"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Benford's Law
Next: where we have a new understanding of what factorial means in 254! = 10^500 #648 Correcting Math
From: Bret Cahill on 11 Jul 2010 12:37 When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough to lock the doors, etc. In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with the peer review process and established institutions and personalities and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely outside of their field. So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes and institutions are called "wingers." Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing it. Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy stoopid rightards. Bret Cahill
From: Claudius Denk on 11 Jul 2010 13:51 On Jul 11, 9:37 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > to lock the doors, etc. > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > outside of their field. > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > and institutions are called "wingers." > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > it. > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. A real scientists, like myself, may, at time, suspend their disbelief temporarily until they've had a chance to further investigate. But you are wrong to suggest that any real scientists would choose to believe something just because some other "expert" said it to be true. Believing without evidence is the realm of science-based whackos, like AGW advocates. It's not the realm of any intellectually honest real scientist. > > But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is > a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high > school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common > denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he > gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy > stoopid rightards. My advice is to stop looking for scientific truth on the radio.
From: Bret Cahill on 11 Jul 2010 14:04 This idiot just smeared so much poop over hisself ain't no janitor can clean up the mess: > > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > > to lock the doors, etc. > > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > > outside of their field. > > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > > and institutions are called "wingers." > > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > > it. > > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > A real scientists, like myself, may, at time, suspend their disbelief > temporarily until they've had a chance to further investigate. You have the time and money to investigate every development in every field of science? Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin' . . . Bit of advice on responding to my OPs. Once you have dug yourself into a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. Bret Cahill
From: Claudius Denk on 11 Jul 2010 14:13 On Jul 11, 11:04 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > This idiot just smeared so much poop over hisself ain't no janitor can > clean up the mess: > > > > > > > > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > > > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > > > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > > > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > > > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > > > to lock the doors, etc. > > > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > > > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > > > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > > > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > > > outside of their field. > > > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > > > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > > > and institutions are called "wingers." > > > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > > > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > > > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > > > it. > > > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > > > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > > > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > > A real scientists, like myself, may, at time, suspend their disbelief > > temporarily until they've had a chance to further investigate. > > You have the time and money to investigate every development in every > field of science? > > Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin' . . . > > Bit of advice on responding to my OPs. > > Once you have dug yourself into a hole, the first thing you need to do > is stop digging. Scientists like myself, the true independent thinkers, are relatively rare. Most scientists, many of whom falsely represent themselves as independent thinkers, are like you. They are incapable of independent thought. They just regurgitate whatever is in the textbook. They are more concerned with getting a paycheck than they are with advancing scientific truth. For a real scientists consensus opinions are worthless.
From: Bret Cahill on 11 Jul 2010 14:19
> > This idiot just smeared so much poop over hisself ain't no janitor can > > clean up the mess: In fact he's gonna smear hisself some more. > > > > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > > > > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > > > > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > > > > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > > > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > > > > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > > > > to lock the doors, etc. > > > > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > > > > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > > > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > > > > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > > > > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > > > > outside of their field. > > > > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > > > > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > > > > and institutions are called "wingers." > > > > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > > > > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > > > > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > > > > it. > > > > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > > > > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > > > > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > > > A real scientists, like myself, may, at time, suspend their disbelief > > > temporarily until they've had a chance to further investigate. > > > You have the time and money to investigate every development in every > > field of science? > > > Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin' . . . Now how was it so easy to guess the idiot would start dodgin' 'n dodgin'? It must be mental telepathy! > > Bit of advice on responding to my OPs. > > > Once you have dug yourself into a hole, the first thing you need to do > > is stop digging. > > Scientists like myself, the true independent thinkers, Post some of the discoveries that are a result of yer "independent thinking." And remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin' . > are relatively > rare. Most scientists, many of whom falsely represent themselves as > independent thinkers, are like you. They are incapable of independent > thought. They just regurgitate whatever is in the textbook. They are > more concerned with getting a paycheck than they are with advancing > scientific truth. > > For a real scientists consensus opinions are worthless. Once you have dug yourself into a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. Bret Cahill |