MAGAThread XVII: All Things NOT Impeachment

[Vassenor]

Which would be a valid point if scientists were criticised for their methods, which can be found in each paper. However, this is not the case. Scientists are mainly criticised for being scientists, usually with no actual material argument being made about a specific study.

“You are a scientist, and therefore I will mistrust your work, but I won’t actually go i to the study to see what was wrong. I just assume it is”

So it's a valid point, thank you.

So where were you criticising the methods?

[Vassenor]

So it turns out that Junior's book only topped the NY Times Bestseller list because of bulk sales.

Daddy did the same thing, after all.

[The Alma Mater]

There have been some problems.

Which is an interesting point. Science, in it's essence, deals with facts, and therefore is trustworthy. Scientists, on the other hand, are people, subject to all of the failings thereof.

Hence why the scientific method treats scientists as untrustworthy, and demands peer review and reproducibility.
It is not a new point

[Telconi]

Which is an interesting point. Science, in it's essence, deals with facts, and therefore is trustworthy. Scientists, on the other hand, are people, subject to all of the failings thereof.

Hence why the scientific method treats scientists as untrustworthy, and demands peer review and reproducibility.
It is not a new point

We're not talking about the scientific method, we're talking about people.

[Vassenor]

Hence why the scientific method treats scientists as untrustworthy, and demands peer review and reproducibility.
It is not a new point

We're not talking about the scientific method, we're talking about people.

But the "valid point" was criticising for the methodologies.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Which would be a valid point if scientists were criticised for their methods, which can be found in each paper. However, this is not the case. Scientists are mainly criticised for being scientists, usually with no actual material argument being made about a specific study.

“You are a scientist, and therefore I will mistrust your work, but I won’t actually go i to the study to see what was wrong. I just assume it is”

So it's a valid point, thank you.

I have never seen you criticising the methodology of an academic paper before.

[The Alma Mater]

Hence why the scientific method treats scientists as untrustworthy, and demands peer review and reproducibility.
It is not a new point

We're not talking about the scientific method, we're talking about people.

And so does science. Science is founded entirely on the idea that people are flawed and prefer to confirm their own bias over finding truth.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Hence why the scientific method treats scientists as untrustworthy, and demands peer review and reproducibility.
It is not a new point

We're not talking about the scientific method, we're talking about people.

In the context of Democrats believing scientists and Republicans believing what Trump says.

Unless you are going to say Trump isn't a person I'm not sure what your point is.

[Telconi]

So it's a valid point, thank you.

I have never seen you criticising the methodology of an academic paper before.

It's an anonymous posting medium, you haven't the slightest clue rather you have or haven't.

[Telconi]

We're not talking about the scientific method, we're talking about people.

In the context of Democrats believing scientists and Republicans believing what Trump says.

Unless you are going to say Trump isn't a person I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that believing scientists is bad. And people ought not do this thing.

[The Alma Mater]

In the context of Democrats believing scientists and Republicans believing what Trump says.

Unless you are going to say Trump isn't a person I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that believing scientists is bad. And people ought not do this thing.

Yep. Believe science, not scientists.
Something everybody learns at school at age 10 or so.

[Telconi]

My point is that believing scientists is bad. And people ought not do this thing.

Yep. Believe science, not scientists.
Something everybody learns at school at age 10 or so.

Evidently not everyone.

[Gormwood]

My point is that believing scientists is bad. And people ought not do this thing.

Yep. Believe science, not scientists.
Something everybody learns at school at age 10 or so.

So he wants to ignore the message (science) by bitching about the messengers (scientists). What a shock.

[Telconi]

Yep. Believe science, not scientists.
Something everybody learns at school at age 10 or so.

So he wants to ignore the message (science) by bitching about the messengers (scientists). What a shock.

More shocking than you lying on NSG again.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

In the context of Democrats believing scientists and Republicans believing what Trump says.

Unless you are going to say Trump isn't a person I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that believing scientists is bad. And people ought not do this thing.

Do you believe that, if a morally dubious scientist and a morally upright scientist do the same experiment and come to the same conclusion using the same method, that one of them is right and one of them is wrong?

If Hitler and Ghandi both put 2 and 2 together, and they both get 4, does that mean one of them is wrong?

