5 ms·

Really you find people dedicating their life to submitting work to peer review... funny? Can't wait to see your contradicting research, comprehensive enough yo

Really you find people dedicating their life to submitting work to peer review... funny? Can't wait to see your contradicting research, comprehensive enough you might get a nobel prize. To be clear, the process here is the opposite of dogma.

owebmaster 9y ago
Your researchers look a lot like ancient priests to me and it is acceptable to find excessive religious believers funny, so I think it is this the case. Do you believe our current science would be something more than shamanism compared to Science (or another new religion) in the year of 3017?
- aplummer 9y ago
  That is completely different because religion is not based on testable and provable increments increases in knowledge, rather superstition and guesswork. You clearly do not understand the scientific method. You'll notice that rockets successfully manage to get to the moon, vaccines successfully save millions of lives. Obviously you are a fundamentalist with a point to prove so I'll stop arguing.
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    > That is completely different because religion is not based on testable and provable increments increases in knowledge, rather superstition and guesswork. You clearly do not understand the scientific method. This is prejudice against others faith, religion AND science. Alchemy was the science back then and the base of current chemistry but is religious work, that also increases people's knowledge. I could explain the same with Buddhism and how its knowledge could save billions of lives, but I'm not a religious guy (much less fundamentalist). Just skeptical.
    - tnzn 9y ago
      Except alchemy didn't get man to the moon, for example.
      - owebmaster 9y ago
        Can you prove it with real research? :)
pyroinferno 9y ago
It's almost like Scientists, even with dedicating their lives to research, can be wrong. Would you have sided with the majority of the Mathematics community who have "dedicated their life to submitting work to peer review" in the 19th century when they were trying to force Cantor out of academia for his creation of the "evil and nonintellectual" Set Theory, which contradicted what they had known about Maths at that time?
- aplummer 9y ago
  Obviously they can be wrong, and you can prove that by submitting real research, not by vacuously dismissing it as false without doing the legwork which Cantor did.
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    Ironically the same can be said about your dismissal of religious knowledge as guesswork. I bet you didn't prove it wrong submitting real research, just vacuously dismissed it like the guy before you.
    - splawn 9y ago
      I just have faith that gp is correct.... that is all that is really needed right? \s
      - owebmaster 9y ago
        Yeah, this is real science, not that religious stuff /s

owebmaster 9y ago

Your researchers look a lot like ancient priests to me and it is acceptable to find excessive religious believers funny, so I think it is this the case. Do you believe our current science would be something more than shamanism compared to Science (or another new religion) in the year of 3017?

aplummer 9y ago
That is completely different because religion is not based on testable and provable increments increases in knowledge, rather superstition and guesswork. You clearly do not understand the scientific method. You'll notice that rockets successfully manage to get to the moon, vaccines successfully save millions of lives. Obviously you are a fundamentalist with a point to prove so I'll stop arguing.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  > That is completely different because religion is not based on testable and provable increments increases in knowledge, rather superstition and guesswork. You clearly do not understand the scientific method. This is prejudice against others faith, religion AND science. Alchemy was the science back then and the base of current chemistry but is religious work, that also increases people's knowledge. I could explain the same with Buddhism and how its knowledge could save billions of lives, but I'm not a religious guy (much less fundamentalist). Just skeptical.
  - tnzn 9y ago
    Except alchemy didn't get man to the moon, for example.
    - owebmaster 9y ago
      Can you prove it with real research? :)

pyroinferno 9y ago

It's almost like Scientists, even with dedicating their lives to research, can be wrong. Would you have sided with the majority of the Mathematics community who have "dedicated their life to submitting work to peer review" in the 19th century when they were trying to force Cantor out of academia for his creation of the "evil and nonintellectual" Set Theory, which contradicted what they had known about Maths at that time?

aplummer 9y ago
Obviously they can be wrong, and you can prove that by submitting real research, not by vacuously dismissing it as false without doing the legwork which Cantor did.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  Ironically the same can be said about your dismissal of religious knowledge as guesswork. I bet you didn't prove it wrong submitting real research, just vacuously dismissed it like the guy before you.
  - splawn 9y ago
    I just have faith that gp is correct.... that is all that is really needed right? \s
    - owebmaster 9y ago
      Yeah, this is real science, not that religious stuff /s