There’s that science fundamentalism again, and the piss-poor reading comprehension. Credentials only have value in that they imply adherence to good practice. Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name. You fundamentalists are preventing science into a religious cult of personality.
Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name
And peer-reviewed papers will reflect that dumbass. You keep accusing me of bad reading comprehension, when you’ve shown it time and timer again.
And if you feel so strongly about this why don’t you enter the sciences and actually try to make a change?
Go ahead and write that grant application about how you’ll disprove the very existence of gravity. Go ahead, I’ll wait and see how well that gets funded.
You know companies that pursue scientific pursuits outside of academia still publish their work. They also tend to hire people with masters and doctorates from well-regarded academic institutions.
Call it the Game, call it the science Meta, call it politics in the sciences, whatever you like. It’s an extension of the same fundamentalist principles. Whatever it is, isn’t science itself.
That’s asinine. The bureaucracy and politics surrounding the practice of science is explicitly not science itself. It is crucial to a career in in modern science sure, but it is not itself science.
Peer-review is an incredibly important part of science, one of the most important in fact. So go ahead with your non-peer reviewed, no control “science”, and leave the real science to us scientists.
Scientific consensus is determined by peer-review. Peer
-reviewed consensus can, and has been down to be false.
Absolute certainty still isn’t part of science. If it’s 100% certain and not falsifiable, it’s not science by definition. Just like an atom with 7 protons isn’t carbon, by definition. Nitrogen is an important and valid element, but it isn’t carbon.
There’s that science fundamentalism again, and the piss-poor reading comprehension. Credentials only have value in that they imply adherence to good practice. Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name. You fundamentalists are preventing science into a religious cult of personality.
And peer-reviewed papers will reflect that dumbass. You keep accusing me of bad reading comprehension, when you’ve shown it time and timer again.
And if you feel so strongly about this why don’t you enter the sciences and actually try to make a change?
Go ahead and write that grant application about how you’ll disprove the very existence of gravity. Go ahead, I’ll wait and see how well that gets funded.
Yes, for that paper. Past work is not evidence for future work.
I see the problem. When I say “science” I mean science.
When you say “science,” you mean academia. I agree with most of your statements as they apply to academia. Academia is not science.
You know companies that pursue scientific pursuits outside of academia still publish their work. They also tend to hire people with masters and doctorates from well-regarded academic institutions.
Call it the Game, call it the science Meta, call it politics in the sciences, whatever you like. It’s an extension of the same fundamentalist principles. Whatever it is, isn’t science itself.
But it is. More science than you’ve ever done it seems since you think one data point with no controls is somehow scientific.
That’s asinine. The bureaucracy and politics surrounding the practice of science is explicitly not science itself. It is crucial to a career in in modern science sure, but it is not itself science.
Peer-review is an incredibly important part of science, one of the most important in fact. So go ahead with your non-peer reviewed, no control “science”, and leave the real science to us scientists.
Scientific consensus is determined by peer-review. Peer -reviewed consensus can, and has been down to be false.
Absolute certainty still isn’t part of science. If it’s 100% certain and not falsifiable, it’s not science by definition. Just like an atom with 7 protons isn’t carbon, by definition. Nitrogen is an important and valid element, but it isn’t carbon.