Apologies all round: Including some insights

[Tom Vose]

I receieved an apology from Truedeity. The nature of the apology is not important, howsoever, the conversation between us i feel is important to help me understand the true nature of this forum. The reply went a bit like this:

 

''That's truely ok. I accept your apology -- i just want you to be more aware of what others might be saying here. But that may derogatory, because right now i am having my own displeasure with people here continuously asking me to back up the scientific claims here i make with some kind of evidence, and this gets tiring.

 

It's impossible to qoute everything one ever learns in this place. If it was possible, one would need a record of everthing one reads, and that for me is an impossible task. Sometimes, one requires a little respect from others in what they say, instead of so little trust in what they say... for i can tell a lot of people a great deal of things here in this forum, but i cannot detail citations for everything.

 

Does this mean that i should just remain quiet, even if i know something that would be of interest? What a boring place this would be if we are reserved only to discuss what we can cite, and not the little things we learn over the years independant of sources of citations. ''

 

 

And seriously -- i am confused. Is this place really only reserved to statements that must be backed by citations, because i know quite a bit about physics, and most of it i probably can't citate?

[YT2095]

no one here has ever been asked to cite Everything, but when Asked to cite a claim, it`s usually best to do so.

otherwise you end up with a place that`s full of garbage and little in the way of true Science and facts, and I don`t think Anyone wants that!

[Reaper]

Aren't PM's supposed to be, well, private?

 

 

And seriously -- i am confused. Is this place really only reserved to statements that must be backed by citations, because i know quite a bit about physics, and most of it i probably can't citate?

 

 

How much of an idiot do you have to be to not understand that we demanded citations for your rather extraordinary claims. Especially claims that run counter to common knowledge....

[Mokele]

The problem is twofold.

 

First and foremost, any new idea someone has, revolutionary or not, must fit the known facts. A new idea that's blatantly contradicted by known evidence (not theory, but rather observations and experimental results) should be rejected. If, to use something from my own field, I claim that snakes are actually mammals, my claim could be immediately rejected by the many facts which flatly contradict it.

 

Second, there's the old adage that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For instance, if I make the claim that king cobras display the level of intelligence we'd expect from a cat, I cannot back that up with a citation, but it's not a particularly wild claim, either - plenty of keeper anecdotes back it up, they're predators in a complex habitat with variable prey and moderately complex social behavior, and animals with much smaller brains (octopi) have demonstrated much greater intelligence.

 

If, on the other hand, I claim that there is a snake in the amazon that's 2000 feet long and as smart as a human, that claim is clearly extraordinary, and would be rightly disbelieved without evidence.

 

If you claim to upend an important theory, such as evolution or relativity, be prepared to be greeted with skepticism, and have evidence to back up your claims.

 

This is actually how science works - if I stand up at a conference and suggest something new, people will immediately try to see if it fits with known facts, or if it's a a reasonable possibility. If they think it's good, they'll say "That's an interesting idea", but then the onus is on me to actually go out and do the experiment.

 

Obviously, doing a professional-level experiment is beyond most people's means, mostly in terms of finance (even cheap experiments in my field cost thousands of dollars, and the apparatus I'm using now costs $250k), but at the least you can ensure your idea is at least a) a reasonable possibility and b) in agreement with known facts.

 

Remember, the ultimate test of whether an idea is reasonable or not is that there is a defined set of events or evidence which will disprove it. If you can say "I will abandon this idea if I can see the following evidence", that's a hallmark of rationality. It's not easy, but good science isn't easy.

 

Mokele

[Reaper]

The problem, Mokele, is that he claims himself to be a scientist. So presumably he already knows all that

 

And yet, the real scientists on this site can't understand what the hell he's talking about...

[Tom Vose]

Reaper

 

How dare you call me an idiot.

 

I am reporting you for this.

 

The problem, Mokele, is that he claims himself to be a scientist. So presumably he already knows all that

 

And yet, the real scientists on this site can't understand what the hell he's talking about...

 

I am a real scientist -- i have dedicated many years on the study of physics, so this kind of attitude is not welcome. In fact, you do realize, that there are many scientists in the field who often disagree with each other, and most don't understand what each other are saying due to each others differential abilities to see physics from different light. Moreover, physics is not a straight cut theory, so this is another reason for many ''undefined'' subjects of conversations, so i would appreciate an apology.

