Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who is, apparently, responding to someone else by responding to me, who was, conversely, responding to Chap.
Chap said 'A'.
I quoted Chap's 'A' and provided 'B'.
You responded to me with 'X' which was in context of Water Dog's 'Y', but I had no idea because you responded to me, not him.
C'mon, man. Just admit you derfed your response to me. It's ok. I've made mistakes and owned up to them.
- Doc
I assumed you were keeping up since I was clearly referring to WD in my first response to you.
Themis wrote:I'm referring to people like WD who want to use this to make poor arguments against science in order to support some very unscientific beliefs.
I haven't made any arguments against science whatsoever, much less poor ones. I have only tried to help folks like DT understand the limitations of the science that things like the IPCC report are based on. Again I am amazed by how similar all this is to Mormonism. You speak of the so-called "science" as though it is some higher authority that you have been ordained priesthood style to speak on behalf of. It's not, and you haven't. You cannot speak for science anymore than Russel Nelson can speak for Christ or God. Science is nothing more than a discipline, a very human discipline, a set of rules, applied at varying levels of consistency and rigor to observation of the natural world. A lot of totally false incompetent BS gets conflated with objective factual truth because it claims "science."
Themis wrote:I'm referring to people like WD who want to use this to make poor arguments against science in order to support some very unscientific beliefs.
I haven't made any arguments against science whatsoever, much less poor ones. I have only tried to help folks like DT understand the limitations of the science that things like the IPCC report are based on. Again I am amazed by how similar all this is to Mormonism. You speak of the so-called "science" as though it is some higher authority that you have been ordained priesthood style to speak on behalf of. It's not, and you haven't. You cannot speak for science anymore than Russel Nelson can speak for Christ or God. Science is nothing more than a discipline, a very human discipline, a set of rules, applied at varying levels of consistency and rigor to observation of the natural world. A lot of totally false incompetent BS gets conflated with objective factual truth because it claims "science."
And again with another straw-man argument and accusing others of what you are clearly doing. This is why you have no credibility. Like I said before, if had never posted one certain sentence in your OP you would have been fine.
Themis wrote:And again with another straw-man argument and accusing others of what you are clearly doing. This is why you have no credibility. Like I said before, if had never posted one certain sentence in your OP you would have been fine.
I know you are, but what am I, Themis? I seriously don't even know what you're on about at this point. You're just talking to talk. If the last word is what you need, you can have it.
Themis wrote:And again with another straw-man argument and accusing others of what you are clearly doing. This is why you have no credibility. Like I said before, if had never posted one certain sentence in your OP you would have been fine.
I know you are, but what am I, Themis? I seriously don't even know what you're on about at this point. You're just talking to talk. If the last word is what you need, you can have it.
D. Nial.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Water Dog wrote: I seriously don't even know what you're on about at this point. You're just talking to talk. If the last word is what you need, you can have it.
Really? You started this thread with a straw-man and then keep making them. It's not hard for others to see what you are really getting it, which is to attack those who are willing to go with the science even in areas we may not want to. You weren't even smart enough to see your OP supported how the science world works to weed out poor research or even made up BS.
Themis wrote:You haven't posted any material here. You just made assertions of your expertise. You have posted some material on the climate science threads, but they just exposed your lack of expertise and unwillingness to understand the issue. People with real expertise tend to provide links to back up their own personal explanations or provide material people can go to to see if their explanations fit the evidence. Those pretending to have expertise usually learn through embarrassment not to make explanations of their own because they always expose ignorance, but they usually never learn to read their links for understanding.
Keep telling yourself that...
I will add that people who have some expertise who may not want to repeat what they have written almost always provide a link for others to go and read. Do you have any from this forum or was this just another unsupported claim?
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who is, apparently, responding to someone else by responding to me, who was, conversely, responding to Chap.
Chap said 'A'.
I quoted Chap's 'A' and provided 'B'.
You responded to me with 'X' which was in context of Water Dog's 'Y', but I had no idea because you responded to me, not him.
C'mon, man. Just admit you derfed your response to me. It's ok. I've made mistakes and owned up to them.
- Doc
I assumed you were keeping up since I was clearly referring to WD in my first response to you.
What the “F” is it with posters on this board who're pathologically incapable of admitting any sort of error, no matter how small? Instead you get constant deflection of personal responsibility. That was a totally retarded response and if genuine, absolutely buffoonish reasoning.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: What the “F” is it with posters on this board who're pathologically incapable of admitting any sort of error, no matter how small? Instead you get constant deflection of personal responsibility. That was a totally retarded response and if genuine, absolutely buffoonish reasoning.
- Doc
Perhaps because you are not very smart. I said who I was referring to when you stated who you were referring to, and yes I took you initial response to mean a larger group then maybe you intended.
At least not in well-known physical science journals. If I am wrong give me the stats or some examples. Show me the trash papers in Nature. https://www.nature.com/
In a bit of synchronicity, and the reason I'm absolutely certain we live in a simulation ;D this was posted on Reddit:
Do you like your science journalism factually correct? So do we. I'm Jane Roberts, deputy editor and resident fact-checker at Undark, a non-profit digital science magazine published under the auspices of the Knight Science Journalism program at MIT. The thought of issuing corrections keeps me up at night.
And I'm Brooke Borel, a science journalist, a senior editor at Undark, and author of the Chicago Guide to Fact-Checking. Together with a small team of researchers, I recently spearheaded one of the first industry-wide reports on how science news publications go about ensuring the trustworthiness of their reporting. What we found might surprise you: Only about a third of the publications in the study employ independent fact checkers. Another third have no formal fact-checking procedures in place at all. This doesn't mean that a third of your science news is bunk - journalists can still get a story right even if they don't work with an independent fact-checker. But formal procedures can help stop mistakes from slipping through.
We're here from noon (17 UT) until 1:30 pm EST to take questions. AUA!
Her statement dovetails nicely with my link above, in case anyone wants to investigate the article or the fact checkers methodology (in her Reddit links).
- Doc
Last edited by Guest on Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
I said who I was referring to when you stated who you were referring to, and yes I took you initial response to mean a larger group then maybe you intended.