News:

TESTEMONAIL:  Right and Discordianism allows room for personal interpretation. You have your theories and I have mine. Unlike Christianity, Discordia allows room for ideas and opinions, and mine is well-informed and based on ancient philosophy and theology, so, my neo-Discordian friends, open your minds to my interpretation and I will open my mind to yours. That's fair enough, right? Just claiming to be discordian should mean that your mind is open and willing to learn and share ideas. You guys are fucking bashing me and your laughing at my theologies and my friends know what's up and are laughing at you and honestly this is my last shot at putting a label on my belief structure and your making me lose all hope of ever finding a ideological group I can relate to because you don't even know what the fuck I'm talking about and everything I have said is based on the founding principals of real Discordianism. Expand your mind.

Main Menu

I feel like we were talking about something like this recently

Started by Mesozoic Mister Nigel, January 22, 2014, 10:01:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Like most research, if you look at each individual published paper. Science still manages to be self-correcting.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: whenhellfreezes on January 22, 2014, 11:14:40 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 22, 2014, 10:31:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
Nigel, I think the conversation you were remembering was whether peer review was a good control on the science community, yes?

That may well have been it.

The problem I have is this:

Either we face reality and admit that there are some huge problems, thus giving the religious nutjobs all kinds of ammunition, or we stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong.

Of course, we have to do the former, or at least examine the hell out of it, but the temptation to do the latter is huge.  And now I know why the scientific community can be very reactionary.

We should hide frank scientific discussion in gay porno magazines.

A better place for frank scientific discussion would be the legislators offices.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


whenhellfreezes

Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 24, 2014, 01:13:51 AM
Quote from: whenhellfreezes on January 22, 2014, 11:14:40 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 22, 2014, 10:31:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 22, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
Nigel, I think the conversation you were remembering was whether peer review was a good control on the science community, yes?

That may well have been it.

The problem I have is this:

Either we face reality and admit that there are some huge problems, thus giving the religious nutjobs all kinds of ammunition, or we stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong.

Of course, we have to do the former, or at least examine the hell out of it, but the temptation to do the latter is huge.  And now I know why the scientific community can be very reactionary.

We should hide frank scientific discussion in gay porno magazines.

A better place for frank scientific discussion would be the legislators offices.

There is a joke in there somewhere.

I'm not sure I could even think of a sane policy choice that the legislators could do to help here though. More funding maybe be better. Though I'm not sure if more money would help the broken dynamic with grants. Dance for your NSF grant monkeys, Dance.