[Reaper]

Reaper

 

How dare you call me an idiot.

 

I am reporting you for this.

 

Go right ahead darling.

 

Not that it matters, I didn't do anything wrong.

[Tom Vose]

You called me an idiot, ''darling.''

 

That is derogatory, and downright unpleasent. If you are not warned for it, then there is biasm here.

[YT2095]

did "Biasm" really pass your spell checker?

[swansont]

I am a real scientist -- i have dedicated many years on the study of physics, so this kind of attitude is not welcome. In fact, you do realize, that there are many scientists in the field who often disagree with each other, and most don't understand what each other are saying due to each others differential abilities to see physics from different light. Moreover, physics is not a straight cut theory, so this is another reason for many ''undefined'' subjects of conversations, so i would appreciate an apology.

 

Many years? According to your Bebo profile, you're 18.

[Tom Vose]

lol... wrong guy mate. Not my bebo.

 

did "Biasm" really pass your spell checker?

 

I thought it was a real word. Obviously, now, its not.

[Mokele]

I am a real scientist -- i have dedicated many years on the study of physics, so this kind of attitude is not welcome. In fact, you do realize, that there are many scientists in the field who often disagree with each other, and most don't understand what each other are saying due to each others differential abilities to see physics from different light. Moreover, physics is not a straight cut theory, so this is another reason for many ''undefined'' subjects of conversations, so i would appreciate an apology.

 

Not to be harsh, but simply studying a subject does not make you a scientist.

 

I've studied animals, reptiles in particular, for many, many years - basically since I could read. But I was not a scientist then. When I became a biology major, I still wasn't a scientist. When I *graduated*, that didn't make me a scientist. The daily slog of doing experiments didn't make me a scientist.

 

What made me a scientist, why I feel I can apply the term to myself, was when my mode of thinking *truly* began to work in hypothesis-testing mode. At that point, I began to really think as a scientist, and make my contributions to the field.

 

 

It's also a bit of a loaded term - saying "I'm a scientist!" often seems a little over the top, a bit like grandstanding. I'm currently in the bio dept. of an Ivy-league school and I've never heard someone use "scientist" self-referentially - most people will say "I'm a doctoral student/post-doc/researcher/professor." Even "I'm a biologist/entomologist/botanist" is more common. Somehow "scientist" sounds pretentious, even to real scientists.

 

Mokele

[Tom Vose]

That is very wrong.

 

A scientist can be anyone, who studies science itself. To be a scientist, has many levels of expertise.

 

Also it seems, you have read someones definition of a scientist, and not been very geniune to yourself.

 

Secondly, i should know if i am a scientist or not. Tell me, surely, this is not your definition of scientist?

[Mokele]

Tom, your definition stretches the term to the point of meaninglessness.

 

Do you think everyone who takes biology in high school is a biologist, since they study science? Anyone who calls themselves a scientist is one? How much studying is enough? A year? 5? 10? 40? And how much understanding - studying can mean just wrote memorization without deeper knowledge?

 

There is no point at which suddenly someone is able to say "I am a scientist", no rigid qualification. But, like many things in life, people know it when they see it, and mere studying isn't enough.

 

More importantly, saying "I'm a scientist" is usually a futile attempt to pull authority, real or imagined. I've known LOTS of scientists, including leaders in their fields. But none of them have ever said "I'm a scientist" in an argument. They all simply argue based on facts, logic, etc. If you have enough facts, and your arguments are sound, it shouldn't even matter if you are a scientist or not. I have plenty of friends in the reptile-keeping world who aren't scientists and don't call themselves such, but whose opinion and knowledge I deeply value (one, in particular, I've trusted with my life in the way you only can in the presence of an unrestrained black mamba).

 

The point is, calling yourself a scientist isn't worth much, and isn't really applicable - if your arguments can't stand on their own merits and data, your status is irrelevant.

 

Mokele

[Royston]

At that point, I began to really think as a scientist, and make my contributions to the field.

 

That's the only point I would class myself as a scientist, anything else is a student of, or a person interested in, the field of science. They certainly don't deserve the title, until they're making contributions to the field of science, as you said.

 

For instance, I'd be either arrogant or ignorant to class myself as a physicist, until I'd discovered or proven some phenomena that was beneficial to the field...it could be something small, but until that day, I'm just a student.

