Magical Realist takes offense at what he thinks he reads

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Magical Realist, Nov 23, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    I think I am polite and respectful to MR.
    I find he gets upset very quickly if I try to offer alternatives or state the obvious that certain problems exist with a video.
    I think he does not extend to me the respect I extend to him and when one feels that is the situation things can go down hill.
    I think MR gives as good as he gets and it is unfortunate moderators are ever called in.
    All I can suggest is if a report is received thatthe mod post a standard reminder " A report hasbeen made please note that from this point on any behaviour breaking the rules will result in a ban etc" This will relieve the mod going back thru the thread trying to work out who said what and waste a great deal of time.
    If bad behaviour continues the issuecan be limited to behaviour after the warning.
    Alex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,685
    Wow, banned for two weeks for posts in this thread by Penner, which now is specifically about me and the awful threads I post. Isn't there a rule against starting threads about members, especially after they've been banned?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    As you see in post #1, you started this thread when you went off-topic. I merely labeled it based on content when I removed those posts from the original thread on November 24. You were the one who raised the claim in that original thread that your threads did not have titles similar to that of which paddoboy thought he remembered and demanded factual support ( http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3418669 and http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3418689 ). Thus you were the one that made your factual posting history an issue germane to this digression. If you don't like people responding to your questionable assertions with facts, what course of behavior does that recommend on your part?
     
    Russ_Watters likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,685
    LOL! Did you find a thread of mine with the title Paddoboy claimed: "Science has done nothing for mankind"? Be honest now. Don't lie like Paddoboy did. That was my sole challenge. If I'm going to be misquoted here and then infracted for challenging it, then I'm reporting it to James. In fact I just PM'd your little bogus 10 pt infraction list of every post of mine in this thread to James R. We'll see what he says about your bullshit list of trumped up charges.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,685
    Oh and I was told I was lying that Einstein wasn't initially peer reviewed. Here's a source on that:

    "Albert Einstein was not infallible, and sometimes his pride made him slow to acknowledge mistakes. A notable example took place in 1936, when he butted heads with the editor of the journal Physical Review over a process that modern scientists take for granted: peer review.

    Einstein, then at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, and collaborator Nathan Rosen had submitted an article titled “Do Gravitational Waves Exist?” Their answer, surprisingly, was “no.”

    At the time, peer review by anonymous outside experts was beginning to take hold among journals in the United States. Einstein, however, wasn't used to it: Until he left Germany 3 years earlier, he had regularly published in German journals without external peer review. He was indignant when he learned that his paper had received a critical review, and he withdrew it in a huff. “We (Mr. Rosen and I) … had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed,” he wrote to the editor. “I see no reason to address the—in any case erroneous—comments of your anonymous expert.” He and Rosen submitted the paper to another journal, the Journal of the Franklin Institute, without change.

    Yet before it was printed, Einstein revised the manuscript, retitling it “On Gravitational Waves.” It now came to the opposite conclusion: that gravitational waves were possible. The unidentified referee had pointed out a legitimate flaw in the original paper. Historians have recently confirmed that the referee was Howard Percy Robertson of Princeton University. After his anonymous criticisms were ignored, Robertson had delicately approached Einstein and convinced him of his error.

    Even though peer review had helped Einstein save face, he stuck to his guns and never published another scientific paper in the Physical Review."---https://plus.google.com/118213896763576185950/posts/i5JKM2HLiJc
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    LOL, oops!
     
  10. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Agreed. As a general rule, one should always approach a new thread as a fresh start if possible. MR is actually capable of this and does it sometimes in the atual science parts of the forum*. But he can quickly become hostile/crackpotty if he doesn't like the answers he gets.

    *And that leads me to believe he knows what he is doing.
     
  11. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    That's not what you claimed. You wrote:
    1) Confirmation isn't bestowed by peer review, that's only to weed out massive mistakes. Confirmation happens when people use theories to predict phenomena and then see how precise the predictions were to actual observations. Those confirmations were (and continue to be) written up in peer-reviewed literature.
    2) On links, Einstein's 1905 papers were (and continue to be) cited by scientific authors. True hyperlinks didn't appear until those papers were put on the web, but many scientific authors who produce web material did link to them.

    Both confirmation and general acceptance by peers came to Einstein's 1905 papers. Some of the confirmations happened in peer reviewed journals. Citations and links abound.
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,685
    Then you're supporting my statement that Einstein's theories weren't confirmed by peer reviewed journals. How was I lying?
     
  13. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Paddoboy was not so specific. He merely indicated what the thread he thought he remembers was titled like.
    You have expressed similar sentiments before.
     
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,685
    It's a lie that I ever posted such a thread with that title or anything even close to that title. And you are now lying in supporting Paddoboy's lie.
     
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    In that the literal meaning of the words that you actually wrote didn't match reality.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,685
    The reality is that none of Einstein's theories were confirmed by peer review. That's what I said and you just confirmed it.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    No paddoboy did not lie. I was going from memory and I also said " or words to that effect" In hindsight, it may not have been a thread title, but a post where you certainly did make a similar comment, along with some derision to such crazy claims by myself.
     
  18. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    No, you wrote “Einstein's theories weren't confirmed in peer reviewed journals ...” not “Einstein's 1905 theories weren't published in peer reviewed journals.” or “Einstein's 1905 theories weren't confirmed by peer review as part of being published initially.” The first is untrue, the second is possibly true, the third is obviously true for peer-review (even if it happens) cannot confirm a scientific theory.

    But your source says the German papers were not subject to external peer review, thus leaving open the possibility that they were subject to peer review internal to the German-language physics journal editorial staff.

    When experiments confirming Einstein's predictions are published in peer-reviewed journals, even if Einstein himself was not subject to peer review, then Einstein's theories become confirmed in peer-reviewed journals.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,685
    LOL! It's clear how you were anally dissecting my posts to find some excuse to infract me. You really had to get those infraction pts up there to teach me a lesson didn't you? Don't worry. I'm used to it. I'm basically ground zero for every moderator's bad hair day here.

    I'll make this real simple for you: Were Einstein's theories confirmed by peer reviewed journals? Yes or no?

    Quoth you:

    "Confirmation isn't bestowed by peer review, that's only to weed out massive mistakes"
     
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,685
    So you lied. I never posted a thread with that title nor anything even close to it. Just say it. You falsely accused me of something I never did. And then Penner infracted me instead of you just for challenging your accusation. It's great when you have bellicose moderators doing your dirty work for you isn't it?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,685
    Just out of curiosity, what did I actually take offense to that I thought I read? WAS I offended? What statement did I misinterpret?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Really MR, you are fooling no one but yourself!
    Like I said........
    "No paddoboy did not lie. I was going from memory and I also said "or words to that effect" In hindsight, it may not have been a thread title, but a post where you certainly did make a similar comment, along with some derision to such crazy claims by myself"
    Now stop obfuscating, and for once take responsibility for your actions/words: Whether it was a "thread title" or a"post comment" is immaterial.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,685
    Bullcrap. I developed those inquiries entirely along the lines of philosophy and logic without recourse at anytime to fringe phenomena. In fact some of the questions I raised even challenge fringe science itself. Theories of ufos and paranormal phenomena may provide predicability but are they therefore necessarily true? A scientific validation of said phenomena may not be equivalent to truth. In any case. how does one's motives for raising objections against science become an immoral offense that invalidates those objections? Who cares what my motivations are? The arguments are coherent, logical and stand on their own and so deserve to be taken seriously solely for that reason.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page