TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 108 of 122 FirstFirst ... 8586368737883889398103104105106107108109110111112113118 ... LastLast
Results 2,676 to 2,700 of 3041

Thread: ☣ Coronavirus ☣

  1. #2676
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    LOL at you man for this kind of "deductions".
    Maybe JKCerda was right about the "self-rightousness" of some users here.

    Praise the Good Fight and call the almighty mod ban hammer for the sinners!
    You and Sulphur have this kind of crusader/templar attitude.

    Sorry for you guys, you really WANT to see a non-existent "enemy".
    Dude I've never called for anyone to be banned in my life. I'm firmly in the camp of give a person enough rope and let them hang themselves. We can never see our own personality quirks but everyone else can. One of yours is to project. I would seriously consider why you attempt to foist a label of "self-rightousness" on others if I were you. It's really telling.

    And faetal is right. It's hard to tell what you are getting at. My only "enemy" though is anyone who tries to push BS theories with no fact to back them up. And that can be anyone.

  2. #2677
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    I'm not even talking about the scientific method, I'm talking about "scientific-minded persons" who can't even see that they're driven to science not "because of science" but because their personality that "attunes" to the scientific method in different ways and styles.
    So you got the "old scientist gone mad" not because "gone mad" but because he was always driven to science by that kind of strange paranoid/obssessive thinking that becomes evident only through ages, it's why I've said "Montagnier" ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease ) but I can say *tons* of other "great scientists" (just remember that Einstein too totally rejected the hard interpretations of QM but it stands today).

    So it's kinda funny to attack someone for a paranoid approach to Coronavirus questions when a Nobel Prize like Montagnier ("expert", right?) has the same way of (mis)interpret the phenomenon.

  3. #2678
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    why you attempt to foist a label of "self-rightousness"
    It pisses me off royal when people don't have truth as the ultimate goal

    Not my words, man.

    "Truth" is a phantom, "truthS" are simply a product of our knowledge ability and nothing more.

  4. #2679
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    I'm talking about "scientific-minded persons" who can't even see that they're driven to science not "because of science" but because their personality that "attunes" to the scientific method in different ways and styles.
    You are not qualified to suppose why other people are driven to science. Your speculation is not interesing, except maybe to yourself.

    You talk of people imagining enemies, while you are railing against some archetype of scientists as though they are somehow fungible.
    People in glass houses...

  5. #2680
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    You are not qualified to suppose why other people are driven to science. Your speculation is not interesing, except maybe to yourself.

    You talk of people imagining enemies, while you are railing against some archetype of scientists as though they are somehow fungible.
    People in glass houses...
    What? I'm "NOT QUALIFIED" to think something? Are you QUALIFIED to say that what I'm freely saying is "not interesting"? LOL!

    -> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

    Of course they're "not real scientists", right? Or something like "TRAITORS!!!1111"

  6. #2681
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Dude I've never called for anyone to be banned in my life.
    That's him broadstroking the way I clashed with him a while ago and dolloping that onto you. I did call for him to shut up when he started speculating (hyperventilating) about aspects of the virus at the beginning of the pandemic in ways that were well unhelpful, so he's still a bit sore about that. I'm not, but I won't let that stop him from going after whatever logical fallacy is the flavour du jour (a unilateral tu quoque, apparently), because he's on my ignore list.

    In any event, you can ignore that specific bit, it's meant for me.

  7. #2682
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    but I won't let that stop him from going after whatever logical fallacy is the flavour du jour (a unilateral tu quoque, apparently), because he's on my ignore list.

    In any event, you can ignore that specific bit, it's meant for me.
    And of course as always you need to tell everyone that
    It's not "meant for" to attack you, it's simply evident (your crusader attitude).

  8. #2683
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    It pisses me off royal when people don't have truth as the ultimate goal

    Not my words, man.

    "Truth" is a phantom, "truthS" are simply a product of our knowledge ability and nothing more.
    If you believe that then go jump off a building. You will find a hard truth waiting at the bottom.

  9. #2684
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    What? I'm "NOT QUALIFIED" to think something? Are you QUALIFIED to say that what I'm freely saying is "not interesting"? LOL!

    -> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

    Of course they're "not real scientists", right? Or something like "TRAITORS!!!1111"
    No, you're not qualified to talk about science or academic disciplines, because every person here who has at least some academic or professional experience there can see that you're a layman trying way too hard to look smart.

    I was never a scientist, and it's been over fifteen years since my philosophy years at uni. But even with most of that knowledge gone, especially names and dates, I still remember the work culture, the structure of this field, and at least some of the conclusions in areas that interested me, thanks to hours of regular studying and working with the subject matter. And even with this shadow of my former proficiency I can see you've got nothing but an anecdotal mess of surface-level knowledge.

    Which is okay, as long as you don't try to talk with someone who actually knows their stuff as if you were an expert (which is something you already did several times now).

    So generally +1 to what faetal said.
    Last edited by Judith; 29th Jun 2020 at 11:39.

  10. #2685
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    I've not been following this in detail. Can someone give me a quick summary of what Lowenz said that is ridiculous, and why ? Just 3 or 4 sentences. That should be enough. I'll then go an read previous posts to fill in the details myself. TIA.

