Scientists and Virtue
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Thanks - I like that!!
LoL...
OK...so you made me laugh...caught me off guard with that last statement...
Here's one up on ya...:bugeye:
You didnt just make up your own definition of a term did you? This is definition I found and it doesnt look anything like yours. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudo science
Indeed.
Actually, every definition on the page you linked to underscores exactly what I said. I know you didn't intend to support me, but that's precisely what you did.
Evidently your reading comprehension hasn't improved since you were here raving about UFOs.
My definition was almost exactly the same as the one given on dictionary.com :bugeye:
Now that line says considered as having no scientific basis. Means its still logically possible that these fields do have scientific basis if someone with a necessary standard in his observation skills think of studying any of these fields in detail as they way science has always done. But no one want to study any of these fields from scratch. Most people pick up the available half-baked, half senseless ideas that exists as of now and then argue and prove these pseudo scientists wrong.
I see no difference between "having no scientific merit" and what I said about someone practicing it: "He/she is a crackpot, an idiot, an uneducated fool, a woo-woo that doesn't understand science at all."
People who DO understand science do NOT involve themselves with something that has no scientific merit.
And anyone who argues against that last paragraph does NOT understand the English language.
Oh well lets examine the two definitions then since you feel so strongly about this. Let it be noted there is no definition of pseudoscientist at dictionary.com, only pseudoscience, but we will assume a pseudoscientist to be one who practices pseudoscience. Moving on...
The definition from dictionary.com
Could be rephrased as:
And Read-Only's definition:
The problem is Read Only you are extremely biased; prejudice even. You spew your venom at anyone that will listen. A person can be in a scientific field their whole life and still research pseudoscience. There is no solid barrier between the two as you think.
Evidently yours has declined, but your hatred for all that is good is still as ripe as ever I see.
You need to read my last post prior to this one. I consider the issue closed - as would any reasonable intelligent person.
Sorry but you are wrong here. This is where your bias is glaringly obvious. So bright it blinds you.
You really think you are the only person who GETS it? Everyone else are just morons?
The Problem is YOU Read-Only, not other people.
Nope, MOST people get it. The only thing you see is UFOs.
dicionary.com said:
As you can see by the dictionary.com definition, it is clear that pseudoscience is not something devoid of scientific merit but rather CONSIDERED to have none. That is a very important distinction.
ReadOnly said:
Check mate.
Then how does a discovery takes place?
Last edited:
Actually most of them had a pretty normal life outside of the ugliness.
Exactly. Every science starts as a pseudo science. Even UFOs.
If we knew everything already pseudo science wouldnt exist would it?
Yup. Trouble is that Read only cannot acknowledge his own prejudice and narrow minded outlook. Too much information usually does this to humans and at some point of time they begin to believe that everything they remember and have read are true on all accounts. They hardly cross check. or care to critically analyze their thoughts.