| Author | Message | ||
     Sami |
What is your usual response when someone quotes to you (scientific/academic) papers? To be honest, my response is usually this:  Allow me to explain: Most papers are junk (see my thread ''What Is Science?''). Lest I'm accused of being a hypocrite, I am also guilty of quoting papers. There is certainly a time and place for quoting papers, but I have noticed that oftentimes doing so misses the point of what is being conveyed. Quoting papers tends to denote something like, ''My mind is already set, so don't even bother to convince me otherwise''. Although this may not be one's intention, it may come across as such to other people. Example: Me: ''Eating fish is healthy bro!'' Bob: ''Dude, this paper proves you wrong! Didn't you know that you can die from mercury poisoning by eating fish?'' So the claim that eating fish is healthy is ''refuted'' by papers showing that you can literally die from eating fish. My question is this, what is the use of quoting papers when you can basically prove or disprove anything with them? Are papers worth the paper they're written on? | ||
| Tpehak |
Eating fish is not healthy for fish | ||
| Sami |
It's either you eating fish, or fish eating you. What will you choose?  | ||
| Tpehak |
It depends on which form of biomass you prefer to be. (Message edited by TPEHAK on April 17, 2020) | ||
| Sami |
I prefer to convert other biomass into human mass. Don't you? | ||
| Blake |
I think there are silly papers, not so silly agenda-driven papers, and solid objective papers that publish on serious substantive science no matter what the results. I've authored a number of the latter. Nobody cares. Well, maybe the pilot of the B2 who is hit with a nuclear thermal flash and wondering if the flight vehicle is going to hold together. He might care. | ||
| Aesquire |
Mostly I read the reports to learn the latest arguments and evidence, in the hard sciences. In the soft subjects, like sociology, I read them like science fiction. Entertainment, but not taken as serious fact. Plus, and this applies to sci-fi & social sciences, as warnings about possible trends. Like autonomous war machines. | ||
| Sami |
Blake, that is a useful distinction (silly, not so silly, solid). Though when it comes to papers, how to distinguish between them? Especially when solid papers often get ignored or buried by ''the scientific consensus''. Take climate change as an example, I can quote left and right solid papers on how global warming is good for the Earth, how CO2 is good for plants. Even NASA, which has a clear pro-climate change agenda, admits that global warming and CO2 are good for the Earth and for plants: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-d ioxide-fertilization-greening-earth The agenda-driven scientific community doesn't seem to care about the benefits of CO2. They treat CO2 like it's Satan's breath, not knowing that CO2 is basically the elixir for plant life. It's safe to say that for every solid paper, there are dozens silly ones. And that is the problem, because the good ones don't receive the attention they deserve. Patrick, I used to believe in the distinction between the hard and soft sciences, but I'm not too sure about that anymore. It seems that the hard sciences are no less susceptible to be driven by agendas than the soft sciences are, see the thread ''What is science?'' dealing with the reproducibility crisis. At the end of the day, it is people who write papers. How much trust do we put in them, especially when many of their papers cannot be reproduced? | ||
| Aesquire |
I'll sure concede that the Hard sciences have become dogmatic and congealed/corrupted by the Green religious scam. But the Scientific Method and Purpose of the Search for understanding of the Physical World is still distinct from the study of humans. It's a matter of opinion if that difference is desirable. My opinion is it would be better to be more fact/evidence based on the soft sciences than becoming agenda and opinion based in the hard, but you could argue that's my Primitive Male brain not properly integrating my logical and emotional hemispheres! I mean, I'd mock you, because I'm a Primitive Male, naturally, but you could argue that.  | ||
| Sami |
Shouldn't we ask why it got corrupted in the first place? If the hard sciences are so hard, then why did they get so soft? I'd say that the Green Movement was not the cause of corruption, but the symptom of corruption. The underlying cause of this corruption goes deeper than we may think, don't let the tip of the iceberg fool you. | ||
| Aesquire |
Oh, you should research the Greens. You may reverse your opinion on cause and effect. The nutshell on the Green movement is... A KGB plot to destroy Western Industry to win the planet for the Glorious Revolution. Starting with the Green Party in Europe & Earth Day organizers here, the Movement dovetails with the parallel project of Liberation Theology, to transform the Catholic Church in Central & South America, initially, to a Party mouthpiece in lands that religious faith conflicts with the Holy Revolution. Keywords include Bulgarian secret police, KGB, United Council of Churches, South America, Catholic Church, etc. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-sov iet-spy-we-created-liberation-theology-83634 The Prime example is the Pope, who is a product of the Liberation Theology drive, and a minor example, Barack Hussein Obama's family preacher, ( the one he pretended to barely know ) who is a Communist Agitator, Liberation Theology, Black American Church, one of, product of Soviet intelligence. Otoh, We have The Prophet Gore & now Saint Greta of Thunberg, & her millionaire sponsored campaign to feed them more taxpayer money. The one thing you can be certain of is you don't know what crimes are really being concealed, behind the mask of self righteous fake concern for the environment. https://collegian.com/2020/04/rampage-sponsored-a- brief-history-of-earth-day/ https://www.theblaze.com/podcasts/earth-day-was-be gun-on-this-soviet-leaders-birthday | ||
| Sami |
Patrick, I'm with you on that. My research on the Greens a couple of years ago led me to James Delingpole's book: Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors https://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements -True-Colors/dp/0983347409 James basically argues in support of your thesis, namely that the Greens are Red on the inside. Definitely, the rabbit hole is deeper and wider than we are told. Popes in the past have warned against Liberation Theology. Pope Pius X specifically wrote an encyclical in 1907 warning people about it: http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclical s/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici- gregis.html Pius X said that modernism (or Liberation Theology) is ''the synthesis of all heresies''. This is actually similar to what you once said: In fact there are no truly original ideas in Marxism, it's a wholly manufactured synthesis of religious and economic philosophical ideas from other, older "heresies". I don't want to flatter you too much, but great minds think alike. You've come to the same conclusion as Pope Pius X a hundred years ago. | ||
| Aesquire |
 I'm not sure that's a compliment to a Pagan!  The previous Pope, former head of the Inquisition, ( didn't expect that? Hah! ) also warned against the infiltration and corruption of The Church. Some may argue The Church needed reforming, but what's happened was perhaps the reverse of reform. Conquest. | ||
| Sami |
You mean Pope Benedict? He resigned due to pressure from inside the Church. He tried to clean the Church from the corruption, but there were too many infiltrators who stood in his way. He wrote a letter explaining himself and the situation in the Church: In new letter, Benedict blames clergy abuse on sexual revolution, Vatican II theology https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/new- letter-benedict-blames-clergy-abuse-sexual-revolut ion-vatican-ii-theology So basically, he attributes the corruption on Liberal Theology and on the crisis of the sexual revolution during the 1960s. The sexual revolution was a Marxist Movement as I mentioned before in another thread. Wilhelm Reich, a Marxist revolutionary, wrote a book on the same subject called ''The Sexual Revolution''. It seems that Benedict's analysis is accurate in this regard. The sixties ushered in Marxism inside and outside the Church. Only recently have the tides turned, people are becoming aware of the Marxist infiltration of the institutions such as the sciences, media and the education system. (Message edited by Sami on May 10, 2020) |
