Bribase wrote:

You're doing it again, Consistency. Stop blaming people for not accepting the work you are yet to publish. All you are doing is making it sound like your "discoveries" are too flimsy to publish and you are pre-empting their rejection.

Bribase wrote:
No one is going to take your word for it that you have revolutionised the field of biology. Put up or shut up.

Bribase wrote:

If scientific method is a "solid" method, why do scientific paradigms shift?

The two things aren't mutually exclusive are they, Consistency? Science as a methodology is robust in the sense that it produces consistent facts about the world, this is borne out in the way that it informs and enhances technology and medicine that enriches all of our lives.

Science is also subject to change when new evidence comes in via the same method. What's the problem?

consistency wrote:
They are too valid that I am worried of their theft.

consistency wrote:

Bribase wrote:

You're doing it again, Consistency. Stop blaming people for not accepting the work you are yet to publish. All you are doing is making it sound like your "discoveries" are too flimsy to publish and you are pre-empting their rejection.

They are too valid that I am worried of their theft.

Bribase wrote:
No one is going to take your word for it that you have revolutionised the field of biology. Put up or shut up.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer

Bribase wrote:

If scientific method is a "solid" method, why do scientific paradigms shift?

The two things aren't mutually exclusive are they, Consistency? Science as a methodology is robust in the sense that it produces consistent facts about the world, this is borne out in the way that it informs and enhances technology and medicine that enriches all of our lives.

They aren't mutually exclusive but thought pattern is what drives scientific method.

My problem is with the current "thought pattern" in certain indoctrinated scientists which spoil the science and are making science look like a religion.

Science is also subject to change when new evidence comes in via the same method. What's the problem?

Seems to contradict itself.

The problem is that not everything in science is factual and when you say that it is subject to change; this indicates that when information changes, previous information was false all along by being misleading.

Bribase wrote:

consistency wrote:
They are too valid that I am worried of their theft.

It's science, silly. Scientific discoveries are there to be discovered out there in the real world. If you don't claim your discovery, and indeed your reasoning is valid, someone will publish it before you. Of course I'm sure you'd rather argue with people on the internet about how no one will take your assertion that you have revolutionised the field of biology at face value while this happens, all the while claiming that we wouldn't believe you anyway because we're too indoctrinated for this to happen.

I design and build furniture, Consistency. The path to scientific revolution is not to be found by convincing me that science is indoctrination.

Bribase wrote:

consistency wrote:All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer

"Not if, rather than actually publishing what you have discovered, you simply claim that everyone is too indoctrinated to believe you. You'll only really make it as far as ridicule"

-Bribase

Bribase wrote:
You're doing it again. I also explained to you that science changes all of the fucking time, based on new evidence. We have seen this occur within our lifetimes. It is demonstrable that rather than cleaving to doctrine, scientists have allowed new evidence to change our conception of the world. Will you please follow suit and allow this fact to change your conception of what the scientific method entails? If not you may find that it is you who is mired in a specific "Thought pattern".

Bribase wrote:
Scientific research and experiment brings forth facts, facts either confirm or disconfirm hypotheses, sets of confirmed hypotheses grow into overarching frameworks known as theories. We never have all of the facts. Research and experiment, however effective, however controlled and replicated, are never the last word on an issue. Theories are subject to adaptation (or all out-rejection) based on newly accumulated facts.

Consistency, are you arguing that in your conception science ought not to account for new evidence? Would you like to change your thread's title to be ""science" should be indoctrination"? Have a word with the moderators.

aban57 wrote:As a kid, I had science classes at school, and religion classes (at school too).

What is weird, is that when I was taught about a new scientific notion, there always was an experiment to prove i true.

On the other hand, I never had this during catholic classes. How could it be different, since what is written in the bible is shit, and unexplainable/unprovable (God bringing light BEFORE creating the sun for example, or the wole story of Noah).

So, cut this bullshit and go back to school.

laklak wrote:Ah, yet another World Changing Discovery! Fuck me, we've had a few of those over the years, haven't we? Had some doozies over at RDFRS, too. Anyone for a cheesy stick?

consistency wrote:[snip]



When scientists are indoctrinated with false beliefs; wouldn't their work be subjected to their own indoctrination and spoil the science for everyone else?

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

Bribase wrote:There is little more to discuss with you, Consistency. It's cowardly, not to mention deeply unhealthy to blame the field in which you work for not getting the recognition you think you deserve. And to do it to the point of refusing to participate is called "Taking your ball and going home." The only difference is that while you ruminate, complain and construct more elaborate conspiracies about science being in the clutches of "big pharma", science will go on without you. All the while making gains that enrich all of our lives in very real ways.

I feel that the more I engage with you in your perception that you are brilliant and scientists are brainwashed, if only they would consider the studies you are yet to formalise and publish, the more I am sponsoring your delusion of grandure. Even as I attempt to reason you out of it.

sennekuyl wrote:

consistency wrote:[snip]



When scientists are indoctrinated with false beliefs; wouldn't their work be subjected to their own indoctrination and spoil the science for everyone else?

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ ... fwrong.htm

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

consistency wrote:

Bribase wrote:There is little more to discuss with you, Consistency. It's cowardly, not to mention deeply unhealthy to blame the field in which you work for not getting the recognition you think you deserve. And to do it to the point of refusing to participate is called "Taking your ball and going home." The only difference is that while you ruminate, complain and construct more elaborate conspiracies about science being in the clutches of "big pharma", science will go on without you. All the while making gains that enrich all of our lives in very real ways.

I feel that the more I engage with you in your perception that you are brilliant and scientists are brainwashed, if only they would consider the studies you are yet to formalise and publish, the more I am sponsoring your delusion of grandure. Even as I attempt to reason you out of it.

Nice assumptions.

1) I don't work in the flawed system. Hence my outside perspective of a system that hasn't made any discoveries other than manipulate and pave everything in sight to remove the obstacles that make us strong.
2) Anyone who isn't a sheep, must then be crazy. According to your reasoning.
3) I will change how people see our biology but not through the system. Real truth is self evident, bows to no one and requires no praise.
4) Please step off your pedestal since I am the one standing on solid ground.

consistency wrote:

1) I don't work in the flawed system. Hence my outside perspective of a system that hasn't made any discoveries other than manipulate and pave everything in sight to remove the obstacles that make us strong.
2) Anyone who isn't a sheep, must then be crazy. According to your reasoning.
3) I will change how people see our biology but not through the system. Real truth is self evident, bows to no one and requires no praise.
4) Please step off your pedestal since I am the one standing on solid ground.

aban57 wrote:

consistency wrote:

1) I don't work in the flawed system. Hence my outside perspective of a system that hasn't made any discoveries other than manipulate and pave everything in sight to remove the obstacles that make us strong.
2) Anyone who isn't a sheep, must then be crazy. According to your reasoning.
3) I will change how people see our biology but not through the system. Real truth is self evident, bows to no one and requires no praise.
4) Please step off your pedestal since I am the one standing on solid ground.

Why don't you send your pseudo incredible discover to the open source world then ?
No brainwashed sect will prevent them from beeing published there, so go on, and amaze us !

laklak wrote:Ah, yet another World Changing Discovery! Fuck me, we've had a few of those over the years, haven't we? Had some doozies over at RDFRS, too. Anyone for a cheesy stick?