Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[DogmaHunter]

No. The scientiic method is not like religion, but many scientists involved in junk science (e.g. evolution fundamentalists and global warming evangelists) defend it like a religion.

The scientists doing the actual work are, well, busy doing the actual work, not arguing about it on non-scientific forums.

The ones who "defend" global warming and evolution, ARE the scientists who do the actual work.

 

[Almost there]

The ones who "defend" global warming and evolution, ARE the scientists who do the actual work.

Not really. Some of them are. And they need to. It puts food on the table. Become a denier only after polishing up your resume.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not really.

Yes really

Some of them are. And they need to. It puts food on the table. Become a denier only after polishing up your resume.

Yes, you get paid when you do a good job and get fired if you do not.

This is why a Stork Theorist won't land a job as an embryologists.
It's also why a flat earther won't land a job as a geographer and why an exorcist won't get a license to practice medicine.


As said previously: as a scientist, fame and glory is yours if and when you challenge the status quo succesfully. And the only way to do that succesfully is by demonstrating your case with independently verifiable evidence.

This is why we know the names Newton and Darwin.

Those scientists that don't engage in original research and who just validate the status quo, while they do contribute to science at large, are forgotten in the pages of history.

 

[Almost there]

Yes really



Yes, you get paid when you do a good job and get fired if you do not.

That used to be true. I've worked at 17 companies, most of them quite large. I can tell you that your last statement is not true today. It may be true in some pockets, but I've seen quite the opposite.

The only way to ensure you get paid well when you do a good job is to start your own business. And rarely do poor workers get fired. Usually it's because you don't toe the line, like that guy at Google with his wholly accurate "men and women are different" thesis, or a climate scientist that asks questions and abandons the "settled science".

 

[Resha Caner]

Since I missed the mark then, You hold my hand and take me where you would go.

My original entry into this thread was a comment on rhetoric - one subtle yet important aspect of it WRT this forum, and that is what I tried to remain focused on throughout. It was probably a foolish thing to undertake on my part.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That used to be true.

It is true in general. Obviously you can do a good job and still get fired as well.
Doing a bad job and not getting fired? Those organizations don't tend to last very long.

I've worked at 17 companies, most of them quite large. I can tell you that your last statement is not true today. It may be true in some pockets, but I've seen quite the opposite.

We are talking about science and scientific research.

But yes, generally, in private companies as well, it will be kind of hard to keep your job if you are bad at it.

The only way to ensure you get paid well when you do a good job is to start your own business. And rarely do poor workers get fired. Usually it's because you don't toe the line, like that guy at Google with his wholly accurate "men and women are different" thesis, or a climate scientist that asks questions and abandons the "settled science".

That literally has nothing to do with the point at hand.

 

[Wakalix]

That literally has nothing to do with the point at hand.

No, don't you get it DH? The evil liberals are persecuting everybody who disagrees with them. This explains the so-called "status quo," and invalidates it as a means of authority.

(/s)

 

[Almost there]

That literally has nothing to do with the point at hand.

It speaks to the situation where the quality of your work has a direct proportion to the success you enjoy.

One thing I'll mention that addresses something you said in your post: I see science as the same as everything else mankind endeavors to do. That is, it is not on any kind of pedestal to me. There are good scientists, there are bad ones, just waiting for lunch time and quitting time, just like with every other occupation. And a lot of the grunt work is done by the latter, because the former know that is really all they are good for.

In every company I've worked, I've seen both. One of the funniest was, come review time, there was this one guy I knew (he's still a friend of mine) who was such a good and accomplished first level manager that there was speculation that he might actually get a "5" on his annual review (the scale was 1-5). I was young and said it was a no brainer that he would get a five. The more experienced and cynical people said nobody gets a five, and that he would get a 4.

I was adamant that this one was so obvious that he would get a 5 because a 4 would expose the whole system as pointless game playing by management, and they couldn't risk that.

Well, this guy went on to become the CIO of a fortune 500 company WITH NO COLLEGE, and was even fired once for butting heads with a superior, only to be hired back at a considerable salary increase. He retired, after well over a decade in that position, just a couple years ago and (this is public record) cashed out almost $10 million in stock options.

Oh yeah. He got a 4.


This is relevant in that it speaks to the concept that people can be highly successful because they are highly qualified and productive, but they can also be successful or not, because of office politics, played well or poorly.

Take Mr. "hide the decline" Mann, for example. Time has not been kind to him.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It speaks to the situation where the quality of your work has a direct proportion to the success you enjoy.

One thing I'll mention that addresses something you said in your post: I see science as the same as everything else mankind endeavors to do. That is, it is not on any kind of pedestal to me. There are good scientists, there are bad ones, just waiting for lunch time and quitting time, just like with every other occupation. And a lot of the grunt work is done by the latter, because the former know that is really all they are good for.

The thing that you seem to be missing, is that science is rather very results based.

Guys who don't do a good job, will not make progress, won't have results to report, won't get their papers published.

While such people might be able to "hide in the masses" for some time, it will not last. Once a new appeal for grant money comes around, they won't be getting it. Because they will be asked what they did with the previous grants and they won't be able to show anything worthwhile.

