As I said before I did answer you. My answer is that I never asked you about your credentials.
Aqueous Id, in question # 6.) of my Post #218, I asked you, directly :
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"?
In your Post #226, your apparent response to that question was :
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"?
There is nothing deep about my posts. I am simply calling a spade a spade. All of the evidence is prima facie, taken from the plain reading of the words "adherence", "rigid", "dogmatic", "written in stone" and "single". Again, you are reversing. What you ought to be doing is furnishing evidence of "scientific dogmatism" etc., not asking me produce evidence to the contrary. I'm not the claimant; you are. The burden of evidence is on you.
I see nothing Posted there about :
As I said before I did answer you. My answer is that I never asked you about your credentials.
Suffice it to say I have read psychology at university. But as far as you're concerned I'm a wino who lives under a bridge and as far as I'm concerned you're Jerry Garcia's former beard groomer. In other words none of that matters. Anyone can come in here and pretend to have any credentials they choose. And some do. The express goals of the site, and the reason I freely make used of them, are that people can engage in intelligent conversation on a variety of topics of interest to me. I have a lot of respect for the really great folks here without having any clue about who they are of what their credentials are. I have never asked anyone that question because it simply doesn't matter to me, regardless of the fact that it's none of my business. I can tell when I'm speaking to a person credentialed in math or science simply by the way they express themselves. There simply are some kinds of ideas you can't pick up through home schooling.
Is having "read psychology at university" any different from having "read" the same books or information at "home"? How may I ask would that be appreciably different from "home schooling"?
So...can you "tell when speaking to" to me, dmoe, if I am "credentialed in math or science simply by the way" I "express" myself?
My questions to you all stem from the factual predicate you laid in the OP. I have been trying to coax you to come forward with your rationale for claiming that scientists are rigid and dogmatic. So far you have resisted providing anymore information about who is rigid, who is dogmatic and who is limiting themselves to some narrow methodology, during the conduct of scientific inquiry.
I am not sure what, or even if I in fact, that I "laid" any, "factual predicate", in my OP.
I do know, for a fact, that I have never stated, claimed, intimated or believed that "scientists are rigid and dogmatic".
I was quick to point out to you that there is a religious-industrial coalition that has been attacking science for years now, and the markers you are expressing --- unspecified claims about general deficiencies in the scientific method, plus the reluctance to candidly answer questions put to you concerning those claims --- are the hallmark of that coalition. By all evidence there are a number of their operatives who have registered here as members who may be using the forums for a variety of deviant purposes -- from a pathological need to antagonize the well behaved technical folks to (I suspect) testing the waters for new ideas they are developing for their propaganda rags. Thus I had a base of observed patterns from which to quiz you about your motives.
I suffer no "religious" beliefs, ties or obligations. Again, you seem to be engaging in some form of "amateur, non-professional psychoanalysis" which to be completely honest, also seems influenced more by your own beliefs and experiences, than by any formal application of established professional behavioral analysis procedure.
I only have a foggy recollection of encountering you in the past - it seems I only took notice of you within the past few months or so. For some reason you remind me of several other members who all had a similar persona, each of whom became so antagonistic I put them on ignore so I could enjoy the better side of conversation without engaging them. This may have colored my responses to you a bit, although I'm on high ground asking you to substantiate your claims. That's what you should have done from the outset. I suspect the responses here would have been mellower had you done so.
I did "substantiate" all that I, as you choose to put it, "claimed ", in the OP - have you not read and fully considered the Links that I Posted in my OP, prior to responding, or Posting in this Thread?
At this point I don't give a rat's ass who you think I am or whether you want to answer me or not. That's entirely up to you. But it seems to me that if you came here with a legitimate interest in learning how scientists do their work, then you have a wealth of resources to draw from in the voices of the good technical people I alluded to above. I think we've scared off some of the really great scholars that were regulars here but there are a dozen or so people I can think of who have hung on, who are super qualified to chat with you over this very interesting subject.
Though you may think or feel that it is appropriate to bring a rodents rear-end into this "conversation" - however, I do not.
I have answered more of your questions than I was in any way obligated to - but I am still awaiting direct answers to some of the questions that I asked of you.
I am not sure who or whom, this "we've" you refer to are, but I am fairly confident that I, dmoe, have not "scared off" any "of the really great scholars that were regulars here".
Aqueous Id, have any of the "dozen or so people" that you "can think of who have hung on, who are super qualified to chat with" anyone "over this very interesting subject", yet Posted in this Thread?
I was glad to see Yazata's post since he insightfully recognized that this is a rather penetrating philosophical question (how do we know what we know; how can we be sure) which is way, way more interesting than beating each other over the head over accusations that science is fundamentally broken. I also appreciated his candid remark about the way posters like him get run off the road when the charioteers start gunning their engines. Many times I read through threads noticing that kind of thing happening. In fact I'm sure I unwittingly ran a lot of people off the road myself.
I must wholeheartedly opine that Yazata has brought some much needed intelligence, consideration and insight to this Thread, as well as some of the other Posters.
I must humbly opine, however, that up until this point in this Thread, I cannot, in all honesty, make that same declaration in regards to the discourse that I have experienced with you.
Yeah whatever you want to say go ahead and say it. I simply have no clue why you are saying it if you're not going to state your reasons.
:shrug:
Aqueous Id, as a man, I have no qualms about saying anything that I "want to say", regardless of whether or not I have been given any permission to do so - I firmly believe that to be an inalienable right, procured at birth, by every Human Being.
Again, Aqueous Id, I have repeatedly stated, and defended, both my reasons and intent for Posting the OP, in these, now more than a dozen Pages, of this Thread.
Whether or not you have any "clue", is only known, conclusively, by you. I can, in all honesty and openness, state that to me, at least, it seems that :
1.) - You may have not read and fully understood, both my OP and the Links included therein, or ;
2.) - Your "perception" of both the nature of, and my intent for Posting, the OP, may have been influenced by the nature of and intent of a few of the other Posters who have chosen to, what I will refer to as, express themselves through their seeming mis-perceptions of both my self, my Posts, and the content at the Links that I Posted in the OP.
Aqueous Id, contrary to what some seem to believe, I am very Pro-Real Science and the real processes of the sciences.
It does however seem to me that in the last few decades, the Mainstream Media or whatever one chooses to call whatever is the impetus driving "The Popular Cultural Zeitgeist", is or has been abusing or bastardizing the True Real Sciences and the Scientific Processes for the sake of whatever is the, so called "Issue of the Day, week, month...whatever..."!
Hopefully, Real Sciences and Real Scientists will always be able to be "heard above the din" of whatever is going on, that I attempted to describe ^^immediately above^^!
