NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:29) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 11 2015,13:22) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,14:09) |
Who are you to dictate to science how it 'must' operate?
Science is doing just fine without you.
Science does not work the way you want it to.
Science does not work the way you pretend it does.
You are a lunatic. A pathetic lunatic. |
Who are you to dictate to science how it 'must' operate?
ME: I am just following how the great GIANTS in science did. When they made discoveries, they replaced the old explanations. Einstein did it, Galileo did it, Newton did it, Max Planck did it, so many...thus, I am not alone in this system. |
|
Wrong again.
That is definitely not how it happened.
That you think it is is yet another sign of how badly educated you were, how little you know about science and the history of science.
The most relevant bit of where you've gone wrong is that none of these gentlemen, nor any scientist, declares that they've replaced prior explanations and thereby triumphed.
They did the work, they convinced others, sometimes slowly and painfully, and others came to see that what they had was better than what preceded their work.
They identified problems with existing, working, explanations (which they understood), did the work, and came up with new, better explanations. They presented reasons why the new explanation worked, why it was better. Note, too, that their new explanations covered what the prior accepted versions did, but did so demonstrably better and/or with wider application, wider/greater explanatory power. They also presented what would support their work, what would falsify it, they (at least for the a last few hundred years) went through genuine peer review, they were published (again, at least for the last few hundred years, that's published, not self-published). They did not crow or gloat about their "success", they kept working.
The difference between real scientists and you remains stark.
| Quote | Science is doing just fine without you.
ME: No, it is not since you yourselves could witness how science could not even categorize if eating because someone is hungry is intellen or naturen! Thus, we have a problem and dilemma in science. If I did not have new discoveries to explain this simple natural phenomenon, we will never know the answer. Thus, you must be grateful to me and support me and send my name to Nobel Prize committee or any organization that could recognize my great contribution to science. OR SHUT UP! |
Sheer lunacy. The alleged distinction between 'intellen' and 'naturen' is meaningless, as are those terms.
You've made up a spurious problem based on pseudo-concepts you've also made up.
Provide a concrete example of a specific problem in current biology or Cognitive Science and provide a better explanation of it. This requires that you show that a difficulty exists, that you understand how that difficult arises in the face of current understanding, conceptualize a difference in understanding that can be supported by experiment, reason, and logic, demonstrate that the new understanding (expressed clearly, coherently, with operational definitions and standard terminology used in the standard meanings of the subject at hand) works, show what would falsify the new understanding, show what new predictions, new directions of research, new results are predicted by the new understanding, convince qualified others (to wit, scientists in the field under investigation) that you are on to something, write it up (properly), submit it for peer review, see it published, keep working, defend the work against criticisms raised against it, always discussing and arguing in good faith, etc.
None of which apply to what you've done.
So it remains true that science is doing just fine without you.
Science doesn't even know you exist.
| Quote | Science does not work the way you want it to.
ME: As I had told you that it is not I that violate that. Science is progressing in where the old explanations are being replaced with new explanations. And my new discoveries are all new explanations. Deal with them! or SHUT UP! |
Precisely the problem. This is not how science is done.
See above.
Get a qualified person to sit down and explain it to you if necessary. Get training in the history of science. Get training in the work of science. Get training in the scientific disciplines you mistakenly believe you are working in.
Do the work.
Scientists do not tell critics to "SHUT UP", least of all when they are trying to get new ideas, new discoveries, recognized and accepted.
That's not how science is done.
You wish it were otherwise.
You lose.
| Quote | Science does not work the way you pretend it does.
ME: Science is actually what I've been doing. I attempted peer-review. The peer-reviewers were dumb. I am attempting Adversarial Review, they are also dumb. I wrote science books but the critics are poorer than me that they could not afford USD 4.50 for my single book but they could afford paying porn sites, probably...LOL! I am so serious but my critics are not! I have replacements for science but my critics have only religious rants! THUS, I am doing science and my critics are doing nothing! |
In other words, you tried peer review but didn't like the results. You haven't been able to convince anyone that you have anything, so you insult them.
And at the end of the day, you simply declare that you are doing science, really and truly. Despite the simple and obvious fact that you have done no science at all.
What problem are you attempting to address? Why is it a problem?
What work have you done to understand the problem from the current perspective?
What work have you done to validate your 'new insights'?
What work have you done to attempt to falsify your work?
Etc.
You are not doing science. You can't even figure out how to use the quote and editor functions on this board.
No matter how hard you stamp your little feet no matter how loud you shout, you have nothing but foot-stomping and assertions. And those aren't science. Yet they are all you have.
| Quote | | Thus, SHUT UP if you have nothing to offer in science. |
What I have to offer science is what every sane rational interested individual has to offer science -- consideration of the materials at hand and reasoned acceptance or questions.
That you can only scream "SHUT UP!" to reasoned and reasonable questions about your work shows you are not doing science.
And prove that my subsequent remarks are correct.
| Quote | You are a lunatic. A pathetic lunatic.
ME: If my science books have only life, they will slap your face for not reading and see for yourselves that I have science! LOL! |
Your "science books" are vanity publishing at its worst.
Science is not a contest of 'who published the most'.
Self-publishing your work and asserting that because you've published books that you've labeled 'science' means that you are doing science is pathetic lunacy.
Exactly as all of us here have pointed out.
Your response is precisely what one would expect from a lunatic. And precisely not what one would expect from anyone with the faintest understanding of the process and products of science.
You've got nothing.
|
