The Universe is a Machine That Keeps Learning, Scientists say.

And you think, that science deniers would go away, if not for articles like this? Really? And is that why people still reject the theory of Evolution?

Also, you may be giving "science," more deference than it deserves. The scientist in this article, cites the negative effect of modern society, on modern science, in which there is such pressure to be the first to publish, on a given topic, that there is now a "replication crisis," in which findings, published in scientific periodicals, are often being found as irreproducible, by the article writers' peers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate....eres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.amp

 

True.

Even with published papers, one often sees that the reporter essentially skipped the heart of the study and focused on the standard sections that comment on what this might mean for the future or what the next steps might be.

And, that is the legit guess of the author, NOT the science that caused the paper to be reviewed and published.

One really needs to find the paper and then read that paper.

 

I think this is most true in social sciences, where scientists can not implement strong controls and other protection mechanisms due to issues of ethics and the fact that human subjects are involved.



These factors may

It's perfectly legit to ask for support for ideas that are posted.

 

That does not change the fact that you mistranslated the conversation, to which you refer, and for which your comment is non sequitur.

However, with exquisite irony, you are acting as if it is NOT "perfectly legit," to ask for support for characterizations of other's comments, that are posted.

If you can't follow that: you say that a poster should support his ideas, and I have asked you to support your claim (or extremely strong inference) that I have asserted that I cannot be questioned about my ideas-- which I never did, so which you both said, & here repeat, in utter falseness. So it's not legit to ask you to support your statements?

Hypocrite.

 

No, I said it is perfectly legit to ask someone who makes an assertion on this board to give some support to that assertion.

And, that is true even if you are just throwing out speculations.

You're getting weaker and weaker at ad hom. Maybe you should switch to studying that instead of science.

 

So then I am asking, once more, for YOU to support the ideas that YOU have posted, concerning supposed comments, made in my own posts. To wit:

I repeat, I am, yet again, asking you to support YOUR inferred assertions about what I have said.

I'm still waiting, even as you continue making your unsupported claims. Why have you not yet replied to my, "perfectly legit" inquiries?

Well you have always been good at tossing bulls**t, but I didn't think you were proud of that fact. Maybe, if you expect to be taken seriously, you should be less of a godda***d hypocrite.

 

So state the assertion you want me to support.

Remember that I asked you about your view of how random comments should be treated - whether it is ok to question them, dispute them, etc.

So far, you haven't answered that. And, I'd still like to know.

 

How can you pretend that you don't know what assertions I want you to support, when, at the same time, you make reference to the very same assertions?
The three, red, underlined, embolden words, in your quote, above, are identical: the assertion I want you to support; and the thing you asked me, which you claim I haven't answered. Also, I quoted your false claims, in the post to which you're replying. I will cut & paste it, since you've chosen to feign ignorance.

WillReadmore said: ↑
So, the ideas you toss out shouldn't be questioned

That quote comes from your post #43. Which I quoted twice, in my post #44:

WillReadmore said: ↑
So, the ideas you toss out shouldn't be questioned?


WillReadmore said: ↑
So, the ideas you toss out shouldn't be questioned?


While, technically, you might be "asking" about my view "of how random comments should be treated," it is also clear, because of the mere fact that you are asking something with such an obvious answer, that you are implying that I have claimed the opposite.
Allow me to demonstrate how this works, since this route of acting dumb, is the one you have chosen to drag us through: I would like to ask you, Will Readmore, "so, you don't think a poster should take responsibility for implying false things, about another member?"
That is simply asking you a question, right? An odd one to ask, though, of someone whom I did not believe to be trying to shirk, owning up to his own, false insinuations-- wouldn't you agree? And so it is with your question: the clear implication, being that I have suggested anything other, than that it is, of course, fine to question any ideas, posted by anyone. I never suggested anything to the contrary, but there is your answer, yet again, which you pretend to be awaiting (while also being unaware of what I am asking you to support).

Is it, finally, my turn? What makes you suggest that I would not think that it is fine, to have my ideas questioned? The blue color is there, so you won't get confused, as to what I am asking you. And your thrice repeated question, above in red, is your making just that insinuation. You also did it a second time, in post #46, which I also quoted for you, in my last post, though you claim it has left you wondering what I could mean:

WillReadmore said: ↑
You don't like the ideas that you "just toss out" being held to any standard or even questioned.

