General Discussion

HERVEPA

(6,107 posts)

40. when you have some spare time, you might want to look up definition of rant.

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 08:59 AM

Jan 2014

However, I need to go to work now. Computer stuff.
No need to worry about what code I write in the program. The universe will make it right I'm sure.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In my experience, you really should have a closed mind to be an effective scientist [View all] Recursion Jan 2014 OP

Au contraire, progress in science is not slow and collaborative. geek tragedy Jan 2014 #1

Thank you. I keep thinking of that book over and over pnwmom Jan 2014 #17

See also Max Planck FarCenter Jan 2014 #49

Maybe, but neither are scientific discoveries generally"accidental." yellowcanine Jan 2014 #54

it's generally not an either/or, but rather a combination of the two-- geek tragedy Jan 2014 #55

Good post... SidDithers Jan 2014 #2

Discernment is probably what you are looking for, not closed minds, the ones with closed minds... Humanist_Activist Jan 2014 #3

It takes imagination to introduce a hypothesis 1000words Jan 2014 #4

The hypothesis is actually based off evidence obtained through research Scootaloo Jan 2014 #8

Fair enough 1000words Jan 2014 #9

Oh certainly, one must have imagination to come up with a question Scootaloo Jan 2014 #10

Indeed 1000words Jan 2014 #11

Pay them enough they will study anything RobertEarl Jan 2014 #5

If your thesis is that money can lead to bad science Recursion Jan 2014 #6

Which is why science has peer review. gcomeau Jan 2014 #51

True RobertEarl Jan 2014 #63

Easier way of saying it; a good scientist is a hard skeptic Scootaloo Jan 2014 #7

Not closed, but a sifter... JHB Jan 2014 #12

Skepticism is not the same thing as being opinionated. Far from it. nt bemildred Jan 2014 #13

"Skepticism" is just another term for "most parsimonious" explanation. yellowcanine Jan 2014 #62

No, skepticism is doubt. "Most parsimonious" is Occam's Razor. bemildred Jan 2014 #64

Semantics, imo. yellowcanine Jan 2014 #66

I must disagree. The meanings are distinct, and it's a good, useful distinction. bemildred Jan 2014 #67

But this picture isn't sexy so it will never "sell"... Locut0s Jan 2014 #14

I have a slightly different take on this... Locut0s Jan 2014 #15

Well said Recursion Jan 2014 #16

I agree with you completely about scientists and how they think. pnwmom Jan 2014 #20

Well yes, I'll give you that. :P Locut0s Jan 2014 #21

And some of their critics rely on the accusation of dogmatism far more than is truly applicable. nt eqfan592 Jan 2014 #31

Top scientists are creative people who are open to new ideas. pnwmom Jan 2014 #18

What does "top scientists" mean? Recursion Jan 2014 #19

Members of the National Academy of Science, for example. pnwmom Jan 2014 #22

Actually I don't think many would have an issue with it... Locut0s Jan 2014 #23

The biggest advances in science tend to come from scientists pnwmom Jan 2014 #24

Those aren't the kind of leaps that Recursion or I are saying scientists are closed to.... Locut0s Jan 2014 #25

Bingo. nt eqfan592 Jan 2014 #32

Woo That Some Should Consider cantbeserious Jan 2014 #26

Nope. Just BS HERVEPA Jan 2014 #27

Close Minded - We Now Know Of The Things You Are Made cantbeserious Jan 2014 #28

Yes, I am made of a logical, scientific mind that calls BS BS. HERVEPA Jan 2014 #29

Yes - That Intransigence May Forever Keep One In The Dark cantbeserious Jan 2014 #30

woo - not woo - woo - not woo woo - not woo HERVEPA Jan 2014 #36

Good To Know That Your Objectivity Quickly Devolves To Rants cantbeserious Jan 2014 #38

when you have some spare time, you might want to look up definition of rant. HERVEPA Jan 2014 #40

When You Have Some Time You Might Reflect On Non Responsive Posts cantbeserious Jan 2014 #41

eom HERVEPA Jan 2014 #42

Have you read either? lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #45

Yes - Both - The Physicists Wrote To Directly Discuss Woo cantbeserious Jan 2014 #59

If only there were solid evidence to support it, then maybe. eqfan592 Jan 2014 #33

Clear That One Has Hastily Made Statements Without Serious Reflection cantbeserious Jan 2014 #34

blah blah blah blah blah bullshit blah blah blah eqfan592 Jan 2014 #35

eom eom eom eom eom eom eom HERVEPA Jan 2014 #37

Rather Childish - Objectivity Must De Optional For The Rational These Days cantbeserious Jan 2014 #39

That has nothing to do with science- nt Progressive dog Jan 2014 #56

Yes, and the most important part of a hypothesis is that it can be falsified bhikkhu Jan 2014 #43

Einstein went to his grave believing that quantum physics was woo. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #44

That's not exactly true, since Einstein received the Nobel Prize for one of the earliest struggle4progress Jan 2014 #47

Thanks, I wasn't clear. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #50

No he did not. gcomeau Jan 2014 #57

That's a big simplification of Einstein's thinking, Progressive dog Jan 2014 #61

It's not an oversimplification to say he was deeply ambivalent about the implications... lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #68

Woo is not part of main stream physics Progressive dog Jan 2014 #69

Lorentz's local-time transformation predates Einstein's special relativity by only about a decade struggle4progress Jan 2014 #46

not at all. a very open mind but a mind determined to find truths La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2014 #48

There is less evidence intelligent alien life than evidence for a spirit realm. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2014 #52

Because of that attitude, 'medical science' claimed gay people were diseased Bluenorthwest Jan 2014 #53

Read this Bluenorthwest Jan 2014 #58

Not 'closed', but rigorous, disciplined, logical and evidence based on point Jan 2014 #60

Based on your subjective "experience," eh? villager Jan 2014 #65