What makes a good scientist?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: set theory intersection is a multiplication (due to semigroup)#544 Correcting Math
Next: TWO FOR ONE AT PIZZA HUT
From: Yap on 29 Mar 2010 23:17 On Mar 29, 5:33 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > There are only two kinds of scientist. Your own invention? > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action. Incomputable. > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of > science. Incomputable.
From: Yap on 29 Mar 2010 23:21 On Mar 29, 5:25 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Immortalist wrote: > > > [1] - A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in > > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge > > That begs the question. It begs the question because the term > "systematic" implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at > issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is. No. You have a right to question the steps, or input further into the systematics. But you have no right to beg.
From: Yap on 29 Mar 2010 23:22 On Mar 29, 11:26 pm, omprem <omprem...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 29, 6:25 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > Immortalist wrote: > > > > [1] - A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in > > > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge > > > That begs the question. It begs the question because the term > > "systematic" implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at > > issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is. > > In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings > howling their despair to the Moon. Well, at least the moon is real. Your god remains unreal, and you know that.
From: Yap on 29 Mar 2010 23:23 On Mar 30, 2:26 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > In article > <e3606ad7-a658-4d9f-a310-c48328d57...(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > omprem <omprem...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 29, 6:25 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > Immortalist wrote: > > > > > [1] - A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in > > > > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge > > > > That begs the question. It begs the question because the term > > > "systematic" implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at > > > issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is. > > > In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings > > howling their despair to the Moon. > > That is simply childish innuendo. Doesn't your god suggest that you make > the best of his gift and use the brain he gave you? That's why the brainless can easily be spotted.
From: Yap on 29 Mar 2010 23:27
On Mar 29, 8:35 am, "THE BORG" <b...(a)gone.com> wrote: > "John Locke" <johnlocke...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:itvvq5ldilrqskov3hejohoe7gpa5j98n5(a)4ax.com... > > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones > > <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > >>There are only two kinds of scientist. > > > Only one kind. Employing reason and logic, adhering to > > scientific > > procedures and not entertaining even the slightest notion > > of > > supernatural control and design. > > In other words, the kind of men who want to know precisely > where an egg came from without ANY reference to chickens. Or where did the chicken come from without reference to the egg? What is your answer? |