In every company I've worked, I've seen both

The scientific enterprise, is in that sense not comparable to your average company.

One of the funniest was, come review time, there was this one guy I knew (he's still a friend of mine) who was such a good and accomplished first level manager that there was speculation that he might actually get a "5" on his annual review (the scale was 1-5). I was young and said it was a no brainer that he would get a five. The more experienced and cynical people said nobody gets a five, and that he would get a 4.

I was adamant that this one was so obvious that he would get a 5 because a 4 would expose the whole system as pointless game playing by management, and they couldn't risk that.

Well, this guy went on to become the CIO of a fortune 500 company WITH NO COLLEGE, and was even fired once for butting heads with a superior, only to be hired back at a considerable salary increase. He retired, after well over a decade in that position, just a couple years ago and (this is public record) cashed out almost $10 million in stock options.

Oh yeah. He got a 4.

So?

Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard and then went on to become the richest man around, what of it?

And it sounds like you are saying that the dude was indeed actually very good at his job. So why is it surprising that he had a great carreer?

You just seem to be confirming that it is the results that matter........

This is relevant in that it speaks to the concept that people can be highly successful because they are highly qualified and productive, but they can also be successful or not, because of office politics, played well or poorly.

Sure. But as a scientist, you can not "hide" yourself by playing such games.
In a private company, you only have a handfull of managers to "manipulate" and if you succeed in doing that, you're safe - that is true.

In science however... you are expect to publish a paper and then thousands of other scientists get to review your work.

You can't play that game there. Unless, perhaps, if you are an insignificant grey mouse that has no particular impact on anything.

 

[Almost there]

The thing that you seem to be missing, is that science is rather very results based.

The opposite is true. For me it is what matters. When models fail - utterly. When scientists are caught fudging results. When scientists are caught ignoring facts that seriously skew true results, my trust radar goes up. And when the science gets politicized, it REALLY goes up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The opposite is true.

It is not.

Here's a simplistic example: if scientists lie about atomic theory, then nukes would not explode.

 

[Almost there]

It is not.

Here's a simplistic example: if scientists lie about atomic theory, then nukes would not explode.

I never said they did. I see scientists as people. Some are more honest than others. Some ignore their own biases more than others. I never mean to impeach science or scientists in general. Quite the opposite, actually. I hate BAD science. It stains everything as much as a homosexual politician stains all politicians.

 

[Jimmy D]

I never said they did. I see scientists as people. Some are more honest than others. Some ignore their own biases more than others. I never mean to impeach science or scientists in general. Quite the opposite, actually. I hate BAD science. It stains everything as much as a homosexual politician stains all politicians.

I don't know or care what you get up to in other subforums but spare us your homophobia.

 

[Speedwell]

I never said they did. I see scientists as people. Some are more honest than others. Some ignore their own biases more than others. I never mean to impeach science or scientists in general. Quite the opposite, actually. I hate BAD science. It stains everything as much as a homosexual politician stains all politicians.

What??? Homosexuality is an individual psychosexual orientation. How does it "stain" heterosexual politicians? "BAD" science is a failure of ethical behavior. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Your comparison makes no sense.

 

[Almost there]

What??? Homosexuality is an individual psychosexual orientation. How does it "stain" heterosexual politicians? "BAD" science is a failure of ethical behavior. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Your comparison makes no sense.

Poor example. I should have said pedophile or sexual predator or Franken...

Still, you get the point.

It is important to pick the bogeyman de-jure.

 

[Speedwell]

Poor example. I should have said pedophile or sexual predator or Franken...

Still, you get the point.

It is important to pick the bogeyman de-jure.

But not, of course, the creationist hero Judge Roy Moore.

 

[Almost there]

But not, of course, the creationist hero Judge Roy Moore.

Opinions vary on that guy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I never said they did. I see scientists as people. Some are more honest than others. Some ignore their own biases more than others. I never mean to impeach science or scientists in general. Quite the opposite, actually. I hate BAD science.

My point remains. Science is results based. If atomic theory isn't accurate, nukes would not explode. And the same goes for the rest of science.

This is the power of the scientific method: due to being so results based, it self-corrects for mistakes, frauds, etc. Bad science is quickly exposed.

It stains everything as much as a homosexual politician stains all politicians.

What a horrible thing to say. Indeed, spare us your homophobia.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Poor example. I should have said pedophile or sexual predator or Franken...

Still, you get the point.

It is important to pick the bogeyman de-jure.

You're making it worse. Now, you're implicitly equating homosexuality with sexual predators.

I advice you to take this nonsense hatespeech elsewhere.

 

[tas8831]

Neither, I think your melodrama over this obscure quote is underwhelmning

So, you cannot even bring yourself to draw a conclusion when the facts are pretty plain to see. Got it.

Where was all that indignation when Talk Origins failed to add 3 plus 1.23? It's ok for them to grossly distort the truth in in obvious way but some vague generalizations from an obscure paper your livid. Who you think your fooling?

I am not trying to fool anyone.

As I have written on here before - I have read your previous forays on this '1.23' issue and you are impervious to reason, so I am not going to take your bait.

it is just sad that you cannot admit that a creationist, either due to ignorance or malice, misrepresented a straightforward statement to support her religious beliefs.