Messages

[And now we have all heard of a poster on an internet board who claims to be a research assistant.]

Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.

But only anecdotal.

That's not anecdotal, that's first hand experience.

Anecdotal is the story about chocolate research you just spun.

If you can't tell the difference, I think 10 pages ago would have been a real fine moment to quit this thread.

And now we have all heard of a poster on an internet board who claims to be a research assistant.  I believe I understand the characteristics of evidentiary offerings well enough for the purposes of this conversation.  The Hershey chocolate story was not evidence of any kind.  I hoped everyone understood that as well.

just so you know, noob, a few of us on this board have known each other for 5 years or more. Kai's scientific credentials are exactly what he says they are.

Just so you know, I have been aware of Kai's scientific career for several years as well. I have been pretty impressed with Kai's education and opinions in the past and I expect I will continue to be so.   I did not (and do not) question his credibility.  However this was not a comment about his credibility.  It was a comment about the factual circumstance of an utterance offered as evidence and how that reflects upon it's indicia of reliability.  Change the factual circumstance, say for example on a witness stand under oath in a courtroom, then his testimony becomes evidence with a greater indicia of reliability.   It was in response to a suggestion that I don't know what "evidence" is.   It was not a character assassination.  I object to your trying to paint it as such.

Didn't you read their signature? 

That's actually a reference to the "Prime Mover" of Aristotle's Metaphysics treatise.

[science]

You weren't asserting that science, a self-correcting discipline, was imperfect.  You were asserting that people who call themselves scientists were corrupt.


One of the main problems in this thread is that you don't actually know where you stand; or if you do, you are having difficulty stating it. 

Actually, I thought that I was asserting that oftentimes new data obviates old conclusions, and that makes clinging to many kinds of  'conclusions' (even those supported by present day knowledge) potentially inaccurate.  Then I posited that the special interest of funding sources (and other authority)  should always be factored in when evaluating the accuracy of the final conclusion.

I will confess though to having my position altered as new information becomes available to me. (Not just in this conversation, it's an overall part of my personality).   If that looks like "I don't know where I stand" I apologize for the confusion.  I don't think that part of my conversational style will change though.  I sort of value the ability to refine any of my opinions when presented with different or new information.

I just read through this, and I think it's time for a recap:

Rat and singer are trolling each other, the OP and themselves

Roger is trolling them and may in fact kill a motherfucker

Kai is too pissed for trolling and is definitely gonna kill a motherfucker

LMNO is going to kick his own damn ass for not killing motherfuckers earlier on before it became fashionable

Cain is :lulz:ing it up and probably won't kill any motherfuckers right now

Magic is what happens when you drink coffee and notice that your cat died of starvation, then say "HEY MY COFFEE DRINKING KILLED THE CAT"

OR: This entire fucking thread is what happens when people can't agree on something that's retarded to start with and it ends up flying all over the place like some kind of enormous whale-fall except instead of whales it's hideous, worm-coated poop and instead of being in the ocean it's right in the middle of a forum generally reserved for cool stuff, not titanic bouts of parasitic incontinence with pinworms the size of cars (we prefer titanic bouts of flaming incontinence accompanied by giant spheres of pure RAAAAGE) and the OP should be ashamed for starting this awful mess because it's definitely, unarguably HIS FAULT (but only because I don't know the scapegoat of the moment, damn it!) and one day he's going to Wiccan Hell for this, where he will get to listen to witch-hatted tards blathering about the great Cthulhu rising up and eating fucking skittles for the GOOD OF NATURE

ETA: NONE OF YOU ARE GETTING BIRTHDAY PRESENTS

ETA2: FUCK YOU

Really?  That's trolling?  I don't think I understand the difference between 'trolling' and engaging in a conversation/debate.  Unless my exploration of the various emotional reactions to semantics is trolling, (in which case I apologize, I had no intent to 'troll'... whatever that means), I honestly thought I was just engaging in an interesting (if sometimes irreverent) conversation with some interesting and disparate points of view.  I was actually enjoying the conversation, but I didn't intend for my enjoyment to be at anyone's expense.

So the gist of this thread is, cutting through all the bullshit, some scientists are corrupt, therefore magic is true.  Yes?

In addition:

Some people who call themselves scientists are not actually practicing science, therefore science cannot be trusted; and fuck you, I'm a wizard.

