PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
If that were true, Freud would have never become popular in psychology, because all of his proposals were highly controversial, and most were offensive.
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.
If that were true, Freud would have never become popular in psychology, because all of his proposals were highly controversial, and most were offensive.I know how it really works. You may know the book definition but I've been in R&D most of my career. If an idea offends somebody, they ignore it.
That's becasue Science is a popularity contest where
we vote on what is true and what isn't. All minority
views are wrong.
I know how it really works. You may know the book definition but I've been in R&D most of my career. If an idea offends somebody, they ignore it. Just like here. People are all the same way. There are scientists on this forum and that's exactly how they are. Actually, they are the worst. They hold only to what is the most popular and always think they are right. Hardly ever open to different ideas unless it's hugely popular first.
It's not what I said, but whatever.You are describing the rules for a popularity contest for ideas.
This new study may explain why peer review in science often fails
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Fake Paper Exposes Failed Peer Review | The Scientist Magazine
So how many scientific papers have you written, peer reviewed or edited?I know how it really works. You may know the book definition but I've been in R&D most of my career.
If scientists all think all of your ideas are wrong, maybe the problem isn't with the scientists.There are scientists on this forum and that's exactly how they are. Actually, they are the worst. They hold only to what is the most popular and always think they are right. Hardly ever open to different ideas unless it's hugely popular first.
Nothing points to a creator. You have only demonstrated that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Perhaps we should discuss that first.This just takes it back to everything ultimately pointing to a creator of some kind. For all we know, maybe it is "galaxy flatulating pixies". Speaking for myself, I see evidence of a creator. The nature of that creator is, of course, up for debate (a debate which helps keep online forums in business). But I can't rule out a First Cause.
Again, I'm not going to conclude that the pyramids just poofed into existence from nowhere. •‿•
If scientists all think all of your ideas are wrong, maybe the problem isn't with the scientists.
Peer review is mainly the route to publication in a specific journal. It's well known that peer review isn't always as reliable as it could be, and that some journals (e.g. many Chinese journals) have slack or fake review procedures. It doesn't help ideas to be accepted if they're published in journals known to have poor peer review. Ultimately, the data is the arbiter, regardless of social constructivist/networking ideas of validation. As I said, it's a human endeavour, but it's the best we've got, and it's pretty successful much of the time.
If that were true, Freud would have never become popular in psychology, because all of his proposals were highly controversial, and most were offensive.
Whatever ideas you're talking about -- it's your claim, not mine. "They hold only to what is the most popular and always think they are right. Hardly ever open to different ideas unless it's hugely popular first." What ideas did you mean?Likely some do. Which ideas are you considering?
I don't think it's correct - for reasons already explained.And it's a popularity contest for ideas. I don't see why you don't like that description.
What scientist?For example, how "old" was the wine Jesus created?
According to a "scientist" at the party, it was the best
wine he'd tasted. This reveals that a scientist would
not conclude that the wine was only minutes old. It's
a perfectly understandable and forgivable error.
Thor is my Dog.I was not aware the Zues and Thor were facts.
I don't think it's correct - for reasons already explained.
I don't see anything in that definition about myths being facts in spite of lack of belief. Can you point to it?Thor is my Dog.
noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind:
A sommelier at the party sampled the wine.What scientist?
Nah, I'm good. Everything comes from something.Nothing points to a creator. You have only demonstrated that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Perhaps we should discuss that first.
And it's a popularity contest for ideas. I don't see why you don't like that description.
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?