Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
White Crane Feather

Dogmatic Science

96 posts in this topic

A goat noise? Ok that's funny, but I have seen you do many times to others.

Quote it retract it.

Advanced search finds 2 instances of posts from me with "haha"--Both from quoting other people. Didn't happen dude. You need a better memory or to stop confusing me with others.

Edit: This would probably be a sweet segue into some rambling post on preconceived stereotypes and projections (you know the defense mechanism kind). But my time on winter break is only so long and I have other things to do!

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to point something else out. You say that as if its an incredibly hard thing to do. Again, your naivety about academia is hanging out in the open (maybe you like to leave those parts hang out to, just like the other ones you wanted to show BM--BTW do you have your chest hair count in yet?)

If you have some sound (or even sometimes not so sound) science to do, hypotheses, experiments, etc its easy as warm apple pie to get grants. No seriously, have you any idea how easy it is to get grants for studies (insert ridiculous research here <--I'm a link in case your not savvy enough to notice)?

And I would think your arrogance hangs out. I do live outside of academia, thank god, while you think it makes me nieve, I think I can look at it from the outside critically, rather than be mired in it.

In business, we laugh at what academia has to offer the business world.

I think there is a rodney dangerfield movie about that "back to school" I think.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about you, are you immune?

Of course, I'm seeker79 ;)

Are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I would think your arrogance hangs out. I do live outside of academia, thank god, while you think it makes me nieve, I think I can look at it from the outside critically, rather than be mired in it.

In business, we laugh at what academia has to offer the business world.

My arrogance? Your the one making up lies about me!?!

Uh, yes it does make you naive. The same way someone outside of NASA would be naive about the inner workings of NASA. Or the same way someone outside of the NFL, would be naive about the going-ons of the NFL locker room.

Not sure what is so funny about academia though from a business prospective. From someone who owns a business (even whilst back in school) ideas from academia make money!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote it retract it.

Advanced search finds 2 instances of posts from me with "haha"--Both from quoting other people. Didn't happen dude. You need a better memory or to stop confusing me with others.

Edit: This would probably be a sweet segue into some rambling post on preconceived stereotypes and projections (you know the defense mechanism kind). But my time on winter break is only so long and I have other things to do!

Dude.... On of the first arguments I had with you, I got pmed warning me how much ridicule you were going to throw my way. Just look back on your post here and figure it out. It's not hard to miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, I'm seeker79 ;)

Are you?

No not at all. After all I am a human. However I try to be aware of my biases and cognitive deficits.

I was all prepared to say what a great scientist you'd make--Being aware of your own, however that seems it isn't the case!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My arrogance? Your the one making up lies about me!?!

Uh, yes it does make you naive. The same way someone outside of NASA would be naive about the inner workings of NASA. Or the same way someone outside of the NFL, would be naive about the going-ons of the NFL locker room.

Not sure what is so funny about academia though from a business prospective. From someone who owns a business (even whilst back in school) ideas from academia make money!!!

Ideas don't make money, business people make money.

An NFL locker room really? Epitomie of unrestrained group and click like behavior.

NASA?... Is overseen by outsiders for a reason. I think it's called congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude.... On of the first arguments I had with you, I got pmed warning me how much ridicule you were going to throw my way. Just look back on your post here and figure it out. It's not hard to miss.

So you're saying you let someone else form your opinion of me for you--And you've been laboring under that assumption (and you know what they say about assumptions, eh?) ever since? Hawt dude.

Again please provide a quote of my evil scientist laughing or retract it.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No not at all. After all I am a human. However I try to be aware of my biases and cognitive deficits.

I was all prepared to say what a great scientist you'd make--Being aware of your own, however that seems it isn't the case!

Oh boy... With all your sarcasim, I thought you'd get that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideas don't make money, business people make money.

Tell that to the quarter million dollars I've made off protein ladders. Sure, hustlers might make money--But even business people need ideas to make money off of. Even phoney ideas can make money--lots of it. If I didn't have this damn conscious I'd be lighting my cigars with 100 dolla bills from all the money I could make peddling crap that sounds scientific and useful. 100 dolla bills$

A nice tie in back to your OP--The author!

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell that to the quarter million dollars I've made off protein ladders. Sure, hustlers might make money--But even business people need ideas to make money off of.

If you marketed it, and implement the business then you are a business person. If you hired a business person to do it for you, then it wasn't totally the idea it was the people. Many great ideas that could make money don't because of lak of business ability.

