|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 5, 2023 16:46:44 GMT
Swine as smart as you pretend to be should know what the word "hypothetical" means. You did not use that word in your post nor did you make any effort to communicate anything other than what you would do if you were running things. I didn't have to. The words "if" and "would" convey it adequately. More like you read your own meaning into it. That's because you're a sociopath. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 5, 2023 16:49:19 GMT
But I'm not the one who's doing it, nor did I say I was willing to do it. I was calling out the ones who are doing it. You said you would do the same if you had scientists on you're payroll. And they would, but I didn't say I would. You see, I have something called morality. When science loses its objectivity, it isn't science anymore. It's gangster science. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 5, 2023 16:51:49 GMT
That's because you're a sociopath. It's always projection with you people. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 5, 2023 16:52:59 GMT
That's because you're a sociopath. It's always projection with you people. "You people?" That's racist, dude.  |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jan 5, 2023 16:54:16 GMT
You said you would do the same if you had scientists on you're payroll. And they would, but I didn't say I would. You see, I have something called morality. When science loses its objectivity, it isn't science anymore. It's gangster science. You literally said this.: "If you were a scientist on my payroll, you would find whatever conclusion I told you to find" You said you have something called morality. Well so do others including scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 5, 2023 17:03:49 GMT
And they would, but I didn't say I would. You see, I have something called morality. When science loses its objectivity, it isn't science anymore. It's gangster science. You literally said this.: "If you were a scientist on my payroll, you would find whatever conclusion I told you to find" And it's true. If I told you to come up with proof that the world took 4.5 billion years to come into being, you'd do it. And if I told you to come up with proof that the world was created a few measly thousand years ago, you'd do that. You'd do it, or you'd be off the payroll. That's how gangster science works. They might have something called morality, but they also have something else called bills to pay, and it can supersede morality, and it has. |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jan 5, 2023 17:11:21 GMT
You literally said this.: "If you were a scientist on my payroll, you would find whatever conclusion I told you to find" And it's true. If I told you to come up with proof that the world took 4.5 billion years to come into being, you'd do it. And if I told you to come up with proof that the world was created a few measly thousand years ago, you'd do that. You'd do it, or you'd be off the payroll. That's how gangster science works. They might have something called morality, but they also have something else called bills to pay, and it can supersede morality, and it has. Or I could just quit and go work somewhere else. Like I said, just because you think some scientists might be corrupt, it doesn't mean everyone is. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 5, 2023 17:13:02 GMT
And it's true. If I told you to come up with proof that the world took 4.5 billion years to come into being, you'd do it. And if I told you to come up with proof that the world was created a few measly thousand years ago, you'd do that. You'd do it, or you'd be off the payroll. That's how gangster science works. They might have something called morality, but they also have something else called bills to pay, and it can supersede morality, and it has. Or I could just quit and go work somewhere else. Like I said, just because you think some scientists might be corrupt, it doesn't mean everyone is. As I said before, not all scientists are corrupt, but there are penalties for going against the paradigm. |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jan 5, 2023 17:19:03 GMT
Or I could just quit and go work somewhere else. Like I said, just because you think some scientists might be corrupt, it doesn't mean everyone is. As I said before, not all scientists are corrupt, but there are penalties for going against the paradigm. Usually only if going against the paradigm is just presenting things with insufficient evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 5, 2023 17:24:51 GMT
As I said before, not all scientists are corrupt, but there are penalties for going against the paradigm. Usually only if going against the paradigm is just presenting things with insufficient evidence. Going against the paradigm means that whatever evidence one presents will be insufficient. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 5, 2023 18:06:50 GMT
Going against the paradigm means that whatever evidence one presents will be insufficient. As it should be. If a model has been solidly established, you can't just offer one study or one data point to take it down and have it replaced. You have to come at it from all kinds of directions with a variety of different kinds of evidence, other scientists who disagree with you have to be able to get the same results when they duplicate your work, and if you are right, the scientific community will come around to your point of view. This happens all the time. If it isn't happening in favor of ideas you personally believe, the overwhelming odds are that your ideas are complete bullshit. That's the only reason why people like you and Heeeeey consistently avoid talking about about specific models and specific evidence to support them, and keep changing the subject to delusions about conspiracies to put down the nonsense you believe. There's nothing more going on, here. |
|
