Why should I believe you?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Theoryofrelativity, Sep 2, 2006.

  1. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    Bearing in mind most people here are students, employed in non science fields and are not scientists

    How are we (the group noted above) to discern what is reported here as 'right and correct' by those who allege they are in 'the know' is correct? Especially when they critisize other accademics and scientists work saying they a e wrong yet they themselves are right, but there is no discernable difference to us with regard to accademic success.

    What proof do you give to validate your contribution?

    It is of course easier to have trust in someone who conducts themselves respectfully and conscientiously and does not instead troll like a child crying that they know more but not actually demonstrating it. Though when they do attempt to demosntrate knowledge their apparant character flaw diminishes the desire to pay attention and certainly eliminates any 'bind trust'.

    I value many members contribution here but generally any trust I have that what they write is correct or valuable is soley based on their conduct of themselves.

    So what are your credentials when it comes to commenting on another accademics work? What method can I use to judge that your words have value over anyone elses? In the absence of nothing but 'other peoples words' how do I discern fact from fiction, good idea from shit idea?

    What ranking system exists here, what proof of 'knowledge'?

    How about you who are so ready to critisize prove yourselves, before expecting others to have BLIND FAITH in what you say.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2006
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Their word.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    Why do you have to trust anyone? Just take what they say and think about it for yourself. Or take what they say and go off and investigate further elsewhere. I'm not sure people here expect "blind faith" or "blind trust". Sometimes people are right and sometimes people are wrong.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
  8. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    I mean trust anyone on here (Sciforums).
     
  9. perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
  10. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    that wasnt the issue, perplexity.

    the issue is whether someone on this forum can be taken at face value.
    as i am not mentally retarded, i say "no they can not."
     
  11. perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
  12. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    I've read that psychopaths talk and act very smoothly.

    I've heard of a system of ranking scientists that functions similarly to google - a paper referred to by other good papers is considered good, which in turn increases the rank of any papers it refers to. And the ranking of a scientist's papers determine hir rating.
     
  13. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    I've heard they are higher than average intelligence, thus more likely to be correct yes or no?
     
  14. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595

    all good and dandy except someone (one person) comes up with something new yet valid and there is extreme opposition as it draws others 'beliefs' into question. Many pioneers later shown to be 'correct' were rubbished in their life time.

    Anyway not the point, the point is this:

    Is it a valid scientific contribution and helpful for the likes of Q and monkey nuts to bully people into being afraid to express a view that is not theirs, by ridiculing them and all their sources?


    I do not fear their opinion as it has no value to me due to the lack of respect I have for them based on how they conduct themselves. But I do fear others who have respect for them will fear to tread where they have trod for fear of being reversed over.
     
  15. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    uh...that is what this thread is about.
     
  16. perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
  17. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    again, i refuse to educate you on a topic that is right in front of your face.

    read it yourself.
     
  18. perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
  19. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    I'm not asserting things here should be taken at face value, I am asserting than some here are very aggressive in asserting THEY should be taken at face value and everyone else ignored.

    Whether some are taken at face value or not is for the reader to decide, it cannot be forced.

    But those who do wish to demonstrate they a e an authority on a subject, that could be better demonstrated by discussion of that subject rather than personal ad hom attacks at all and sundry.

    'Credentials' apparantly have no value as when I cite my sources credentials the source is still rubbished, they may well be rubbish, but how is the novice to know?

    Basically alleged 'experts' here, please do not be so shitty to the novice when you have NOT demonstrated to that novice your authority on any subject. To them you are as much as novice until demonstrated otherwise. Ad homs are not effective demonstration of knowledge or intelligence.
     
  20. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    ugh..are you this dense in real life?

    i was telling you to keep on topic, and not start talking about bank managers.
    nothing more. get with it, guy.
     
  21. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    But psychopaths are also described as having no sympathy, or no morals, and thus no aversion to lying when it suits them.

    So maybe their internal thoughts are correct. But is what they communicate?

    But the triumph of science is that they were shown to be correct.

    In addition, many kooks who weren't correct were rubbished in their lifetime. But since they made little contribution, they are mere footnotes in history and you're less likely to hear about them.

    So being rubbished on its own isn't a guarantee of success or failure. But certain things are warning signs ... for example, I don't think someone should try to disprove relativity unless they understand basic calculus (unless they have extraordinary proof that calculus itself doesn't work). There are certain bodies of knowledge that people are expected to be familiar with before adding something new - just as someone posting here is expected to understand English.

    Ridiculing a person is never helpful. Criticising their opinion and their sources seems reasonable, especially if those doing so are prepared to explain their criticism.
     
  22. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    wablieft?
     
  23. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    smengnorst.
     

Share This Page