Dogma in the scientific community is not phony. I have spoken with PhDs in physics and chemistry, and they pretty much all agree. ( the ones I have spoken to anyway). Academia is political just like everything else. Sometimes it's a good idea to be skeptical of the skeptical.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you marketed it, and implement the business then you are a business person. If you hired a business person to do it for you, then it wasn't totally to idea it was the people. Many great ideas that could make money don't because of lak of business ability.

Yes, I am unscrupulous jack of many trades. I never claimed ideas don't need a business person. You need both.

You on the other hand made a claim 100% in the other direction. Here let me take advantage of this nifty quote system to remind you:

Ideas don't make money, business people make money.

(see how I did that thar, instead of just shoving words into the horses mouth I went and got the horse for all to see!)

Absolutism is absolute!

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am unscrupulous jack of many trades. I never claimed ideas don't need a business person. You need both.

You on the other hand made a claim 100% in the other direction. Here let me take advantage of this nifty quote system to remind you:

Absolutism is absolute!

The idea did not do a dam thing. You did... Anyway irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea did not do a dam thing. You did... Anyway irrelevant.

:cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying you let someone else form your opinion of me for you--And you've been laboring under that assumption (and you know what they say about assumptions, eh?) ever since? Hawt dude.

Again please provide a quote of my evil scientist laughing or retract it.

Yes that's exactly what I did.... Sheesh... I did not have to assume anything, all I needed to do was see how you interact with others. I told the person who pmed me not to worry I have argued with know-it-alls before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogma in the scientific community is not phony. I have spoken with PhDs in physics and chemistry, and they pretty much all agree. ( the ones I have spoken to anyway). Academia is political just like everything else. Sometimes it's a good idea to be skeptical of the skeptical.

Of course there is politicking. Any and every human institution has politicking. To believe otherwise one would have to be very naive about human institutions. And of course it good to be skeptical. You should always be skeptical of any claim, scientific or otherwise, claims about institutions, claims about anything that any human makes (dogs on the hand, you should always accept their claims at face value and without doubt :yes: )

Just remember though, there is often a baby in that bathwater, so be careful throwing it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to pick the kids up... Catch you latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that's exactly what I did.... Sheesh... I did not have to assume anything, all I needed to do was see how you interact with others. I told the person who pmed me not to worry I have argued with know-it-alls before.

Well at least you can admit it.

Ahh, so now I am a know-it-all. Christ dude, weren't you just on the moral high road shouting about ad homs? Hows the view look from up there in your glass house?

Got to pick the kids up... Catch you latter.

Enjoy your time with them!

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least you can admit it.

Ahh, so now I am a know-it-all. Christ dude, weren't you just on the moral high road shouting about ad homs? Hows the view look from up there in your glass house?

Enjoy your time with them!

They were his words not mine.

Thanks, got some competition prep today for my team, should be fun.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'll look up some of the peer review then ( I assure you it exists you could do it yourself after all you have access to journals that I dont)..... I know his "looking not looking" experiments have been repeated many times. Also his dog experiments. I think Dawkins was even apart of that one. Mixed results nothing conclusive if I remember correctly. There is always a lot of criticism of positive result of course.

Results of nearly all experiments are expressed in significance with margins for error.

I used to tutor statistics a dozen years ago, so I am however very aware at the ability to manipulate numbers. Hence peer review.

I actually don't have access to journal articles within the biological sciences or psychology. If I could get special access to such articles, I wouldn't be able to share them here for legal reasons.

I'm no expert in statistics, but am vaguely aware of the concept of "manipulating numbers" to get significant p-values (which some journals in the past refused to report, and used 95% CI instead, because of the inherent problems with the former). This wasn't what I was refering to. Rather, I was refering to how well a study is designed to minimize the possibilty of bias, confounding or random error. My knowledge of this is within the context of social sciences, so I'm not sure how well this would apply to biology or experiments with animals. Nevertheless, if a study involving, dogs, say, were poorly controlled--if the experimenters weren't blinded, for example--then the statistics would likely end up giving you biased (innacurate) results.

Noam Chomsky made the point that matter itself might one day be defined differently so science cannot be based on materialism forever.

The statement above uses an uncertainty to justify a definite conclusion. Do you not see the logical error in this?

"We don't know everything, so materialism is flawed and scientists should open their minds to spiritual explanations". This is what Sheldrake's article really comes down to, as far as I can tell. It's a well-written in places, but makes some deeply-flawed leaps in logic.

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Materialism/physicalism is already gone. We simply are In the phase of the entrenched mindset hanging on and not acknowledging that things have move so far beyond those definitions that it's useless to maintain those particular labels. We can either give it a new name or keep redefining what materialism/physicalism actually is just to keep the those who have chosen that philosophy from facing their cognitive dissidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.