Science: Only correct if it fits the popular narrative

[PE Scott + 563]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

Person has carried our zero science on topic

We've gone over this. You do not have to actively gather data to analyze it. Just because I didnt go physically collect production data from wells in a certain region or reservoir doesn't mean I'm incapable of providing a scientific analysis based on that data collected by someone else. 

Just because I haven't conducted a double slit experiment in my living room doesn't mean I don't believe the results.

If all the apollo astronauts die, I presume we can no longer conduct any experiments or test on samples the brought back or data they collected?

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, PE Scott said:

We've gone over this. You do not have to actively gather data to analyze it. Just because I didnt go physically collect production data from wells in a certain region or reservoir doesn't mean I'm incapable of providing a scientific analysis based on that data collected by someone else. 

Then you are not carrying out science in the area you are wanting publish but the bit you overlooked is that this person put together an hypothesis that was not just novel it was spurious to the point of being scientifically laughable and as a result her attempts to have her fabled paper published continue to fall on the ears of reason.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

These kinds of broad associations are insults. 

 

I agree with you on that. Perhaps that is part of the problem, science shouldn't be politically motivated. There again, that's why firing someone based on the findings of their research is crazy. Write a paper, discredit that person professionally by pointing out how they've manipulated the data or taken a biased approach.....but you don't fire them. Perhaps if the scientific method were followed, by participants on both sides, a reasonable debate could be had and likely a more accurate and better conclusion can be drawn. 

Don't take it as an insult.  As I said I have mixed feelings about it because:

1. It is a broad categorization.

2.  And even if it's (generally) accurate, this attitude has both good and bad points.  I like basic research more than the average conservative but at the same time I like money.  

Edited November 17, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

 

”If all the apollo astronauts die, I presume we can no longer conduct any experiments or test on samples the brought back or data they collected?”

 

Correct, all that data will be lost and we’ll have to go again...

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Don't take it as an insult.  As I said I have mixed feelings about it because:

1. It is a broad categorization.

2.  And even if it's (generally) accurate, this attitude has both good and bad points.  I like basic research more than the average conservative but at the same time I like money.  

How to you quantify how much a conservative ‘likes’ basic research?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

LOL.  Purely by subjective means.  It's my opinion. You've got yours. We'll leave it at that.  

Edited November 17, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Actually I have never taken the time to form an opinion on how much an individual ‘likes’ basic research, let alone based on their political views. To me this seems a waste of time and would be based on an odd criteria.

[PE Scott + 563]

8 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Don't take it as an insult.  As I said I have mixed feelings about it because:

1. It is a broad categorization.

2.  And even if it's (generally) accurate, this attitude has both good and bad points.  I like basic research more than the average conservative but at the same time I like money.  

I missed an entire page of this thread that lent some context to your other posts. My mistake, I misunderstood you're original point.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 11/16/2019 at 3:19 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

 Do they have a hidden agenda or an ulterior motive?

ehhh...

Ofcourse there's a motive : They don't want to loose money... 

 

[remake it + 288]

23 hours ago, PE Scott said:

If all the apollo astronauts die, I presume we can no longer conduct any experiments or test on samples the brought back or data they collected?

Nothing prevents experiments or test on the samples they brought back, and the data they collected remains the same data, so you presumption does not seem sound. 

[PE Scott + 563]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

Nothing prevents experiments or test on the samples they brought back, and the data they collected remains the same data, so you presumption does not seem sound. 

Your presumption, my analogy. 

[remake it + 288]

45 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Your presumption, my analogy. 

It's actually a statement about the fact that what you said, by way of your presumption, is false.

Edited November 18, 2019 by remake it
spelling was ass about

[Guest]

[PE Scott + 563]

3 hours ago, remake it said:

Nothing prevents experiments or test on the samples they brought back, and the data they collected remains the same data, so you presumption does not seem sound. 

Exactly, my analogy of the astronauts was designed to be completely ridiculous. You are the one who is so set on arguing anything and everything that you're attacking even that, which is silly as anyone with 2 neurons could tell I was making a point of just how ridiculous of an assumption that would be.

However, even after admitting that the astronaut analogy makes no sense, you apply the same criteria with the polar bear argument. Many scientist will never make it to polar bear habitats to collect data and do research just as it's highly unlikely most geologist will ever make it to the moon to study it in person. Instead, they rely on the data and research of others. This data an research conducted by people with boots on the ground is then relayed to others who conduct further experiments and analysis based on that data. These scientists who conduct further research on data provided by others are of no more or less consequence than the people who provided the data in the first place based solely on whether they collected it or not. So why then does it matter whether a scientist physically collected the samples or not? You have ensenuated that polar bear research conducted by those who don't physically go and collect it is meaningless. How does that make any sense.