  11. #2686
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    What? I'm "NOT QUALIFIED" to think something? Are you QUALIFIED to say that what I'm freely saying is "not interesting"? LOL!

    -> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

    Of course they're "not real scientists", right? Or something like "TRAITORS!!!1111"
    You do know that Nobel laureates make up a vanishingly small % of scientists yes?
    As I said to Nbohr, you are free to say what you please, but no one has to take you seriously.
    On the serious-o-meter, you're reading about the same level as a dog wearing a cape.

  12. #2687
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    I've not been following this in detail. Can someone give me a quick summary of what Lowenz said that is ridiculous, and why ? Just 3 or 4 sentences. That should be enough. I'll then go an read previous posts to fill in the details myself. TIA.
    I don't think anyone really knows what lowenz has been saying. Possibly not even lownez.

  13. #2688
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    If you believe that then go jump off a building. You will find a hard truth waiting at the bottom.
    This is the same argument I used when people drop that philosophy undergrad "what even is reality?" bullshit into a conversation (usually as a means of trying to hamstring any scientific / reasoned input).
    Anyone who genuinely believes that reality is wholly subjective and aren't invested in any one reality in particular, should put their money where their mouth is and down a cup of bleach to prove it.
    Unless they think there is a decent chance that the consequences might be, I don't know, real or something.

    [EDIT] Holy fuck, sorry for triple-posting. Slow news day I guess.

  14. #2689
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Ah yes, the Camus school of thought.

  15. #2690
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    JESUS, FAETAL? WHAT THE FUCK?

  16. #2691
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    [EDIT] Holy fuck, sorry for triple-posting. Slow news day I guess.
    Well I was about to politely request lowenz to cease and desist with the quadruple posting but you've rather spoilt that. (Insert grin here)

  17. #2692
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Piglick still holds the record I think.

  18. #2693
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    I don't think anyone really knows what lowenz has been saying. Possibly not even lownez.
    So you're all ganging up on Lowenz, and nobody knows exactly why.
    Not very nice of all of you.

  19. #2694
    Read the thread. They've all been here, and you haven't.

    But I believe the jist of it is, he's been speaking as an expert when he isn't one.

  20. #2695
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    So you're all ganging up on Lowenz, and nobody knows exactly why.
    Not very nice of all of you.
    If you want to defend him then read his shit and do so. Don't ask us to do your homework and then make accusations when we don't. If you want nice then visit your grandma. The guy is pompously wanting us to take what he says as truth while proclaiming we shouldn't have truth as an end goal and also that you can't trust science because of mad scientists. Does that make sense to you? Then defend him. Seriously, he sounds like the first year philosophy student Matt Damon hands his hat to in Good Will Hunting except with less charm. All I have done and most everyone here is answer his accusations which are so muddled there is only guesswork as to his meaning. Read or be lazy but don't make out we are "ganging up" on him without putting in a little effort to understand.

  21. #2696
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    After some consideration, I've come to the conclusion that all the native English speakers here are awesome, and have an awesome understanding of science and the real world. It's those other folks, not from the Anglo Saxon world, who are clueless. Have a nice day.
    Last edited by Gryzemuis; 30th Jun 2020 at 09:10.

  22. #2697
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    So you are still making accusations without bothering to read. Great. Tell you what, keep making assumptions on no information and call yourself a scientist. With science there is peer review that works quite well. It weeds out those who just make assumptions on no information without putting in the effort to know what they are talking about.

  23. #2698
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    To be fair, peer review has been criticised a lot in recent years because all too often it isn't done particularly well, also because scientists have been conditioned (by universities, funders, politics, media etc.) to behave in a number of less than helpful ways. But that's generally peer review *as practiced*, not the general principle itself, and most of what I've seen and read is about how peer review needs to change, not that it should be abolished in favour of a different, better system. Same with science and the scientific method. There's a lot of misconduct, toxic behaviours and lopsided incentive structures that, to be addressed, would need to be revised from the ground up, but that's mainly about the current institutions, mechanisms and processes, less about the underlying principles. And if the critique is basically a more verbose version of "Well, people are a bit shit, aren't they?", then that's neither incisive nor particularly helpful. The more specific one's understanding of the shortcomings of scientific processes and institution, the more they actually bring something to the table. Grand sweeping statements tend to be so much wank.

  24. #2699
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    So you are still making accusations without bothering to read.
    So nobody wants to state exactly what we're discussing here. "You figure it out. Until you paid your dues, you don't count. Put in the sweat. Sweat is the most important". Nice scientific path. That attitude is gonna progress humanity.

    This is not a scientific magazine. We are not writing scientific papers here. I can read as little as I want here. And I can write as much as I want here.

  25. #2700
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    You know, Gryzemuis, right now you come across as the equivalent of those people on language forums who expect others to do their homework. Sure, you're free to read as little and write as much as you want, but everyone else is free to find your attitude of "Tell me what I've missed and I'll tell you where you're wrong" tiresome.

Page 108 of 122 FirstFirst ... 8586368737883889398103104105106107108109110111112113118 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •