DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
The ones who "defend" global warming and evolution, ARE the scientists who do the actual work.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.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.
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.Yes really
Yes, you get paid when you do a good job and get fired if you do not.
Since I missed the mark then, You hold my hand and take me where you would go.
That used to be true.
We are talking about science and scientific research.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".
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.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.
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.The thing that you seem to be missing, is that science is rather very results based.
The opposite is true.
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.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.
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.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.
Poor example. I should have said pedophile or sexual predator or Franken...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.
But not, of course, the creationist hero Judge Roy Moore.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.
Opinions vary on that guy.But not, of course, the creationist hero Judge Roy Moore.
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.
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.
Neither, I think your melodrama over this obscure quote is underwhelmning
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?