 

Just for a second, take a step back, look at what you write.

Don't you see why people on here find you incredibly abrasive? I, for one, do not believe you to be stupid. I think you are being purposefully difficult when I'm certain you understand the message I was trying to convey and you instead go convolute things further. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by PE Scott

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

I think you are being purposefully difficult when I'm certain you understand the message I was trying to convey

 

 

[PE Scott + 563]

Just now, DayTrader said:

 

 

He/She is fishing for the insults. It gives "it" the accreditation "it" is looking for. Unable to speak on the content of the argument, it attacks the semantics and other things in an attempt to discredit the poster. This kind of argument is meaningless, as @Zhong Lu pointed out.

I'm a proponent of the scientific method, repeatable results, that kind of stuff. I got incensed when I saw where someone was allegedly dismissed from her position because her research produced controversial results. Again, this has nothing to do with the accuracy or validity of her paper. It's how it was handled that was wrong. As @Zhong Lu pointed out, its political not scientific. Thats what bothers me.

@remake it will probably be the first to earn a block from me. Not because I dislike what he/she says, but because he/she never lends anything of substance to the discussion and engaging feels like a waste of time.

[remake it + 288]

22 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

However, even after admitting that the astronaut analogy makes no sense, you apply the same criteria with the polar bear argument. Many scientist will never make it to polar bear habitats to collect data and do research just as it's highly unlikely most geologist will ever make it to the moon to study it in person. Instead, they rely on the data and research of others. This data an research conducted by people with boots on the ground is then relayed to others who conduct further experiments and analysis based on that data. 

You cannot "experiment" with data, so what you understand about science is not science at all, and that is why your OP is a total beatup by people who know very little about science.

[PE Scott + 563]

 

3 minutes ago, remake it said:

You cannot "experiment" with data, so what you understand about science is not science at all, and that is why your OP is a total beatup by people who know very little about science.

True, you could experiment with samples.....something I lumped into data. Again attacking the semantics when you understand full and well what the message was. Carry on proving my point.

Edit: this isn't completely accurate either as I've certainly used thrid party data to inform lab experiments. For example, I might use the observed acoustic residence of a blood cell infected by measles to help me select some other particle with similar properties to conduct experiments with. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by PE Scott

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, PE Scott said:

True, you could experiment with samples.....something I lumped into data. Again attacking the semantics when you understand full and well what the message was. Carry on proving my point.

Samples are definitely not data and if you believe they can be lumped together then it is fundamental to the problem you have differentiating  pseudoscience from science: you are digging a deeper hole for yourself each time you post.

[PE Scott + 563]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

Samples are definitely not data and if you believe they can be lumped together then it is fundamental to the problem you have differentiating  pseudoscience from science: you are digging a deeper hole for yourself each time you post.

No. To any one reading this they see that you are being needlessly pedantic because you lack the ability to form a critical argument.

[remake it + 288]

Just now, PE Scott said:

No. To any one reading this they see that you are being needlessly pedantic because you lack the ability to form a critical argument.

Completely untrue as a "sample" would be something that is able to have a/any scientific method applied to it in order to get data/information, and this is a basic concept rather than what you consider pedantry.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

No. To any one reading this they see that you are being needlessly pedantic because you lack the ability to form a critical argument.

19 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

will probably be the first to earn a block from me.

DING

How's that blocking working out for you lol? 🤣 You're as bad as @Rob Plant , you lasted 8 minutes from what I can see 🤣 Just kidding, I get it, it's like an addiction, you have to see the latest diversions and utter shite. Yes @Ward Smith , ''shite''   

#bot

 

[PE Scott + 563]

I'd like to thank those of you who had a positive contribution to this thread. Now, as it has devolved into and argument over proper vocabulary, I think we've exhausted the capacity for further intellectual discourse. 

If you would please be so kind @Selva, would you please lock this one up? It's not going anywhere constructive

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, PE Scott said:

I'd like to thank those of you who had a positive contribution to this thread. Now, as it has devolved into and argument over proper vocabulary, I think we've exhausted the capacity for further intellectual discourse. 

If you would please be so kind @Selva, would you please lock this one up? It's not going anywhere constructive

This is what people do when they are shown to have warped views of reality - pretend they are right and hide from the evidence which proves otherwise: it's a sad indictment of so many posters here.

[Guest]

@PE Scott

1. I disagree with that

2. My handler will never have an argument

3. I will constantly attack others' arguments, despite number 2

4. I have never agreed with anyone on the forum, about any topic, unless it's Frankfurter and anti USA in some way

5. My pedantic level is through the roof

6. I have faulty wiring

 

There you go mate, the remake it philosophy for you