Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Mountainmike]

I said you don’t read books on the shroud and Eucharistic miracles.
I was right. Also that you are illinformed on both. You showed it.
Where is the issue? You were proud of it!

I wanted to talk about the above, you seem more interested in talking about me.

Only one question matters:
Are yiu going to read Serafinis book or not? Rogers book or not?

Did you get tired of bearing false witness? There's 9 other Commandments and time's awastin'!



And you seem to assume that those who don't read YOUR favorite books don't read books at all. You are wrong.



More lies. I don't mock you for reading books. Jeez, dude. What is your malfunction????



YET ANOTHER LIE!!! WOW! You are swingin' for the fences today!

STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID.

Wow. Honestly, what good is this Faith of yours if you spend most of your time just lying about other people?

If you can't be trusted to actually describe back to me what I've said why would I believe what you say about anything else?????

Stop it. Mike. Just. STOP.

I'm getting to my limit with your mendacity.

 

[Opdrey]

I said you don’t read books on the shroud and Eucharistic miracles.

You were not always careful with your words, Mike. And as such you made blanket statements about my reading.

Man up. If you can't accept the vileness you spread, don't spread vileness.

 

[Mountainmike]

You were not always careful with your words, Mike. And as such you made blanket statements about my reading.

I have never questioned your ( unevidenced but stated ) credentials as a scientist. You questioned mine.

I have never questioned your ability with stats. You questioned mine which is utterly laughable considering I am as I said a math modeller. From noise processes in semiconductors ,to semiconductor construction, to tracking , observability and detection, detectability , to modelling signal processes and so on, lossy and lossless data reduction. It’s core expertise. I just don’t feel the need to make a lot of sound about it, as empty vessels seem to do.

Look in a mirror @Opdrey.

You make far too many Ill founded assumptions, both on people and science. My views on Harry Gove and Michael tite in respect of the shroud, are based on what they said and what they did, as released in communications. No more and no less. It was shameful.

Your views are based on a sanitized assumption about how scientists are supposed to behave. They didn’t. Halls was even worse.

What I said was perfectly true:
you know little about the shroud, or Eucharistic miracles . You refuse to study either, but then you assume that ill founded opinions , based on such lack of study , have merit. They don’t.
When you study either we can discuss. Till then all you have is apriori opinions.

So can we have a discussion on the science please?

I am clearly a bookworm, indeed I am ridiculed for it here. So where you get your assumption about who reads more ( you were the one who claimed it so not me) Reflects a disdain for those you discuss. Is it even relevant? What matters on a discussion of the shroud, is reading about it!

I’ll stick to books. I would rather study then comment in that order. It’s what scientists are supposed to do.

 

[Opdrey]

I have never questioned your ( unevidenced but stated ) credentials as a scientist. You questioned mine.

Because I do not believe you are a scientist. I don't believe you have a graduate degree (people who have actual graduate degrees can actually tell you which degree they have and don't use mushy phrases like "post graduate" and then claim "multiple theses".

You don't post like a scientist. Not even close.

The fact that you CONSTANTLY make up falsehoods about what I have posted lets me know exactly how much I should trust ANY claim you make. If you can't be counted on to be truthful in your posts when I can see what you are being untruthful about, why would I believe anything you say?

By your fruit I know you. And you know as well as I do what the reality is.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you know as well as I do what the reality is.

I wouldn't be so sure...

 

[Mountainmike]

Because I do not believe you are a scientist. I don't believe you have a graduate degree (people who have actual graduate degrees can actually tell you which .

And that’s the problem with all your posts: they document your apriori beliefs about things and people including me. You don’t let facts get in the way.

As for your latest straw man. 2+2=4 who ever says it , and “ nonsense is nonsense even if spoken by world class physicists” . So keep to the issues, not endless ad hominems.

Let me know - if and when - you will talk about the science of Eucharistic miracles, the shroud or radio carbon instead. Study them first is a good order.

 

[Opdrey]

Let me know - if and when - you will talk about the science of Eucharistic miracles, the shroud or radio carbon instead. Study them first is a good order.

Do you know a scientist who would like to talk about these things?

 

[Mountainmike]

Do you know a scientist who would like to talk about these things?

Rogers. Adler. Fanti. Jackson. Antonacci. Meacham. Whanger. Danin. Lucotte. Blanco. Almenar. etc

They wrote books you should read if you want to understand the basics of the shroud.

It seems you won’t ( or can’t) read them.

 

[Opdrey]

It seems you won’t ( or can’t) read them.

Maybe some day. When I'm bored.

 

[Mountainmike]

Maybe some day. When I'm bored.

The problem isn’t the science.

It is your willingness to comment before studying it. Which clearly questions your credentials or attitude as a scientist. How dare you comment without study? I - or any other professional - would not dream of it.

But then, some of the stuff I have done could have been a disaster for thousands of people if I’d got it wrong. Most of academia has no such downside, so gets to be careless.

 

[Opdrey]

The problem isn’t the science.

I'm genuinely curious how you know this.

Which clearly questions your credentials or attitude as a scientist.

Mike, you can give up the charade at this point. You and I both know what level you are at in the science department.

But then, some of the stuff I have done could have been a disaster for thousands of people if I’d got it wrong.

Yeah, not buying it anymore, Mike. Sorry.

Most of academia has no such downside, so gets to be careless.

You honestly have ZERO clue what you are talking about. It's astounding that you think your act carries any weight.

 

[Mountainmike]

@Opdrey

I’m still waiting for you to make any comment of substance on any technical thread. Please?

The amazing thing is you actually believe what you said about me on the basis no evidence whatsoever, just like your comments on the shroud!

