Who are the scientists?

Thanks for getting us back on topic, Dan. That a twelve-year old could pass himself off as a legitimate scientist sort of gels with my side-issue point that layman can contribute ideas - but enough of that, and back on topic!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

this would be nice if the " lay man " actually spent their efforts towards things that need attention rather than trying to re-established things that have been established for centuries.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Two very relevant and true statements have been made in this thread, and should be noted....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would assume that the layman (Your quotation marks around the term were senseless, unless they were meant to be derogatory) would be trying to re-established things that have been established for centuries?

To think so is mere speculative opinion. You are free to have such a view, but please do not think of yourself as a scientifically minded person. A true scientist would not be so quick to make such a value judgement. I am a layman, and even I know that.

Ditto! You're assumptions aren't as wild and arbitrary as Krash's; nevertheless, how can you possibly be so sure?

I appreciate that 'science' has ratcheded up a few notches since say, the year 1900, and that their are fewer and fewer guys in their garages coming up with billion-dollar ideas (although this phenomena can be observed happening a number of times since 1900). However, every one who will not admit that just 'some guy' can have a brilliant new idea, and may not even realize it himself, strikes me as just being way too smug. You emphasize 'could' and 'likely' (never), but your opinion still has a pessimistic feel to it.

It is possible to be clear-eyed and intelligent without an advanced degree. I am sure of this, and I can't understand the resistance the idea is meeting here. As I said just above, a true scientist would not be so quick to make such a value judgement.

If it is a waste of forum space and effort to suggest what I have, and you disagree, you're disagreement has been noted. My rebuttal is now on record.There's no need to discuss this sub-topic further. Please move on to the thread about cute little pussy cats or how Star Trek will come true.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A general observation: I am growing discouraged that so many "scientists" and people who consider themselves to be rational and objective on Sci Forum are anything but. What I see is a great amount of dilettantism and hangers on who wish to bask in the reflected glory of scientific intellectualism. They delude themselves into thinking that they themselves possess these qualities. I begin to see if any one was a real working scientist he would hardly be likely to be spending his time on SciForum telling other people how stupid they are.

Until now, I thought the Karma Klub was a silly, self-defeating joke. I still don't know if I would like to join it, or if they would have me. Nonetheless I am now banning myself for three days as a protest to the knee-jerk aggressive replies, constant arrogance and narrow-minded, non-scientific attitude I so often encounter on virtually every topic that comes up here. I see this not just in responses to what I might write, but to what anyone writes.

 

I think I'll miss you Arne:

as re dilettantism:
Ahem....
I am a self described dilettante in that I do that which delights me. ( how did that word gain such negative baggage?)(maybe, I need a new word?)
As a younger man, I chose to spend the better part of 13 years attending 5 different universities, and pursuing knowledge in fields which delighted me and sated my thirst and curiosity. (To the outside observer, the courses of study most likely seemed scattered and eclectic, To me, they all seemed connected.)
When the dust settled and I grew tired of the self imposed poverty, I left the university. (even money says that no-one here could guess which degrees were granted when I finally asked for them 10 years later.)(funny story--the administration had sent my records to long term storage in a salt mine, and in the attempt to retrieve them, I had to teach a dean how get things done by being a dean by changing her first name from Barbara to "Dean". Only after repeating her phoned request using her new first name, did the necessary people respond positively.)

My sculpting mentor once said that "If you ain't having fun, you're doing something wrong". He also referred to me as "A victim of too much education".

You(most likely) only live once. Life is short and finite.
Do that which delights you, and ignore the jibes of the narrow minded.

My main bitch with "science" forums, is that the poorly educated hold forth in the manner of the media who rush from one disaster to the next.
If there ain't nothing wrong, and no-one to blame, they have nothing to say, and should behave accordingly. Instead, they seem the first to launch into personal attacks.
But, I ain't interested in imposing my will on anyone else. I often say that it is good that I married a strong willed woman(the only full professor in her department), as, if I had married a weak willed woman, and I had "built up a full head of steam" she would follow me into hell. This one stands in the middle of the tracks, and demands that I slow down. ........... One of life's little blessings.

