Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Science is all-knowing and all-powerful
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TagliatelliMonster" data-source="post: 71304659" data-attributes="member: 391173"><p>I don't think I used the word "professional", which actually just means you get paid to do it... </p><p></p><p>Nevertheless, he certainly was a well-credentialed one.</p><p></p><p>Which, by the way, doesn't mean that someone without credentials can't contribute or discover things. It is, obviously, perfectly possible for someone to be self-taught and never take any exams and thus not get credentialed, while actually being more knowledgeable then certain other people <em>with</em> credentials.</p><p></p><p>But, as always, the proof will be in the pudding.</p><p>Ideas fall and stand on their own merrit - not on the merrit of who proposes them.</p><p></p><p>The point about experts however, is that for outsiders -laymen-, it is quite impossible to evaluate the ideas. We simply lack the required knowledge to do so properly. So it is perfectly fine to rely on experts to provide us with answers. And since we aren't able to evaluate the ideas, the best thing we can do is go by the credentials. And perhaps also the overall reputation the expert in question has within his field of expertise.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not sure what this means.</p><p>Are you saying that he should have quit his job before putting forth a theory?</p><p>Why?</p><p></p><p>Why is it at all relevant what Einstein did to earn money?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You certainly were implying something like that. <em>Why else would you bring it up?</em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I didn't say "chemists". I said pharma.</p><p>Pharma is a commercial enterprise. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then you didn't...</p><p>You didn't profess to know better. You were just being cautious.</p><p></p><p>You didn't say "it doesn't work and/or is harmful for such and such reason".</p><p>You said "it's a new drug... let's wait and see". Because, I dare say, you understand how pharma works and how they are more interested in your money then your actual health. Especially in the US of A.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Once more, I consider it misleading to say that this is caution of science or scientific investigation. What this is, is caution of big pharma who are more interested in profit then your health.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster, post: 71304659, member: 391173"] I don't think I used the word "professional", which actually just means you get paid to do it... Nevertheless, he certainly was a well-credentialed one. Which, by the way, doesn't mean that someone without credentials can't contribute or discover things. It is, obviously, perfectly possible for someone to be self-taught and never take any exams and thus not get credentialed, while actually being more knowledgeable then certain other people [I]with[/I] credentials. But, as always, the proof will be in the pudding. Ideas fall and stand on their own merrit - not on the merrit of who proposes them. The point about experts however, is that for outsiders -laymen-, it is quite impossible to evaluate the ideas. We simply lack the required knowledge to do so properly. So it is perfectly fine to rely on experts to provide us with answers. And since we aren't able to evaluate the ideas, the best thing we can do is go by the credentials. And perhaps also the overall reputation the expert in question has within his field of expertise. Not sure what this means. Are you saying that he should have quit his job before putting forth a theory? Why? Why is it at all relevant what Einstein did to earn money? You certainly were implying something like that. [I]Why else would you bring it up?[/I] I didn't say "chemists". I said pharma. Pharma is a commercial enterprise. Then you didn't... You didn't profess to know better. You were just being cautious. You didn't say "it doesn't work and/or is harmful for such and such reason". You said "it's a new drug... let's wait and see". Because, I dare say, you understand how pharma works and how they are more interested in your money then your actual health. Especially in the US of A. Once more, I consider it misleading to say that this is caution of science or scientific investigation. What this is, is caution of big pharma who are more interested in profit then your health. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Science is all-knowing and all-powerful
Top
Bottom