o_O.Q said:
"it'd be nigh impossible to have an academic degree in five different fields in your 20s." i didn't say i have 5 degrees, i said i had one and several certificates "i have various certificates in chemistry, biology, physics, maths and geography with other subjects of course a degree in a scientific field"
"Unless you mean you have a high school degree where you were taught chemistry, geography, etc. yes i'm referring to certificates i earned in school and college
"The way you formulate your questions doesn't even hint at a scientific background." can you give an example? |
I can give a few just from this thread alone.
You compared the existence of God to the existence of electrons, saying that both require faith to believe they exist. Any scientist would know that to be a bullshit comparison. Scientists know claims are made based on evidence. You can't prove something doesn't exist, you can only prove something does exist. There is no faith required to accept a scientific theory, just evidence.
You seem to lack any understanding of what peer review is and how it works. You even compared it to the structural hierarchy of the church, which is so bizarre that I couldn't come up with it even if I tried. You go on about how peer review makes science vulnerable to subjectivity and flaws because it's the same kind of top-down selectivity as the church, while it's exactly the other way around. Peer review exists to remove subjectivity and to solidify scientific findings. Your comparison once again truly defies logic...
When you are confronted with this you bring up Einstein as the most recognizable scientist, claiming that this proves science is hierarchic like the church. Bringing up Einstein in this context just screams "I'm a high school student" to me. You really think a chemist, or a geologist or a neurologist thinks "hmm, I'm just a lowly scientist, Einstein is the real deal, I wish I was as respected as him"? In the scientific community you earn respect by contributing to you field, it doesn't require you to be famous among laymen.
You also type very short sentences without much depth to them, your arguments jump from one point to another without much consistency. It doesn't help that you hardly use punctuation as well. Frankly I can't see you publishing any scientific articles with a writing style even remotely like the writing style you use on this forum.
This post may seem like an attack, but it is not intended as such. You asked for clarification so hereby I did. I read along this thread along with the other thread about science you started and, while the topics themselves can be interesting, I feel people are having a hard time discussing these (admittedly difficult) topics with you, as you appear to be on a completely different wavelength sometimes.
