|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2014 8:08:51 GMT
This thread is a temporary repository for anyone who wishes to get this subject aired, off their chest, out in the open, wishes to let it be known....
Those by-standers who believe they know more than you do....
Why?...
What are they for if not to test your patience and see how well you perform under pressure.
Pressure being you really want to get over there and have a word in their shell...
The word being two words spoken close together, to sound like one word, the second part being "OFF!!!!"
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2014 8:09:26 GMT
Today I had a likkle worm wriggling on his belly, perhaps he's like to go away and see whats on his telly.....
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2014 8:14:40 GMT
Today I had a snotty nose think he is gods answer to evolution v-neck tank top wearing fully fledges member of the train spotters reject club who was on his way to do some bus spotting stood next to where I was jiggling the wagon shouting instructions at me.
At one point he actually got in the way and obscured my view through the mirror...
He wasnt best pleased when I gave him the Saxon instruction to move out of the bloody way....
Just why?...
Why is it that when people see a wagon in reverse, they have to assume the driver "Needs" someone to tell him what to do?...
If he needs help, he will ask....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2014 8:47:28 GMT
so many people I work with don't understand the concept of "give me a reference where the edge of where I can go is."
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 16, 2014 20:11:58 GMT
Over on another website I've got people telling me that because I'm not a professional scientist or researcher I have no "right" to raise questions about anything scientific, let alone question anything printed in a scholarly or professional journal.
I have an MBA with a focus on marketing (AKA "applied psychological warfare") and special training in research design / conducting / analysis. I was educated in the cynical side of statistics, and am what one person has dubbed "a certified expert in B.S."
This is on top of the actual science and psych classes I've taken.
I know how to read a report, I know all about the importance of an abstract in said reports, I know when said abstract indicates a poorly-designed research effort, and I know when researchers are drawing unwarranted conclusions from their findings.
But because I dare to be a skeptic I am somehow an uneducated brute who blindly hates all things scientific.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2014 20:29:55 GMT
Over on another website I've got people telling me that because I'm not a professional scientist or researcher I have no "right" to raise questions about anything scientific, let alone question anything printed in a scholarly or professional journal. I have an MBA with a focus on marketing (AKA "applied psychological warfare") and special training in research design / conducting / analysis. I was educated in the cynical side of statistics, and am what one person has dubbed "a certified expert in B.S." This is on top of the actual science and psych classes I've taken. I know how to read a report, I know all about the importance of an abstract in said reports, I know when said abstract indicates a poorly-designed research effort, and I know when researchers are drawing unwarranted conclusions from their findings. But because I dare to be a skeptic I am somehow an uneducated brute who blindly hates all things scientific. I would guess being practicing LDS also contributes to that - many people seem to think religion and science are mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 16, 2014 20:30:35 GMT
Over on another website I've got people telling me that because I'm not a professional scientist or researcher I have no "right" to raise questions about anything scientific, let alone question anything printed in a scholarly or professional journal. I have an MBA with a focus on marketing (AKA "applied psychological warfare") and special training in research design / conducting / analysis. I was educated in the cynical side of statistics, and am what one person has dubbed "a certified expert in B.S." This is on top of the actual science and psych classes I've taken. I know how to read a report, I know all about the importance of an abstract in said reports, I know when said abstract indicates a poorly-designed research effort, and I know when researchers are drawing unwarranted conclusions from their findings. But because I dare to be a skeptic I am somehow an uneducated brute who blindly hates all things scientific. I may have gotten this wrong, but isn't having a healthy dose of skepticism and being critical of things you find off pretty much the whole basis of working science? Falling in love with your own (or someone elses) hypothesis and interpreting results with the pure intention of confirming that hypothesis is the exact opposite of science, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2014 20:33:53 GMT