[Telconi]

My point is that believing scientists is bad. And people ought not do this thing.

Do you believe that, if a morally dubious scientist and a morally upright scientist do the same experiment and come to the same conclusion using the same method, that one of them is right and one of them is wrong?

If Hitler and Ghandi both put 2 and 2 together, and they both get 4, does that mean one of them is wrong?

Of course not, 2+2 does equal 4. This is factually verifiable.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Do you believe that, if a morally dubious scientist and a morally upright scientist do the same experiment and come to the same conclusion using the same method, that one of them is right and one of them is wrong?

If Hitler and Ghandi both put 2 and 2 together, and they both get 4, does that mean one of them is wrong?

Of course not, 2+2 does equal 4. This is factually verifiable.

As opposed to scientific papers, which are not factually verifiable?

[Telconi]

Of course not, 2+2 does equal 4. This is factually verifiable.

As opposed to scientific papers, which are not factually verifiable?

Scientists don't say things other than scientific papers?

And as for the such papers being verifiable, I believe an article was posted on the subject recently.

[Valrifell]

As opposed to scientific papers, which are not factually verifiable?

Scientists don't say things other than scientific papers?

And as for the such papers being verifiable, I believe an article was posted on the subject recently.

So you don't know what verifiable means.

Hint: it's not a synonym for "correct".

[Galloism]

Which is an interesting point. Science, in it's essence, deals with facts, and therefore is trustworthy. Scientists, on the other hand, are people, subject to all of the failings thereof.

Hence why the scientific method treats scientists as untrustworthy, and demands peer review and reproducibility.
It is not a new point

And, notably, we're having severe problems on this front. Many many studies that pass peer review can't be reproduced, but are sold as fact anyway.

[Valrifell]

Roger Stone was found guilty of misleading Congress about his contacts to WikiLeaks.

[Valrifell]

Hence why the scientific method treats scientists as untrustworthy, and demands peer review and reproducibility.
It is not a new point

And, notably, we're having severe problems on this front. Many many studies that pass peer review can't be reproduced, but are sold as fact anyway.

This is a problem with the culture of science publications, not a problem with how scientists do their business.

The correct data is there and is often revealed during meta-studies.

[Zurkerx]

Roger Stone was found guilty of misleading Congress about his contacts to WikiLeaks.

Ah so justice has been served. This pretty much concludes I think one of the main people in the Mueller Case. Of course, Trump isn't happy but when is he ever happy? But the fact that Stone lied and obstructed should tell us that there's likely more we'll learn about his interactions, as well as Trump's, pertaining to Wikileaks and potentially Russia.

[Tombradyonia]

Roger Stone was found guilty of misleading Congress about his contacts to WikiLeaks.

Ah so justice has been served. This pretty much concludes I think one of the main people in the Mueller Case. Of course, Trump isn't happy but when is he ever happy? But the fact that Stone lied and obstructed should tell us that there's likely more we'll learn about his interactions, as well as Trump's, pertaining to Wikileaks and potentially Russia.

According to Trump, two things that are not equal, are equal.

Roger Stone found guilty in court based on evidence
(in Trump world) is equal to
The right wing desperately wishing the smears it has endlessly launched at the Clintons for 25+ proves the Clintons guilt

They never ask themselves why no prosecutor has ever taken up any of the ludicrous claims they make about the Clintons and for which they always seem to be saying there's so much evidence.
All those prosecutors, even all the republican and conservative ones, none of them seems or has seemed willing to go after the Clintons based on that supposed mountain of evidence that the right wing echo chamber swears is out there.

Could it be because... most of the charges against the Clintons were total BS to begin with? It either never occurs to them or they just don't care.

ButwhataboutHillary...

Yeah... what about Hillary? Where's the evidence? How exactly is Benghazi the worst security failure of all time when Reagan let 250 marines die in Beirut? How exactly is Whitewater a scandal when two prosecutors (including Ken Starr) say it wasn't, and yet Iran-Contra was supposedly a minor thing if the right is to be believed? And how exactly is Reagan campaign communication with Iran's new government in 1979-1980 not treason (for which Iran-Contra might well have been the quid pro quo). How is Ollie North not in jail today?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

My point is that believing scientists is bad. And people ought not do this thing.

I'm sigging this because it's just too perfect.