 

amusing.
are you blind to what has been occurring here??
can you not see all the attempts of the claims of theories are wrong.
you say such a thing only because you are part of this group.
what a joke this is.
and also, i'm an actual scientist.
i work on tier one(non public)

comical,
and what " rebuttal " and record would this be ?

rebuttal-
a refutation or contradiction.
refute: to deny the truth of something, especially by presenting arguments that disprove it

 

this is nothing more than a " want to be " rambling pathetic nonsense.
and go ahead and play the petty " I am now banning myself for three days as a protest " game,
no one will notice let alone care.
amusing

" They delude themselves into thinking that they themselves possess these qualities. "
apply this statement to yourself.

 

You seem to have a guilty conscience. In case you havn't heard, I'm also a layman. So why would I be derogatory to myself.
Your fault is that you have only been here a short time. You obviously are then either Ignorant of the plague of anti science that has been doing the rounds in science threads, or you are sympathetic towards one of their many causes.
So now I'll inform you of my attitude. It's the wholesale arrogance of "some "layman" and some who have had University education, call themselves scientists, and then claim all of science to be wrong and set out to rewrite the whole of cosmology.
Perhaps you being religious, you would like to see that happen to support your deity complex.
Do you know what a ToE is? It's a final ultimate, all encompassing theory of physics that virtually explains all there is of cosmology, and is something physicists have been striving for now for a 100 years or more.
The worlds best minds have yet to formulate one that can be validated and observationally verified.
Yet this forum, has four of them, from four different members.
As I often have said as a layman, if they were fair dinkum, if they had anything at all, why would they be here? [Didn't you also say words to that effect?]
I'm sure if any of the real reputable scientists we have on this forum, had a ToE, [people like Grumpy, AId, rpenner, brucep, Neddy,] they would not be broadcasting it here, craving for attention etc.
They would be following the proper scientific method and getting it properly peer reviewed and judged on its merits.
But guess what? The ToE claimants we have here, just sit back, ignoring advice given by some of the people I have already mentioned, deriding the scientific method, and rubbishing peer review.
Then you want to emotionally shout out and act all indignant when the more reputable scientists we do have, tell them a few home truths.

About me as a non scientist, the little I do know, I gained from reading many reputable books by many reputable people, and taking advice from real scientists on forums such as this.
My general Interests are space, astronomy, cosmology and ETL. I do my darndest to keep abreast of all new data with that regards.
I have also gained a couple of enemies since my time here. :shrug: But that's life.
I see the human species as eventual star travellers, and certainly hope I'm still around when we finally set foot on Mars.
I do not deride these ToE claimants we have on their maths...I'm not able to. I deride them on their convenient excuses about the supposed worthlessness of the accepted scientific method and peer review.

Krash's comments are spot on. There are some scientific theories that are as certain as one would hope.
To oppose them, would be unreasonable in the extreme, and would be prompted by hidden agendas.
Do you know that the Catholic church has given the OK for Evolution and the BB?




.

The people who actually strike me as being way to smug, are those here that deride the validity of SR, claim we have no evidence to accept Evolution, claim to have long sort after ToE's.
Then you claim that the rest of us who roundly criticise such smugness are exhibiting pessimism?.
My thoughts concern lay people that do come here to learn, along with children, being grossly mislead by these delusionals. Have you read the "For the Alternative Theorists"thread?
In summing, I think you have the bull by the wrong end.

Sure it is! I'm a clear eyed, moderately Intelligent Australian bloke, who recognises the advances science as a whole, is responsible for. I'm also Intelligent enough to be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff,and I have many speculative ideas about life, the Universe and everything, and Intelligent enough to recognise these ideas as speculative, and not claim them as 100% faitre compleii truths as some of our Alternative hypothesis pushers, pseudquackery experts and conspiracy adherents would have us believe.

 

Arne ....good

 

Forget it, guys. I just found out, krash661 is an artificial intelligence. He's mostly 'channeling' the late, great Archimedes Plutonium. Best bus boy at Stanford ever.

 

amusing
(shakes head)
what ever the low level mentalities/want to be-s want to think.
i also should not have used the word think.
more like a malfunction.


all in all, this place is a cesspool
and i pretty much had enough of it for a while.