agendas in science

ghost dog wrote: so did you just admit that you are a self righteous, arm chair philosopher?

I'll let the audience decide: Is this something I said?

since you're being honest for a change...

How [censored] dare you! For as long as you have been here and from what everybody here ever read from me I have but always been honest, whereas you have never been anything short of completely dishonest peaking this very instant!

... i will admit that i am an actual professional scientist that has been paid for my work for over ten years.

You sure didn't make much of an effort to publish something, it seems. You also seem to have grave misconceptions about the scientific method and community and about any and all subjects scientific you post here about. Scientist working in the field, are you? I think I'll have to ask for something to back that up, please.

... and i could say more, but i don't want to validate your skewed perception of myself in your head anymore.

Well, you don't have to back up your claims. You never do, anyway, just like a real scientist wouldn't... Oh, wait...

Look, I'm not smart, I'm barely even educated. But if you think you can lie to our collective faces and get away with it just like that... I have nothing to add.
On that note, I was trying to end it on a kinder note than you let me, spitting all over the attempt as it were. But I do think that I have said enough at this point, not so much in the sense that you wouldn't deserve more of where that came from but in the sense that I do have some hours of sleep to catch before my upcoming calculus lesson and if necessary somebody else will gladly take over. Until we clash again!

ghost dog wrote: i am an actual professional scientist that has been paid for my work for over ten years.

Yeah....I'm starting my career as a medical scientist after finishing my degree in human physiology and behavior last year from ASU. If you're going to say you're a scientist I also would like you to back that up ,so we know where your coming from. It can't be the field of biology since statements like " plants include algae, fungi, lichens, mosses, ferns, conifers and flowering plants" are widely incorrect. In fact humans are more closely related to mushrooms than plants are. Thank You in advance.

"plants include algae, fungi, lichens, mosses, ferns, conifers and flowering plants" was actually a quote without the quotations.

you can either take my word for it or not. just like i can take your word for it or not. i have no desire to prove anything to children in uni. or anyone else for that matter unless they are paying clients.

ParCandroon wrote: It wouldn't surprise me in the least if everything we knew was a lie formulated by anyone at all who held a smart-guy status or title.

This is not how you "steer away from the brewing war." This is how you ensure you start one.

ghost dog wrote: i have no desire to prove anything to children in uni.

Thanks man, that's I wanted was to establish the difference ,so people reading this don't get confused.

steamboat28 wrote:

ParCandroon wrote: It wouldn't surprise me in the least if everything we knew was a lie formulated by anyone at all who held a smart-guy status or title.

This is not how you "steer away from the brewing war." This is how you ensure you start one.

By offering my opinion on the OP? I was referring to the personal war between ghost dog and gisteron which is what mainly happened anyway.

Science is rife with skepticism of the unknown so why not be skeptical of who is publishing what? Chances are you don't know them. Why blindly accept the recorded subjective experiences of another as fact?

ParCandroon wrote: By offering my opinion on the OP?

No, by continuing the villainization of the intelligent in the West. Some of us are a little tired of being slandered via generalization.

i'm not warring with anyone. LOL. i'm just expressing myself. gisteron is hilarious.

i apologize if i offended you, steamboat, by unwarranted generalizations. i should be above generalizations, mostly. but not always. i haven't taken anything any of y'all have said personally, and i hope y'all don't take text on a screen personally either.

i still think you are insane though steamboat, just to be honest, as i am truly the most honest person i know.

but people have differing opinions on what is intelligent. as long as we can respect each others' rights to our opinions then there shouldn't be a problem.

seriously, though, if you get really upset about what i say just block me for crying out loud.

ghost dog wrote: you can either take my word for it or not. just like i can take your word for it or not.

I can also go to a scientific publications search engine or multiple and search by author. In science nobody believes anything on someone else's say-so alone. But being a scientist, you should know that.

i have no desire to prove anything to children in uni. or anyone else for that matter unless they are paying clients.

Because real scientist will not even cite the institution they work at, will they? Instead they will assume a high ground of "I owe you no backup for my claims, little pupil" and care for the money they get more than for the education they provide.

Now I haven't been in your shoes so I don't know what the other people you know are like. Most I know are less than perfectly honest, and who can blame them, really; but the boldness with which you go about spewing your lies, sir, surpasses them all. While I do have more important things to attend to during my day, like trying to learn something you do nothing but slander on about, I will try and afford to occasionally call you out on your dishonesty and kindly, on behalf of my fellow Jedi, if I may, ask for an apology for every active insult you throw our way whenever you are cornered.