Addition addendum: No field of endeavor should be exempt from critical evaluation.  Just because the assertions of any particular endeavor can be found to be imperfect doesn't necessarily mean that all assertions in that particular field of endeavor are suspect.  You are among the greatest of Wizards in all of Oz.

Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.

But only anecdotal.

That's not anecdotal, that's first hand experience.

Anecdotal is the story about chocolate research you just spun.

If you can't tell the difference, I think 10 pages ago would have been a real fine moment to quit this thread.

And now we have all heard of a poster on an internet board who claims to be a research assistant.  I believe I understand the characteristics of evidentiary offerings well enough for the purposes of this conversation.  The Hershey chocolate story was not evidence of any kind.  I hoped everyone understood that as well.

So the gist of this thread is, cutting through all the bullshit, some scientists are corrupt, therefore magic is true.  Yes?

No.  I don't think that was the gist at all.

I have a Roomba.  It's awesome, and it scares the cat.   SCIENTIFICALLY.

Sheesh... those things creep me out.

Well... calling the mind-hack superstition will work well if you want to remove a "curse".  But calling it a superstition won't work at all if you want your star hitter to actually nail that home-run.

And anyway, this is a bit of a thread-jack.  TGRR wants this to be a thread mocking people who believe they can light a candle by thinking really hard at it... and I'm all about mocking the Pentagon.

Why?  The Pentagon creates more chaos than anything other than law enforcement.

All too true.  But of course, that result is the exact opposite of their intent, so, mockery is mandatory.  Well, maybe not mandatory, but  lots of fun anyway.

Why would their intent matter?

I don't know why.  But it does.  Someone who intends to do thing A and then indeed does accomplish thing A is not as mock-worthy to me as an entity who intends to do thing A but then  actually  does thing 6.

to be honest I kind of liked this bit:

The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away.  Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away.  Many more complexities are revealed.

because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.

As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a  proper scientist.  Not that they don't exist.  They just tend not to be on salary.

Yes, of course.  Apollo 11 reached the moon on pixie dust.  Silly me.

Of course there are examples to the contrary.  But still,  the discovery that chocolate is natures most perfect food coming from an independent testing lab in Hershey Pennsylvania doesn't really have the smell of  untainted research.

So it is your assertion that most scientists are hopelessly corrupt?

I don't believe I would necessarily limit it to scientists 
and
No.  My assertion is that "them what pays the piper calls the tune".  In almost every field of endeavor.  There are lots of scientists who complain that  findings contrary to the expectations of the funding source are discouraged and even buried.  The funding source owns the research so the funding source doesn't have to publish what  they don't particularly want publicized.  Scientists are no more inherently corrupt than any other profession.

Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.

But only anecdotal.

to be honest I kind of liked this bit:

The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away.  Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away.  Many more complexities are revealed.

because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.

As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a  proper scientist.  Not that they don't exist.  They just tend not to be on salary.

Yes, of course.  Apollo 11 reached the moon on pixie dust.  Silly me.

Of course there are examples to the contrary.  But still,  the discovery that chocolate is natures most perfect food coming from an independent testing lab in Hershey Pennsylvania doesn't really have the smell of  untainted research.

i dont know, i heard yatto is a fucking ass at times
i mean who the fuck does he think he is?


eta: ill change the avatar later

Too late.  I'm already blind.

Well, that will improve your listening...  

WHAT?  I CAN'T READ YOU!

Well... calling the mind-hack superstition will work well if you want to remove a "curse".  But calling it a superstition won't work at all if you want your star hitter to actually nail that home-run.

And anyway, this is a bit of a thread-jack.  TGRR wants this to be a thread mocking people who believe they can light a candle by thinking really hard at it... and I'm all about mocking the Pentagon.

Why?  The Pentagon creates more chaos than anything other than law enforcement.

All too true.  But of course, that result is the exact opposite of their intent, so, mockery is mandatory.  Well, maybe not mandatory, but  lots of fun anyway.

to be honest I kind of liked this bit:

The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away.  Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away.  Many more complexities are revealed.

because it's true. not for proper scientists of course, but from my days in the university I've seen enough "scientists" behave like that. they do want the universe to "behave", and when it doesn't it annoys them to no end and some tend to look the other way.

As long as there is grant money riding on the outcome it's pretty hard to be a  proper scientist.  Not that they don't exist.  They just tend not to be on salary.