[Tom Vose]

Maybe. But those who work in whatever field, (even self-paid fields), are scientific by definition.

 

But, i still feel that these deifinitions being thrown about, are still very personal. I still beleive a scientist by definition, is someone who is taught in the scientific arena.

[Mokele]

Look, we're getting bogged down in a meaningless semantic argument.

 

Whether you're a scientist or not is utterly irrelevant. What matters is if you can defend your claims with logic and data. That's the gold-standard.

[Tom Vose]

Is it, because it seems that whether i am a scientist OR NOT, depends very greately on who the hell takes one seriously round here

 

And by the way, it seems that backing statements up, come hand-in-hand with what i said.

[Reaper]

So, Mr.Scientist, what exactly is the nature of your work? Do you have any publications you would like to share with us, or do you work on projects for companies, your past work, etc?

[Mokele]

We take people seriously if they can rationally support their claims with evidence, period. We've had prominent members who were definitely not 'scientists' on account of being still in high school, but because they had a clear grasp of the topic and supported their arguments with logic and data, they earned a great deal of respect.

[Tom Vose]

So, Mr.Scientist, what exactly is the nature of your work? Do you have any publications you would like to share with us, or do you work on projects for companies, your past work, etc?

 

I don't believe giving out personal details are part of the manditory system here.

 

We take people seriously if they can rationally support their claims with evidence, period. We've had prominent members who were definitely not 'scientists' on account of being still in high school, but because they had a clear grasp of the topic and supported their arguments with logic and data, they earned a great deal of respect.

 

I don't believe that for one second.

 

Some of the pegs you have hanging up around here, normally, wouldn't be questioned, so perhaps, maybe???/ its about time to take some other people here seriously, without this stagnent dogma.

[Mokele]

Look, it's simple: you've repeatedly made claims that are contrary to current understanding. The very nature of science is skeptical - science demands evidence to support claims. You've either failed to or refused to provide such evidence, and often your claims are counter to know fact.

 

For example, you never did return to your whole 'quantum neurobiology' stuff - never provided any evidence for your claims, in spite of claims that you would.

[Reaper]

I don't believe giving out personal details are part of the manditory system here.

 

I'm not demanding that you do. But given that you managed to produce 92 pages of crap all over this site, and then always remind us that you are indeed a scientist, leaves one quite skeptical, naturally.

 

So, I'm interested in what, exactly, you do. All of the other scientists on this site don't keep the nature of their work private at all. Swansont, for example, works on atomic clocks. Severian is one of the lucky particle physicists working on the LHC, and Lucaspa is a biomedical researcher somewhere in NY. Just to give a sample.

 

How about you? Please share with us about the nature of your work or research.

[Royston]

Is it, because it seems that whether i am a scientist OR NOT, depends very greately on who the hell takes one seriously round here

 

No, as already stated, it's irrelevant. People who are 'experts' in their field can still talk crap. My argument about what makes a 'scientist' is separate from whether an argument holds, surely you can differentiate between the two i.e if an inexperienced ten year old picks a hole in an experts argument holds, well it holds...tenure in a certain field is meaningless if their argument is flawed.

 

And by the way, it seems that backing statements up, come hand-in-hand with what i said.

 

Not really, science, by definition demands empirical evidence and prediction. If said person can provide that, then we're all listening. You Tom, are obligated to prove your argument, and build on already established (and experimentally proven) theories, if you fail to do that, the people on here will question it...what do you expect from a science forum ?

[Tom Vose]

We take people seriously if they can rationally support their claims with evidence, period. We've had prominent members who were definitely not 'scientists' on account of being still in high school, but because they had a clear grasp of the topic and supported their arguments with logic and data, they earned a great deal of respect.

 

Well, trust me, that's not the truth.

 

There are residents here who make claims, without needing to make a suportive source, simply because, and this is the truth, they have earned a certain amount of respect.

 

This respect is reserved, and even flouted with the highest impunity, because they don't need to no longer implicate sources in their conversations. I am not asking for a card free from jail, but i am mearly raising a point, which is more obvious to people who have just joined.

 

Do you really want me to prance about and find people (who are taken for granted, but for sake of situation, their knowledge taken for granted), and then lets see who can cite their sources, because i have been around several posts, who's claims are either spectacular, but maybe not wrong, and yet accpeted without proof, never mind the posts i have seen who should have been removed to speculations long ago.