are Trump voters too scientific or not scientific enough? You remind me of the other village idiot Erjenious claiming time and time again that CO2 levels are dangerously low! Trump followers do not need to be experts in science to defeat you. When I say that they can easily defeat you I do not mean that they as a group know much science, nor that they have to, their opponents (and you) are just that bad. His opponents (plural) are like you (singular and specific). Does that help? There are very many Trump opponents and they are mostly very much like you. His other opponents are like you. His followers have little in common with you. The "my side all good, your side all bad" view is crippling a lot of people. It is a far more complicated world than you appear able follow. It is not true that anyone with the slightest faith in religion must be incapable of science. Nor is it true that anyone with the slightest interest in science can boil water. There are very intelligent people who understand that religion has an important and irreplaceable purpose in society. Some scientists are actually capable of making a Spanish omelette. And there are idiots on both sides. To complicate things further, yes, although Trump supporters typically ignore most "science," some of them as people who do what they are told without question do what they are told by doctors, also without question.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2020 22:18:19 GMT
Congratulations. You have a great skill in saying precisely opposing views in two consecutive sentences. Are Trump voters too scientific or not scientific enough? You remind me of the other village idiot Erjenious claiming time and time again that CO2 levels are dangerously low! Trump followers do not need to be experts in science to defeat you. When I say that they can easily defeat you I do not mean that they as a group know much science, nor that they have to, their opponents (and you) are just that bad. His opponents (plural) are like you (singular and specific). Does that help? There are very many Trump opponents and they are mostly very much like you. His other opponents are like you. His followers have little in common with you. The "my side all good, your side all bad" view is crippling a lot of people. It is a far more complicated world than you appear able follow. It is not true that anyone with the slightest faith in religion must be incapable of science. Nor is it true that anyone with the slightest interest in science can boil water. There are very intelligent people who understand that religion has an important and irreplaceable purpose in society. Some scientists are actually capable of making a Spanish omelette. And there are idiots on both sides. To complicate things further, yes, although Trump supporters typically ignore most "science," some of them as people who do what they are told without question do what they are told by doctors, also without question. Do you seriously think that you are making ANY sense? That is gobbldegook!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 19, 2020 22:20:01 GMT
Congratulations. You have a great skill in saying precisely opposing views in two consecutive sentences. Are Trump voters too scientific or not scientific enough? You remind me of the other village idiot Erjenious claiming time and time again that CO2 levels are dangerously low! Trump followers do not need to be experts in science to defeat you. When I say that they can easily defeat you I do not mean that they as a group know much science, nor that they have to, their opponents (and you) are just that bad. His opponents (plural) are like you (singular and specific). Does that help? There are very many Trump opponents and they are mostly very much like you. His other opponents are like you. His followers have little in common with you. The "my side all good, your side all bad" view is crippling a lot of people. It is a far more complicated world than you appear able follow. It is not true that anyone with the slightest faith in religion must be incapable of science. Nor is it true that anyone with the slightest interest in science can boil water. There are very intelligent people who understand that religion has an important and irreplaceable purpose in society. Some scientists are actually capable of making a Spanish omelette. And there are idiots on both sides. To complicate things further, yes, although Trump supporters typically ignore most "science," some of them as people who do what they are told without question do what they are told by doctors, also without question.
The provided evidence for at least one idiot in this thread for example is over whelming.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 19, 2020 22:35:44 GMT
Trump followers do not need to be experts in science to defeat you. When I say that they can easily defeat you I do not mean that they as a group know much science, nor that they have to, their opponents (and you) are just that bad. His opponents (plural) are like you (singular and specific). Does that help? There are very many Trump opponents and they are mostly very much like you. His other opponents are like you. His followers have little in common with you. The "my side all good, your side all bad" view is crippling a lot of people. It is a far more complicated world than you appear able follow. It is not true that anyone with the slightest faith in religion must be incapable of science. Nor is it true that anyone with the slightest interest in science can boil water. There are very intelligent people who understand that religion has an important and irreplaceable purpose in society. Some scientists are actually capable of making a Spanish omelette. And there are idiots on both sides. To complicate things further, yes, although Trump supporters typically ignore most "science," some of them as people who do what they are told without question do what they are told by doctors, also without question. Do you seriously think that you are making ANY sense? That is gobbldegook! It is more complicated than Chutes and Ladders, and thus likely beyond your reach.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2020 23:25:24 GMT
Do you seriously think that you are making ANY sense? That is gobbldegook! It is more complicated than Chutes and Ladders, and thus likely beyond your reach. Don't look now, your Dunning Kruger slip is showing!
