"Fear and loathing" is the sentiment conveyed in your speech, when you disparage science broadly, claiming that scientists are overly rigid, set in their ways, etc. Perhaps you'd prefer if I referred to this as a phobia.
1.) - I have never had any "Fear and Loathing" to convey in any way. I do not suffer those shortcomings.
2.) - I have not ever, nor do I see any reason that I would ever, "disparage" true science in any way.
3.) - I have never stated or claimed "that scientists are overly rigid, set in their ways, etc". In my OP, I clearly stated :
My intent in Posting this information is to hopefully assuage the adherence of some to the idea that all science must follow a rigid, dogmatic or "written in stone" single "Scientific Method".
There are, indeed, many different "methods" utilized by scientists, and they all demand rigorous testing and validation to be given any credence within the greater scientific community.
It is my firm belief that the plural form of the word "method" should be used when speaking of or referring to "The Scientific Methods"
I only ask that the linked pages be read and considered fully.
4.) - As far as what I would "prefer"? Well...Aqueous Id, since it seems to be your imaginary construct, you have every right to refer to your imaginary construct in any way you want to.
You reversed what I said. I said you were expressing fear and loathing (of science) rather than enjoying the solidarity among pro-science folks whose fear and loathing arises from the anti-science movement of the past few decades.
5.) - I do not believe that I reversed anything. I clearly stated :
I have no use for any "solidarity" offered by anyone that would choose to embrace their "fears" or choose to practice "loathing".
Whether that "Fear and Loathing" is put into practice by a group, or "arises" in another group, either way, or indeed in any way, I do not need, nor do I have any use for any group that embraces "Fear and Loathing", regardless of any rationale or excuse for said embracing.
Evidently you have some unresolved issue with science that is manifesting as a grudge. If it's not politically/religiously motivated (if you're not just echoing the mouthpieces for social conservativism and deregulation) then by process of elimination that leaves me to guess that you had a bad experience in your early education. As I said, you never gave us the underlying causes for your anti-science stance. It stands to reason that something left you holding a grudge against science, as adults sometimes report some sort of emotional damage that scarred them when they were young.
6.) - You use the word : evidently. Are you a Psychiatrist, Psychoanalyst or Psychologist that has been trained to analyze behavioral problems by reading On-Line Forum Posts? Would you be so kind as to Post your "evidence"?
7.) - Actually I have never had any "bad experience(s)" in any of my education - I graduated early, and started my first year of college at nearly the same time time that my previous classmates were entering their Senior year of High School.
8.) - The paramount reason for never giving any "underlying causes" for any "anti-science stance", is that I do not have any "anti-science stance"!
9.) - I cannot follow how you can state : "It stands to reason that something left you holding a grudge against science". For, as I clearly stated before, I hold no grudges against anyone or anything, including any of the Sciences.
10.) - Regardless of how you chose to answer my point #1 ^^above^^, I suffer no emotional problems, of any kind.
I'm not the one being cynical, so that makes no sense. You are the one attacking the status quo. My intent here was to apply the relevant philosophy from the playbook of the social conservatives, to show the irony of attacking knowledge from a position of illiteracy.
11.) - I am not "being cynical". It would seem to make as much sense as you bringing up the "splinters" and "stones" in the first place.
12.) - I am not "attacking" any "status quo".
13.) - Regardless of any "intent" on your part, to use any "relevant philosophy from the playbook of the social conservatives, to show the irony of attacking knowledge from a position of illiteracy". What, it seems, to me at least, is that you are doing nothing but attempting in some way to make the assertion that I am Illiterate.
I was borrowing the phrase as it was coined in the 1st person. It wasn't a reference to me myself. I was attempting to convey the irony of your attack on science, through an eye jaded by some as-yet-to-be-explained cynicism of science, such that you would offer to improve the "vision" of scientists at large (the I of that statement) who you seem to think are hardened -- like stone -- so much so that they can't see straight.
14.) - Odd, I find it "ironic" that you would make any statement "conveying" any "irony" of any imagined "attack on science" from me, since I have never made any "attack on science".
15.) - My eyes are not "jaded" by anything.
16.) - I hold no "cynicism of science", nor any "cynicism(s)" of anything. Though, it could be said that I have, of late, become somewhat weary of the "experts in every discipline that seem to frequent these on-Line Forums - yet have never, and will probably never, hold a Professional Position in any of the Disciplines that they claim to be such an expert in, and so adept at"!
17.) - I have not, in any way "offer(ed) to improve the "vision" of scientists at large (the I of that statement) who you seem to think are hardened -- like stone -- so much so that they can't see straight". Please refer to my #3.) - ^^above^^.
That leads us back to the original question which remains unanswered. What in the world puts you at odds with science?
Honestly, Aqueous Id, after going back through the previous 10 Pages of this Thread, I can find no Posts, by you or any other Poster, wherein I was asked : "What in the world puts you at odds with science?" As you should be able to perceive, I, dmoe, do my darnedest to answer all proper, and many of the improper, questions that are asked of me. So...
18.) - I am not "at odds with science".