Over on another website I've got people telling me that because I'm not a professional scientist or researcher I have no "right" to raise questions about anything scientific, let alone question anything printed in a scholarly or professional journal. I have an MBA with a focus on marketing (AKA "applied psychological warfare") and special training in research design / conducting / analysis. I was educated in the cynical side of statistics, and am what one person has dubbed "a certified expert in B.S." This is on top of the actual science and psych classes I've taken. I know how to read a report, I know all about the importance of an abstract in said reports, I know when said abstract indicates a poorly-designed research effort, and I know when researchers are drawing unwarranted conclusions from their findings. But because I dare to be a skeptic I am somehow an uneducated brute who blindly hates all things scientific. I may have gotten this wrong, but isn't having a healthy dose of skepticism and being critical of things you find off pretty much the whole basis of working science? Falling in love with your own (or someone elses) hypothesis and interpreting results with the pure intention of confirming that hypothesis is the exact opposite of science, isn't it? pretty much so. yet "weekend scientists" often jump onto the latest headline study with all the fervor of the most rabid fundies. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 16, 2014 20:36:55 GMT
I may have gotten this wrong, but isn't having a healthy dose of skepticism and being critical of things you find off pretty much the whole basis of working science? Falling in love with your own (or someone elses) hypothesis and interpreting results with the pure intention of confirming that hypothesis is the exact opposite of science, isn't it? pretty much so. yet "weekend scientists" often jump onto the latest headline study with all the fervor of the most rabid fundies. Right. And what they tend to forget is that these scientists who release the studies they're so in love with are as much human as the rest of us. Even Newton and Einstein, brilliant as they both were, got things wrong from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2014 21:10:18 GMT
pretty much so. yet "weekend scientists" often jump onto the latest headline study with all the fervor of the most rabid fundies. Right. And what they tend to forget is that these scientists who release the studies they're so in love with are as much human as the rest of us. Even Newton and Einstein, brilliant as they both were, got things wrong from time to time. sometimes more so... or to be less cryptic, people have been known to falsify results. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 16, 2014 21:42:29 GMT
Right. And what they tend to forget is that these scientists who release the studies they're so in love with are as much human as the rest of us. Even Newton and Einstein, brilliant as they both were, got things wrong from time to time. sometimes more so... or to be less cryptic, people have been known to falsify results. Not at all unheard of. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 16, 2014 21:43:36 GMT
I would guess being practicing LDS also contributes to that - many people seem to think religion and science are mutually exclusive. One person literally told me that they regard people who are religious as being somehow mentally defective, and the other has nothing but derision for anyone who is religious. This is ironic, as from what I understand the LDS faith is over-represented in some fields of physics and the church has also produced numerous noted scientists, scholars, and even astronauts. Heck, about the only reason why we're even having this conversation is because Dr. Philo T. Farnsworth developed what would become the modern television set, which spawned computer monitors and the like as it went along. Additionally, one of the church's great popular theologians was James E. Talmage, a high-ranking clergyman who was a geology professor before being asked to join the church leadership. His magnum opus was a work known as "Jesus The Christ", an attempt at analyzing the gospels from the perspective of known science at the time the work was written in the early 1900s. The book was so well-recieved and so academically thorough that it's still in print. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 16, 2014 21:51:55 GMT
pretty much so. yet "weekend scientists" often jump onto the latest headline study with all the fervor of the most rabid fundies. Right. And what they tend to forget is that these scientists who release the studies they're so in love with are as much human as the rest of us. Even Newton and Einstein, brilliant as they both were, got things wrong from time to time. One book I constantly recommend to people is David H. Freedman's "Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us And How to Know When Not to Trust Them."Freedman's motivation to write the book came in part from his father, a researcher. His father made a math error in a paper, and whoever published it didn't catch his mistake. Eventually, another researcher got to reading the published paper and spotted the mistake, in the process noting that the mistake had such consequences as to invalidate much of the paper because other calculations had relied upon it. His father framed a copy of the letter from the other researcher as a reminder to be more thorough in checking his work before putting it forward. Freedman was impressed by his father's modest reaction to what was a major professional embarrassment, but was also concerned by the realization that even the most honest of men could still not always catch a mistake in time and so put forth bad information to the public. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 16, 2014 21:53:15 GMT