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 19, 2020 23:39:16 GMT
Okay, just to be safe, everyone start eating rocks. Safety won't be certain until we eliminate all living things with mouths (and especially teeth)! Edit: just thought that tongues are also especially dangerous. We should start with those.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 21, 2020 14:00:27 GMT
Name-calling now, Arlon? You must really be out of arguments. Scientists have a very good reason NOT to lie as I explained in my last post. If you want to live in Erjen's conspiracy theory land where most/all scientists are lying (including those peer-reviewing research, including those replicating research), then that's up to you; but I guarantee the only one who looks stupid here is you. As goz said, disagreement is not lying. I dare you to find a scientists who was caught lying who wasn't caught by other scientists. Go ahead. I'll wait. I feel sorry for you. You seem to think one must learn everything in life by themselves and can't rely on experts. Did you doubt every textbook you read as a kid (including the science ones written by scientists with reasons to lie)? Do you doubt every news report? Where does this "skepticism" end? If you could follow the arguments I wouldn't need to clue you in otherwise. You're welcome. I'm not seeing the relevance in who catches whom. I'm certain much isn't caught. I'm certain much doesn't make the news. Consider the cannabinoid study, nobody cares what you believe about it. You seem to be aware that experts must be challenged by someone or other. Why not you? That's okay, I can guess. You'd have to have arguments that were worth following, and you do not, which is why nobody (except Erjen, maybe) takes you seriously. The relevance is that if scientists were lying so frequently (as you suggest) then they should be caught more frequently, and by people other than other scientists. The fact that only scientists catch other scientists lying shows that the peer-review process works and that most scientists are interested in the truth and will call out other scientists when they catch them lying. Show an example of where YOU'VE caught a scientist lying. Yes, experts must be challenged by other experts, and they are. That's what peer-review is, that's what experimental replication is.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 21, 2020 22:59:11 GMT
If you could follow the arguments I wouldn't need to clue you in otherwise. You're welcome. I'm not seeing the relevance in who catches whom. I'm certain much isn't caught. I'm certain much doesn't make the news. Consider the cannabinoid study, nobody cares what you believe about it. You seem to be aware that experts must be challenged by someone or other. Why not you? That's okay, I can guess. You'd have to have arguments that were worth following, and you do not, which is why nobody (except Erjen, maybe) takes you seriously. The relevance is that if scientists were lying so frequently (as you suggest) then they should be caught more frequently, and by people other than other scientists. The fact that only scientists catch other scientists lying shows that the peer-review process works and that most scientists are interested in the truth and will call out other scientists when they catch them lying. Show an example of where YOU'VE caught a scientist lying. Yes, experts must be challenged by other experts, and they are. That's what peer-review is, that's what experimental replication is. Nobody here takes me seriously, but then nobody takes anyone here seriously. I suppose it's fair enough that you don't since I never take you seriously. Many of the ads I see on TV "side" channels (12.s where s = the side channel) are for lawyers who have judgements against all sorts of scientists. You keep saying "show this" and "show that" immediately after you've been shown. That's very annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 22, 2020 15:00:36 GMT
You'd have to have arguments that were worth following, and you do not, which is why nobody (except Erjen, maybe) takes you seriously. The relevance is that if scientists were lying so frequently (as you suggest) then they should be caught more frequently, and by people other than other scientists. The fact that only scientists catch other scientists lying shows that the peer-review process works and that most scientists are interested in the truth and will call out other scientists when they catch them lying. Show an example of where YOU'VE caught a scientist lying. Yes, experts must be challenged by other experts, and they are. That's what peer-review is, that's what experimental replication is. Nobody here takes me seriously, but then nobody takes anyone here seriously. I suppose it's fair enough that you don't since I never take you seriously. Many of the ads I see on TV "side" channels (12.s where s = the side channel) are for lawyers who have judgements against all sorts of scientists. You keep saying "show this" and "show that" immediately after you've been shown. That's very annoying. OK, maybe your family and friends take you seriously. I can guarantee that no scholars, academics, scientists, or experts on anything (would) take you seriously. They might get a good chuckle out of you, though, as everyone here does. LMAO, what you see are lawyers who have cases against pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies may employ scientists to test their products, but that doesn't mean that they understand all the possible risks--especially long-term risks--and that's when lawsuits happen. It doesn't mean the scientists lied about anything. When and where did you show that you (or any non-scientist) caught any scientist lying? Just link to the post in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 22, 2020 16:15:25 GMT
You'd have to have arguments that were worth following, and you do not, which is why nobody (except Erjen, maybe) takes you seriously. The relevance is that if scientists were lying so frequently (as you suggest) then they should be caught more frequently, and by people other than other scientists. The fact that only scientists catch other scientists lying shows that the peer-review process works and that most scientists are interested in the truth and will call out other scientists when they catch them lying. Show an example of where YOU'VE caught a scientist lying. Yes, experts must be challenged by other experts, and they are. That's what peer-review is, that's what experimental replication is. Nobody here takes me seriously, but then nobody takes anyone here seriously. I suppose it's fair enough that you don't since I never take you seriously. Many of the ads I see on TV "side" channels (12.s where s = the side channel) are for lawyers who have judgements against all sorts of scientists. You keep saying "show this" and "show that" immediately after you've been shown. That's very annoying. This is not the case. For me there is a broad spectrum for frequent posters here, and I'm quite sure that's true for many others. There's no such thing as a social animal where reputation isn't important.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 22, 2020 23:07:50 GMT