Im happy to say my alma-maters are still in the top few universities in the world. Unlike you, I’m not so insecure I feel I have to say anything about them.

Most math modellers have 3 degrees, the least I ever saw was 2, then endless postgrad courses after that. Now See where the phrase postgrad comes from? Perhaps it’s just math modellers, who have to keep learning new stuff. An occupational hazard.

But in a department of geeks and only silly IQs may apply, the individual in question with only an MSc was probably the cleverest person I ever met. I passed a 4 sigma test, yet he could leave me for dust.

He saw through the need for your kind of academic Willy waving, I’m guessing proving all his profs wrong didn’t help his length stay in academia much, or even his wish to do so. I wonder what became of him.

I’ve met too many stupid PhDs , with little or no grasp of critical thinking to hold qualifications in any kind of awe, as you seem to do. I’ve also met a few who didn’t even make a BS course because of tough lives who could have left the so called phds in their wake on sheer CPU power.

Many so called universities have entry qualifications of just a pulse now, ( and even a few profs manage to fail that! ) they give phds awaywith a packet of cornflakes. So I am not an academic snob. I don’t give a proverbial what degrees people have,

I care about scientific integrity of argument.

Now. Would you like to talk about shroud or Eucharistic miracles?

 

[Opdrey]

@Opdrey

I’m still waiting for you to make any comment of substance on any technical thread. Please?

As per usual you are bearing false witness. I've made comments of substance in this thread.

The amazing thing is you actually believe what you said about me on the basis no evidence whatsoever, just like your comments on the shroud!

You and I both know the truth.

Im happy to say my alma-maters are still in the top few universities in the world.

Uh huh. I am sure they are.

Most math modellers have 3 degrees,

Can you name one you have?

I care about scientific integrity of argument.

Could have fooled me.

 

[Mountainmike]

Uh huh. I am sure they are..

And that’s the problem of course. It wouldn’t matter what I said,or how much else I said. you would argue with it. So what’s the point? It proves your willingness to conclude without evidence. No scientist does that - or displays your lack of critical thinking so you are rumbled!

Its time you stopped the endless ad hominems. They have no place on a forum. It’s not about me or you.

Study the science then discuss it. Or not.

 

[Astrid]

Because I do not believe you are a scientist. I don't believe you have a graduate degree (people who have actual graduate degrees can actually tell you which degree they have and don't use mushy phrases like "post graduate" and then claim "multiple theses".

You don't post like a scientist. Not even close.

The fact that you CONSTANTLY make up falsehoods about what I have posted lets me know exactly how much I should trust ANY claim you make. If you can't be counted on to be truthful in your posts when I can see what you are being untruthful about, why would I believe anything you say?,

By your fruit I know you. And you know as well as I do what the reality is.

A grade school teacher might chirp that her students are
" all little scientists". Dictionary will agree with her.

Ive been around scientists all my life, American and Chinese,
and kind of know how they talk. Same with doctors or lawyers.

I've also encountered by share of abusive blowhards. I wont waste my
time with fakes, people who make things up.

Too bad there isnt a setting like a thesis defense where they could be
properly shredded and humiliated.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A grade school teacher might chirp that her students are
" all little scientists". Dictionary will agree with her.

Ive been around scientists all my life, American and Chinese,
and kind of know how they talk. Same with doctors or lawyers.

I've also encountered by share of abusive blowhards. I wont waste my
time with fakes, people who make things up.

Too bad there isnt a setting like a thesis defense where they could be
properly shredded and humiliated.

I hated my thesis defense... And I came away from it feeling not so much humiliated but as ......

.... well, I can't write that word here.

 

[Opdrey]

I hated my thesis defense... And I came away from it feeling not so much humiliated but as ......

.... well, I can't write that word here.

I watched my then-girlfriend (now wife) get used as a pawn in a fight between her thesis advisor and another faculty member. The other faculty member cleverly insulted both my wife and her thesis advisor in one fell swoop. It was disgusting.

I was far more fortunate in both my Thesis and Dissertation defenses. People were generally nice to me (with the exception of one faculty member who snickered at my use of the phrase "iso-lines" for a map I had done in which I had created a map of equal FTIR responses from my samples, so there was no "established" term for the lines.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I watched my then-girlfriend (now wife) get used as a pawn in a fight between her thesis advisor and another faculty member. The other faculty member cleverly insulted both my wife and her thesis advisor in one fell swoop. It was disgusting.

I agree. That is disgusting.

I was far more fortunate in both my Thesis and Dissertation defenses. People were generally nice to me (with the exception of one faculty member who snickered at my use of the phrase "iso-lines" for a map I had done in which I had created a map of equal FTIR responses from my samples, so there was no "established" term for the lines.)

Oh, so you got the "snickering" treatment, too? Yeah, that was one of my favorite parts of the whole disorganized and socially incongruous research process that it was, as well.

The other of my favorite parts was in how I was essentially done with the first draft of my thesis (or was it the 2nd?) and ready for a review several weeks ahead of schedule, and they sat on it until just the week before my defense ... somehow, they thought it was 'funny' that I had both a revision AND my defense to do all in one week. And I thought, "Ok, you've shown me how incompetant, slow and generally inept I am in all of this. Thanks for your help in that. Anything else you all want me to realize, [...**expletives**..!] ???

Yeah, I wasn't a happy camper. So, I now have a permanent love-hate relationship with academia and education. That experience also helped to shape me into the Existentialist I've become today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Too bad there isnt a setting like a thesis defense where they could be properly shredded and humiliated.

Au chad?

 

[Mountainmike]

I agree. That is disgusting.

Thats Academics for you, a bunch of big kids. Most of them need to grow up. Too much of the The average question time at conferences is used for settling scores, I stopped going, I started buying conference proceedings instead.