General Scientists are fucken stupid

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
29,285
29,484
You can tell if they're political scientists, or actual ones based on their reliance on consensus.

Real scientists are adamant they're right, because they have data that backs it up. Not consensus.
Are you saying peer review and data validation is bad? Because that's how you get consensus.....

I just read your statement to an actual scientist, she called you, and I quote, "A brain dead דזשעטבאָאַט באַזיצער who is incapable of understanding the basics of science."
 
Last edited:

Filthy

ZBM2
Jun 28, 2016
15,308
19,651
You can tell if they're political scientists, or actual ones based on their reliance on consensus.

Real scientists are adamant they're right, because they have data that backs it up. Not consensus.
just use the term "the science is decided" or "the consensus of the scientific community".
if you have to duck something they throw at you, they're a real scientist.
 

The Pendulum

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2015
1,032
868
Are you saying peer review and data validation is bad? Because that's how you get consensus.....

I just read your statement to an actual scientist, she called you, and I quote, "A brain dead דזשעטבאָאַט באַזיצער who is incapable of understanding the basics of science."
Huh.

Basics of science.

Scientific method.

That's what got science so lauded.

Not general agreement from looking at a specific plot of data points, without any scientific method.

What's your scientists friend specialize in?
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
29,285
29,484
Huh.

Basics of science.

Scientific method.

That's what got science so lauded.

Not general agreement from looking at a specific plot of data points, without any scientific method.

What's your scientists friend specialize in?
lol
 

The Pendulum

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2015
1,032
868
How do you think they reach the consensus, out of thin air?
In the example we're arguing, without naming, money.

You can look at a papers conclusion, and go "logically, that checks out" - at "logically"s base value - without ever having experienced said conclusion.

Now we've got an assumption.

al-Haytham would have been a jetboat owner I guess.
 

ThatOneDude

Commander in @Chief, Dick Army
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
29,285
29,484
In the example we're arguing, without naming, money.

You can look at a papers conclusion, and go "logically, that checks out" - at "logically"s base value - without ever having experienced said conclusion.

Now we've got an assumption.

al-Haytham would have been a jetboat owner I guess.
.........