I would guess being practicing LDS also contributes to that - many people seem to think religion and science are mutually exclusive. One person literally told me that they regard people who are religious as being somehow mentally defective, and the other has nothing but derision for anyone who is religious. I'd be inclined to agree with them. If you'd been Muslim or some sort of Creationism follower. But I can't help but wonder. How did your religious affiliation come up in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2014 21:54:15 GMT
I would guess being practicing LDS also contributes to that - many people seem to think religion and science are mutually exclusive. One person literally told me that they regard people who are religious as being somehow mentally defective, and the other has nothing but derision for anyone who is religious. This is ironic, as from what I understand the LDS faith is over-represented in some fields of physics and the church has also produced numerous noted scientists, scholars, and even astronauts. Heck, about the only reason why we're even having this conversation is because Dr. Philo T. Farnsworth developed what would become the modern television set, which spawned computer monitors and the like as it went along. Additionally, one of the church's great popular theologians was James E. Talmage, a high-ranking clergyman who was a geology professor before being asked to join the church leadership. His magnum opus was a work known as "Jesus The Christ", an attempt at analyzing the gospels from the perspective of known science at the time the work was written in the early 1900s. The book was so well-recieved and so academically thorough that it's still in print. one of the great annoyances I have is the "if God was real he would do what I want him to" argument. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 16, 2014 21:56:24 GMT
I may have gotten this wrong, but isn't having a healthy dose of skepticism and being critical of things you find off pretty much the whole basis of working science? Falling in love with your own (or someone elses) hypothesis and interpreting results with the pure intention of confirming that hypothesis is the exact opposite of science, isn't it? I think most folks would be surprised by how much scientific knowledge came from someone going "Oh? Really? We'll see about that" and "Pfft. I can do better. Watch me." And let's not forget everything we got from "Hey y'all! Watch this!". |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2014 21:57:46 GMT
I may have gotten this wrong, but isn't having a healthy dose of skepticism and being critical of things you find off pretty much the whole basis of working science? Falling in love with your own (or someone elses) hypothesis and interpreting results with the pure intention of confirming that hypothesis is the exact opposite of science, isn't it? I think most folks would be surprised by how much scientific knowledge came from someone going "Oh? Really? We'll see about that" and "Pfft. I can do better. Watch me." And let's not forget everything we got from "Hey y'all! Watch this!". and everything we got rid of through "hold my beer and watch this" |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 16, 2014 21:58:21 GMT
one of the great annoyances I have is the "if God was real he would do what I want him to" argument. There's a religious fundamentalist on the same website whose opinion of other religious groups is "Your faith is wrong because your leaders disagree with me." His co-religionists are forever telling him to shut up and not be so rude. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 16, 2014 22:01:24 GMT
One person literally told me that they regard people who are religious as being somehow mentally defective, and the other has nothing but derision for anyone who is religious. I'd be inclined to agree with them. If you'd been Muslim or some sort of Creationism follower. But I can't help but wonder. How did your religious affiliation come up in the first place? I've dealt with one of the two in the past. In addition to worshiping science, this person is also a radical feminist who literally thinks all Republicans are corrupt and who regards all religions as inherently harmful. Her #1 debate tactic is to post random YouTube videos w/o commenting on them. Her #2 tactic is personal insults and vulgarity. #3 is running away when unable to respond to actual facts mustered up against her. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2014 22:06:05 GMT
one of the great annoyances I have is the "if God was real he would do what I want him to" argument. There's a religious fundamentalist on the same website whose opinion of other religious groups is "Your faith is wrong because your leaders disagree with me." His co-religionists are forever telling him to shut up and not be so rude. I have taken to referring to that mentality as "brand warfare" I also occasionally remind people the quote is not "...that whosoever should be on the roster at the correct denomination of church..." |
|
