Yeah, see? You keep making banal statements like this. Credentials mean nothing. Sure, they might lend an initial air of credibility, but real credibility ultimately lies in evidence and reasoning. Generally those with high credentials support their claims with evidence and reasoning, but it is not the credentials themselves that provide credibility. That would be another deeply unscientific belief. Another for the growing mound.
It wouldn’t surprise me if, assuming you are a research chemist, you are so hopelessly mired in The Game that you actually base credibility on titles and credentials instead. That hypothesis would be consistent with your observed behavior. And yet, credentials meant nothing to you in the case of Einstein, as you were so eager to point out, and you are certainly no Einstein.
God you’re a dumbass, and know fuck-all about science. People are judged on their credentials, which guess what, includes their published research. You’re actual peer-reviewed research is part of your credentials.
And you just keep waxing philosophical, because you have nothing to actually go on. You have no credentials. No peer-reviewed papers, no actual scientific experience. you’re just a schmuck.
There’s that science fundamentalism again, and the piss-poor reading comprehension. Credentials only have value in that they imply adherence to good practice. Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name. You fundamentalists are preventing science into a religious cult of personality.
Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name
And peer-reviewed papers will reflect that dumbass. You keep accusing me of bad reading comprehension, when you’ve shown it time and timer again.
And if you feel so strongly about this why don’t you enter the sciences and actually try to make a change?
Go ahead and write that grant application about how you’ll disprove the very existence of gravity. Go ahead, I’ll wait and see how well that gets funded.
You know companies that pursue scientific pursuits outside of academia still publish their work. They also tend to hire people with masters and doctorates from well-regarded academic institutions.
Call it the Game, call it the science Meta, call it politics in the sciences, whatever you like. It’s an extension of the same fundamentalist principles. Whatever it is, isn’t science itself.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
God, what a joke.
Yeah, see? You keep making banal statements like this. Credentials mean nothing. Sure, they might lend an initial air of credibility, but real credibility ultimately lies in evidence and reasoning. Generally those with high credentials support their claims with evidence and reasoning, but it is not the credentials themselves that provide credibility. That would be another deeply unscientific belief. Another for the growing mound.
It wouldn’t surprise me if, assuming you are a research chemist, you are so hopelessly mired in The Game that you actually base credibility on titles and credentials instead. That hypothesis would be consistent with your observed behavior. And yet, credentials meant nothing to you in the case of Einstein, as you were so eager to point out, and you are certainly no Einstein.
Keep playing The Game, mixologist.
God you’re a dumbass, and know fuck-all about science. People are judged on their credentials, which guess what, includes their published research. You’re actual peer-reviewed research is part of your credentials.
And you just keep waxing philosophical, because you have nothing to actually go on. You have no credentials. No peer-reviewed papers, no actual scientific experience. you’re just a schmuck.
There’s that science fundamentalism again, and the piss-poor reading comprehension. Credentials only have value in that they imply adherence to good practice. Bad practice by a Nobel Laureate is worth less than good practice by some no name. You fundamentalists are preventing science into a religious cult of personality.
And peer-reviewed papers will reflect that dumbass. You keep accusing me of bad reading comprehension, when you’ve shown it time and timer again.
And if you feel so strongly about this why don’t you enter the sciences and actually try to make a change?
Go ahead and write that grant application about how you’ll disprove the very existence of gravity. Go ahead, I’ll wait and see how well that gets funded.
Yes, for that paper. Past work is not evidence for future work.
I see the problem. When I say “science” I mean science.
When you say “science,” you mean academia. I agree with most of your statements as they apply to academia. Academia is not science.
You know companies that pursue scientific pursuits outside of academia still publish their work. They also tend to hire people with masters and doctorates from well-regarded academic institutions.
Call it the Game, call it the science Meta, call it politics in the sciences, whatever you like. It’s an extension of the same fundamentalist principles. Whatever it is, isn’t science itself.
But it is. More science than you’ve ever done it seems since you think one data point with no controls is somehow scientific.