But, the fact that someone is just tossing out ideas isn't a justification for claiming they shouldn't be questioned.


I would've thought it was even more obvious, in that post, what your assertion was. Let me put this at a level that doesn't go over your head, again: you said that I don't like my ideas, "being held to any standard or even questioned." SUPPORT THAT STATEMENT. Additionally, or as part of the same claim, you suggest I was using the excuse that I was just "tossing out ideas," as a "justification for claiming they shouldn't be questioned." SUPPORT YOUR ACCUSATION. Below, in fact, from my post #44, I explain to you, that I had NEVER BEEN ASKED ANY SPECIFIC QUESTION, about the ideas which I had "tossed out."

Since, "so far, you haven't answered that," kindly make sure that this is part of your explanation, as to how it seemed to you, that I was saying that I was immune to being asked about my ideas. I was only saying that the questioner needed to have a clear question-- is that an unreasonable expectation?
Again, the blue is to remind you of the, now several, aspects to my main question for you.

And don't forget to answer this one: "you don't think a poster should take responsibility for implying false things, about another member?"

 

If you don't agree with a question I ask, you are ENCOURAGED to respond so, and I would hope you would state why.

I don't always know what a poster is saying, so I ask.

The idea that you would take affront at my interest in your answer is really strange to me.

 

I will take that as further confirmation of your extremely flawed interpretive abilities, when it comes to written language, in your not being sure of my meaning, and so your therefore guessing, that my saying, I needed to be asked something specific, since I did not have an entire, pre-composed thesis, to relate, might mean that I was rejecting the idea of being asked anything at all, about my ideas.

Based on how horrendously far off you've been, those times you did not know what I meant, I would like to suggest that, in the future, you would be more clear, yourself, by just replying, "I'm not sure what you meant by xxx, could you please explain further?"

Are you clear about what I am saying, or does this suggestion confuse you?

 

You need to work on your ad hom.

You really don't need more than a sentence or so.

 

You could use some changes in your own repertoire, so you are not calling the statement of facts, which you have admitted, yourself, "ad homs."

WillReadmore said: ↑
...
I don't always know what a poster is saying, so I ask.
[End quote]

And your way of "ask(ing)," after I said--

DEFinning said: ↑
That's not even close to an accurate interpretation of my words

DEFinning said: ↑
This isn't a science symposium, and I'm not describing a well- drawn, new scientific theory. We are, to my mind, just tossing out speculations, and sharing our general leanings, regarding our perspectives on this idea.
[End]

-- was to so fecklessly translate it as:

WillReadmore said: ↑
So, the ideas you toss out shouldn't be questioned?
[End]

Of course, it should be clear to anyone, that I said no such thing. So noting your ineptitude, is an ad hom?


BTW, you don't even appear to understand your own words, for you said, in your reply, post #59:

WillReadmore said: ↑
If you don't agree with a question I ask, you are ENCOURAGED to respond so, and I would hope you would state why.
[End]

And that was your reply, to my post to you, in which I resorted to putting my questions into blue print, just so your intellect would be able to discern them, since I'd been asking you repeatedly to answer for your words, and only been met with evasion, from you.

WillReadmore said: ↑
So state the assertion you want me to support.

Remember that I asked you about your view of how random comments should be treated - whether it is ok to question them, dispute them, etc.

So far, you haven't answered that. And, I'd still like to know.
[End]

So it apparently only works on one direction, in your mind.

WillReadmore said: ↑
It's perfectly legit to ask for support for ideas that are posted.
[End]

Yes, but if anyone asks you, all they get is evasion and b.s. Oh-- and we'll get "encouraged," by you, to respond, if we have questions. In that post of yours, BTW, you did not answer ANY of my questions, highlighted in blue for you.


So with this long digression you set us upon, with your erroneous question posed to me, you have shown just how much you are able to contribute to a conversation about ideas: you can only be a nuisance.

And that is not an ad hom-- in your case, it is actually a overvaluation.

 

Sorry that I was so cruel to you.