Goldenmane wrote:Something here is reminding me of hobgoblins.

Rumraket wrote:Another selfproclaimed genious about to overthrow science.

Surprise surprise, there's something wrong with... evolutionary biology! What are the odds?

Not thermodynamics, not inorganic chemistry or metallurgy or botany or... no, evolution. Always, curiously, evolution.

Rumraket wrote:Another selfproclaimed genious about to overthrow science.

Surprise surprise, there's something wrong with... evolutionary biology! What are the odds?

Not thermodynamics, not inorganic chemistry or metallurgy or botany or... no, evolution. Always, curiously, evolution.

Matthew Shute wrote:

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 !

But apparently, if he did that, his revolutionary work would be stolen.

So, the way he's going to get this paradigm-changing knowledge out there is to... err... make sure he doesn't tell anyone about it. Because... err... the "real truth" cannot be stopped because it's self-evident anyway. So self-evident is it that it is known only by consistency himself.

Do you see the level of genius you're up against, now? Once again, evolutionary biology will be overthrown! It will, it will, it will.

consistency wrote:Can you guys please go take a dump on another thread?

consistency wrote:Can you guys please go take a dump on another thread?

hackenslash wrote:Ah, it's the old 'groupthink' bollocks. Did you miss us Steveeeee?

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

aban57 wrote:

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 !

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.

consistency wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Ah, it's the old 'groupthink' bollocks. Did you miss us Steveeeee?

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Thanks! I've been wondering what this phenomenon that I've observed was called.

aban57 wrote:

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 !

Open source world?

Can you name one without fees?

Arguments for open science

Some recent controversies around scientific publications illustrate the potential benefits of open science.

Open access publication of research reports and data allow for more rigorous peer review.

An article published by a team of NASA astrobiologists in 2010 in Science reported a new bacterium known as GFAJ-1 that was purported to metabolize arsenic (unlike any previously known species of lifeform). This finding, along with NASA's claim that the paper "will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life", was roundly criticized within the scientific community. Much of the scientific commentary and critique around this issue took place in public forums, most notably on Twitter, where hundreds of scientists and non-scientists created a hashtag community around the hashtag #arseniclife.[25] University of British Columbia astrobiologist Rosie Redfield, one of the most vocal critics of the NASA team's research, also submitted a draft of a research report of a study that she and colleagues conducted which contradicted the NASA team's findings in arXiv,[26] an open research repository, and called for peer review of both their research and the NASA team's original paper on her lab's research blog.[27]

aban57 wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

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 !

But apparently, if he did that, his revolutionary work would be stolen.

So, the way he's going to get this paradigm-changing knowledge out there is to... err... make sure he doesn't tell anyone about it. Because... err... the "real truth" cannot be stopped because it's self-evident anyway. So self-evident is it that it is known only by consistency himself.

Do you see the level of genius you're up against, now? Once again, evolutionary biology will be overthrown! It will, it will, it will.

Well I guess he didn't quite grasp the principle of "open source". Let me explain in simple words : it belongs to no one, so every one can take benefit of it.

There, clearer now ?

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

consistency wrote:Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

Is "Science" an indoctrination?