siti
Well-Known Member
No! And that is precisely why - if you read the comments in the threads I have directed your attention to - I frequently, if not always, suggest that people look up the research papers and other information for themselves to see whether what I said about it is true. It is true to say that I am able to understand some (at least) of the research papers better than a non-scientist would be able to - and I am - as a practicing scientist - better able to distinguish between 'scientific' and 'unscientific' claims. But I am certainly not saying that what I say is always true. But if you want to know how to build a house, would you consult anyone other than a professional builder? If you are ill, would you consult anyone other than a professional doctor? If you want legal advice, would you consult anyone other than a professional lawyer?@siti Here’s how I’m understanding it now, your reasons for calling some view “unscientific.” It isn’t enough for people to know that it contradicts your understanding of what some research says. They also need to know that you are a scientist whose field makes you a person whose understanding of what the research says is always true. Am I understanding that correctly?
You started off this thread by making the thinly veiled suggestion that people who declared the beliefs of others 'unscientific' almost invariably did so without presenting genuine evidence in the form of research papers or referenced thereto...I have shown you that I have repeatedly done exactly that on numerous occasions...your premise is clearly wrong in my case - I am not arrogant enough to imagine that I know all the answers...but as a scientist, I do know where to find them and I have directed people's attention to that source of information repeatedly. Of course most times, the actual evidence is ignored in favour of diversionary tactics to distract attention from the failure of the premise by attacking the words or the character of the individual rather than the veracity of the argument.
Your claim:
...is demonstrably false...it is rather, your argument that has no clothes.((There are many things that people call “science.” One that I’ll be discussing here is honest and responsible research and reporting the results. That’s the kind of science that I love, and the kind of science that gave science its reputation. Another is media and faction stories about reports of research, and pronouncements of professional associations. The first meaning is the one that people will cite to defend their use of the word “science,” but in forum debating that is never what anyone actually means when they call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific.” In forum debates, when people call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” they only ever mean the second kind of science, media and faction stories about research reports, and pronouncements of professional associations. Anyone who disagrees with that, please show me some counter examples.
Look! The emperor has no clothes!))
I'm not going to waste any more time on this thread. I gave you multiple 'counter-examples' already, and all you have done is twist my words to make it sound like I am proclaiming my own knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth...and if you had actually bothered to read the posts I gave you as examples, you would have seen that - and quite possibly learned something into the bargain.