science (concept), science (practice), scientists, scientific publications-One must differentiate between

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

Post #1

paarsurrey started the Topic ” When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”  :

 Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.

Regards

Post #62

jojom said: ↑

Not that the reader is wrong, but doesn’t understand what’s being said. No reason to to overstate the situation, Augustus.

Boy, if this isn’t a pile of manufactured crap. Thing is, just by your juvenile renunciation here its evident you’ve never read an “academic journal” in your life, much less understood one enough to pass judgment.

Augustus wrote

I assume you are highly familiar with academic journals if you can see through my paper thin charade so easily. My ‘juvenile renunciation’ certainly deserves a rapid chastisement from a more learned individual, one so wise in the ways of science. Consider me humbled

jojom said: ↑

. . . . . . . At least you’re keeping true to character. Assassination by contrived failings this time. It wouldn’t be hard to concluded you actually believe this baloney, but in as much as you’ve strung so many distortions on one line it’s clear you’ve given your imagination free rein to its bias. Thing is, Augustus, when you overstate your case it quickly looses all veracity. The mark of a truly rank amateur. Sad, but also amusing.

Augustus wrote

What’s wrong with many ‘rationalists’ (apart from the fact that they vastly overstate their own rationality), is that they feel the need to get caught up in wanky ‘science’ fanboyism. “Oh no! Somebody has tainted the honour of science by claiming it isn’t the omnipotent and omniscient god that I believe it is, stand back whilst I give the scoundrel who defamed her a stern verbal rebuke!”.

The problem is people like you can’t actually differentiate between science (concept), science (practice), scientists, scientific publications, etc. and get themselves into a fankle when anything with some connection to ‘science’ is criticised in any way.

Automatically you jump to the conclusion that this person is either an imbecile or some science-hating Taliban fundamentalist type who wants to ban books and insist the world is flat. “Oh No! Augustus is trying to ‘asassinate’ science. He must be stopped!”.

The biggest danger with playing the pompous, wanky fanboy card though is that you end up looking like a bit of a trumpet if you are wrong.

The points I made are frequently raised by more enlightened people involved with sciences and academia and have been mentioned in scientific journals and discussion for a long time. You can read up on it if you want to know more, it’s an interesting, but worrying, topic.

Now, as a ‘truly rank amateur’, a ‘truly rank amateur’ that has ‘evidently never read an academic journal in my life’ ‘let alone understood one’, how long do you think it would take me to find support for what I said from within an actual scientific journal? [Hint: I already did it, took me about 6 seconds].

Now I wouldn’t want to patronise someone as knowledgable as yourself by posting a link. I assume you will be able to find one far more easily than a truly rank juvenile amateur such as myself. Please let me know if you enjoyed the read though and if your views have changed as a result of it.

If you can’t find anything though and would like a helping hand all you need to do is ask: “Hi Augustus. Sorry, it seems I was wrong in saying you were a ‘sad but amusing truly rank juvenile amateur who speaks manufactured crap’. It has come to my attention that you have read at least 1 academic journal article. Would you be kind enough to share with me the article so I can understand why my pompous, wanky fanboyism was misguided? Thanks in advance. Jojom xx”

Just to remind you of my claims:

In many areas termed ‘science’ much if not most published material is wrong… frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor maths, deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.

Happy hunting!

paarsurrey liked the above post.

Tags: gibberish, science concept, science practice, scientist publications, scientists