What is a sociopath and what is a psychopath?

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by SorenVC [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science will NEVER admit that they're wrong

Science is fundamentally wrong as it is not about recreating reality, but creating descriptive, predictive models of reality. Science is regenerative and fundamentally about proving old ideas wrong and replacing those ideas with new ones which better fit reality.

[SorenVC]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science is fundamentally wrong as it is not about recreating reality, but creating descriptive, predictive models of reality. Science is regenerative and fundamentally about proving old ideas wrong and replacing those ideas with new ones which better fit reality.

They only replace old ideas with new ones when they get money for it. Otherwise nothing's being done. Think of all the countless studies on anything that are being paid to produce the same results. Is that science or a waste of time.

[Jimjam]

Yea, there are huge systemic issues in research funding and publishing. Did you know researchers have to pay journals for a chance to get their work published? And the peer reviewers are not paid? You'd think it would be the otherway around - the journals would be paying researchers for the best content, and the expertise of peer review would be valued!

One of the most obvious problems of this system is it makes it difficult for outsiders to break into published academia (an environment with the slogan 'publish or perish'), particularly as it essentially requires someone to bankroll researchers. Gatekeepers for funding can ensure only research with favourable findings will ever make it to completion, let alone print.

You mention all the studies being paid to find the same results, but actually in many ways it is the opposite - reproducability of results is core to science, YET in realistic terms the academic system only really values research which produces new findings. This means if 300 studies reproduce a finding, but one study (by chance of data, rather than actual reflection of reality) contradicts the establishment, the controversial study will be the one getting published, putting it on an even pegging with the prior published study (even though the original study has 300 unpublished replications supporting it and the contradictory study has nothing behind it at all).

[SorenVC]

I'm not gonna read all that. I have a digital life to pursue.

[OriginalContentGuy]

Based purely on the content I'll choose to read jimjam's position over yours Soren any day ending in -y.

He sounds intelligent and would appear to be rational at this time while it your post history reads like you shouldn't run with anything sharper than crayon.

[OriginalContentGuy]

Jim I had no idea. I enjoyed reading you. Happy Sunday mate

[SorenVC]

You do you. But I can guarantee you that earth is flat and not a sphere and that planets don't exist. It's just luminaries (stars) and those planet things are not actual planets or something touchable. NASA means "to deceive" in Hebrew.

[SorenVC]

If science and these studies are so good and truthful why aren't there studies being made that expose the sphere earth for the big lie it is. It's so fake it's the biggest freemason lie of them all. It's just as fake as those silly looking dinosaurs.

If studies are good, why are they lying or avoiding the sphere earth hoax? Earth is actually flat. It's obvious by now that earth is not a sphere and that the surface of it is flat and not moving. And whoever believes in dinosaurs believes in anything.

[OriginalContentGuy]

https://skepticalinquirer.org/1990/0...ical-thinking/

[Jimjam]

It's interesting that after you said science refuses to admit it is wrong, you didn't engage with my post - perhaps because you feel it opposed your position. If you are inclined toward conspiratorial or skeptical thinking, then maybe it will be worth taking a second look as actually there is a lot of agreement with the systematic problems in science and how it is impacted by funding etc.

The take away of my post was not at all that published studies are all truthful and good. It doesn't make sense that you kept hounding that point as I was in fact very critical of the system.

Regarding flat earth, I have to give the qualified agreement that at the scale with which humans as individuals interact with the world, it is sensible to treat it as flat. Any curvature is not meaningfully significant compared to local topography and surface travel in day to day life.

Interesting fact about NASA meaning deceive in hebrew. Thank you for sharing that. I tried looking at translations from english to hebrew for deceive, trick, fool, etc, but they always gave me a word which came out sounding more like leramot. Am I being deceived?! I have some jewish friends I normally see over christmas for DnD so I'll ask what they have to say on the matter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.].