|
Post by goz on Jan 27, 2020 19:57:48 GMT
It 'could' be argues, as you say that scientists are regular human being with all that goes with that. The DIFFERENCE in science is the collaboration and peer review system that distinguishes science from other (most) academic specialties. The sum of human knowledge which you seem to take for granted when using a computer which is the result of co-operative, collaborative science, is the peer review system which you neither seem to understand or account for in any of your stupid diatribes on the subject of science. You are THAT stupid and stubborn. BTW Statistical analysis is one of many tools used in science, nothing else, you idiot. You're still delusional. Scientists have absolutely nothing other people in any other disciplines do not have. The most important thing to remember with "peer review" is that you are not one. Of course that can be problematic in any discipline. The work of scientists and me appreciating it ( why are you using a fucking computer or electricity or any other technology you hypocritical fraud?) is the EXACT opposite of delusional. It is evidence based and when each of the scientists who understand the method can replicate others' results, that piece of knowledge become part of the compendium of human knowledge upon which other scientists can build further knowledge One doesn't have to BE a scientists to understand it BTW
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2020 22:54:42 GMT
You're still delusional. Scientists have absolutely nothing other people in any other disciplines do not have. The most important thing to remember with "peer review" is that you are not one. Of course that can be problematic in any discipline. The work of scientists and me appreciating it ( why are you using a fucking computer or electricity or any other technology you hypocritical fraud?) is the EXACT opposite of delusional. It is evidence based and when each of the scientists who understand the method can replicate others' results, that piece of knowledge become part of the compendium of human knowledge upon which other scientists can build further knowledge One doesn't have to BE a scientists to understand it BTW If you could replicate results you wouldn't have so much trouble being accepted. The problem is you can't and don't understand anything enough to even try.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 28, 2020 1:22:12 GMT
The work of scientists and me appreciating it ( why are you using a fucking computer or electricity or any other technology you hypocritical fraud?) is the EXACT opposite of delusional. It is evidence based and when each of the scientists who understand the method can replicate others' results, that piece of knowledge become part of the compendium of human knowledge upon which other scientists can build further knowledge One doesn't have to BE a scientists to understand it BTW If you could replicate results you wouldn't have so much trouble being accepted. The problem is you can't and don't understand anything enough to even try. WTF are you on about? I am a writer. Though I am not a career scientist I actually keep up with scientific research and discoveries. What makes you think that you can't have knowledge without doing it yourself? Have you split the atom? and yet EVEN you must acknowledge that is possible because of the atomic explosions on the history. You are too stupid to breathe.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2020 2:41:04 GMT
If you could replicate results you wouldn't have so much trouble being accepted. The problem is you can't and don't understand anything enough to even try. WTF are you on about? I am a writer. Though I am not a career scientist I actually keep up with scientific research and discoveries. What makes you think that you can't have knowledge without doing it yourself? Have you split the atom? and yet EVEN you must acknowledge that is possible because of the atomic explosions on the history. You are too stupid to breathe. I built my own cloud chamber. I never built a mass spectrometer, but I suspect it's easier than it looks. Much about particle physics can be readily explained and duplicated short of meltdown, and accepted, providing of course the dangers are understood and carefully avoided.
|
|