Nobody here takes me seriously, but then nobody takes anyone here seriously. I suppose it's fair enough that you don't since I never take you seriously. Many of the ads I see on TV "side" channels (12.s where s = the side channel) are for lawyers who have judgements against all sorts of scientists. You keep saying "show this" and "show that" immediately after you've been shown. That's very annoying. OK, maybe your family and friends take you seriously. I can guarantee that no scholars, academics, scientists, or experts on anything (would) take you seriously. They might get a good chuckle out of you, though, as everyone here does. LMAO, what you see are lawyers who have cases against pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies may employ scientists to test their products, but that doesn't mean that they understand all the possible risks--especially long-term risks--and that's when lawsuits happen. It doesn't mean the scientists lied about anything. When and where did you show that you (or any non-scientist) caught any scientist lying? Just link to the post in this thread. I've never recognized a "no true Scotsman" fallacy before, and I'm not going to start now. Just try to be even handed. If you can throw blame off to underlings, then I can too.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 22, 2020 23:13:10 GMT
Nobody here takes me seriously, but then nobody takes anyone here seriously. I suppose it's fair enough that you don't since I never take you seriously. Many of the ads I see on TV "side" channels (12.s where s = the side channel) are for lawyers who have judgements against all sorts of scientists. You keep saying "show this" and "show that" immediately after you've been shown. That's very annoying. This is not the case. For me there is a broad spectrum for frequent posters here, and I'm quite sure that's true for many others. There's no such thing as a social animal where reputation isn't important. The power of a "reputation" has recently been dealt a serious kick. A "reputation" good with Republicans is not good with Democrats, and the other way around as well. Necessarily the system will get overhauled, but there is the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2020 23:44:53 GMT
This is not the case. For me there is a broad spectrum for frequent posters here, and I'm quite sure that's true for many others. There's no such thing as a social animal where reputation isn't important. The power of a "reputation" has recently been dealt a serious kick. A "reputation" good with Republicans is not good with Democrats, and the other way around as well. Necessarily the system will get overhauled, but there is the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 23, 2020 15:12:25 GMT
OK, maybe your family and friends take you seriously. I can guarantee that no scholars, academics, scientists, or experts on anything (would) take you seriously. They might get a good chuckle out of you, though, as everyone here does. LMAO, what you see are lawyers who have cases against pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies may employ scientists to test their products, but that doesn't mean that they understand all the possible risks--especially long-term risks--and that's when lawsuits happen. It doesn't mean the scientists lied about anything. When and where did you show that you (or any non-scientist) caught any scientist lying? Just link to the post in this thread. I've never recognized a "no true Scotsman" fallacy before, and I'm not going to start now. Just try to be even handed. If you can throw blame off to underlings, then I can too. Classic Arl(n)on sequitur. Still no examples of where you (or any non-scientist) caught scientists lying?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 23, 2020 21:51:43 GMT
I've never recognized a "no true Scotsman" fallacy before, and I'm not going to start now. Just try to be even handed. If you can throw blame off to underlings, then I can too. Classic Arl(n)on sequitur. Still no examples of where you (or any non-scientist) caught scientists lying? It doesn't matter whether they're liars or just hopeless busybodies, they're still wrong.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2020 2:21:54 GMT
Classic Arl(n)on sequitur. Still no examples of where you (or any non-scientist) caught scientists lying? It doesn't matter whether they're liars or just hopeless busybodies, they're still wrong. Wrong? Scientists? What about and why? It is one of the few areas of human endeavour where there must be a consensus on science by many scientists in the peer review system before knowledge is accepted, and experimental results can be replicated by others.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 24, 2020 3:17:28 GMT
It doesn't matter whether they're liars or just hopeless busybodies, they're still wrong. Wrong? Scientists? What about and why? It is one of the few areas of human endeavour where there must be a consensus on science by many scientists in the peer review system before knowledge is accepted, and experimental results can be replicated by others. As I was saying elsewhere there are ads on TV all day for lawyers who won judgements against "scientists." Will you never learn? Scientists are just regular human beings with the same flaws as anyone else. Again, statistical analysis is not science ceteris paribus, however much you worship at its feet.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 25, 2020 19:58:08 GMT
Wrong? Scientists? What about and why? It is one of the few areas of human endeavour where there must be a consensus on science by many scientists in the peer review system before knowledge is accepted, and experimental results can be replicated by others. As I was saying elsewhere there are ads on TV all day for lawyers who won judgements against "scientists." Will you never learn? Scientists are just regular human beings with the same flaws as anyone else. Again, statistical analysis is not science ceteris paribus, however much you worship at its feet. It would be helpful to your claim to, first, meaningful define what you mean by scientists (which I know you can't or won't since you have said as much) and then to link, or show, one of these adverts that are 'on all day'. I don't know what it is like in Arlon County, but in the UK the adverts are regularly all about claiming compensation for accidents not one's fault and not any perceived or anticipated failures by 'science'. There has been a lot of talk lately about the high level of compensation paid out by the NHS for medical failures certainly but this is not in the context of 'science' as you would have it, just the failures and cover up by medical institutions after failure of care. Otherwise, all things being equal, (the same as the pretentious ceteris paribus you so often trot out) your unsubstantiated and un-defined claims can be dismissed with the same force as they are usually made.
|
|