Do you Compartmentalize?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-05-2016, 05:42 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 04:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, science is doing useful shit for who ever is paying you. If I run a pharmaceutical company, I'm hiring scientist to make me money, make my shareholders happy, get my drug to the market, pass through FDA evaluations. I'm not paying you to discover objective facts, I'm paying you to benefit my bottom line.

Nope. Totally false.
Science can be employed to perform useful tasks. But it doesn't have to be.
The entire world, (except Tommy) knows science can be divided between "pure" and "applied". As Nasa discovered, pure science comes up with many ideas that can be applied later.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-...plied.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-05-2016, 06:48 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 04:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The topic is if one can be aware when they compartmentalize, and here we have atheists doing a great deal of compartmentalization, in regards to their thoughts on science, but totally oblivious to it.

I'm sure that is the view point you are projecting on us. That seems to be the only one you can interact with anyway.

I am fully aware of the limitations of science, in regards to human nature.

Scientific data and studies can be manipulated by media, religious organizations. corporations, and (as in the example I cited earlier) scientists themselves. When humanity tries, there is nothing that we can't fuck up.

But here's the thing: No matter how much we fuck it up, science as a whole creeps along. It progresses slowly in spite of our flaws.

Since you ignored it earlier, I'll ask again:

Name one example where a religious answer was right and the scientific explanation was wrong.

Your dishonesty in this thread has been appalling.

You repeatedly tried to make our arguments for us.
You repeatedly told us what our thoughts and viewpoints are.
You repeatedly twisted definitions and played word games.
You repeatedly shifted the subject.

I may not be a preacher, but I'm fairly sure that jesus wouldn't approve.
Well, if he existed that is...


[Image: xGt4l_zpsulkyidxn.jpg]

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
10-05-2016, 11:49 PM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2016 03:53 AM by morondog.)
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
Tommy, what branch of science do you have experience with and what depth of experience? Come on, you claimed it. Prove it. Because I say you're full of shit. You demonstrate no understanding of the scientific method. Oh wait... don't tell me... post-whatchermacallit? That bullshit psuedo-crap that asserts that everything we do is essentially word games? No wonder you're fucked in the head.

ETA: I remembered what it's called. Post-modernism. The total crap that some people come out with.... Eish.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 04:24 AM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2016 04:28 AM by Tomasia.)
Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 04:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, science is doing useful shit for who ever is paying you. If I run a pharmaceutical company, I'm hiring scientist to make me money, make my shareholders happy, get my drug to the market, pass through FDA evaluations. I'm not paying you to discover objective facts, I'm paying you to benefit my bottom line.



The topic is if one can be aware when they compartmentalize, and here we have atheists doing a great deal of compartmentalization, in regards to their thoughts on science, but totally oblivious to it.

Your example is of a TECHNICIAN who utilizes methods determined by science and scientists to do a job.

YOU are conflating "employee" with "scientist" because you don't accept that scientists use science and peer review to remove bias from results and conclusions. Because YOU want science to be biased and scientists to be biased with respect to their science.

The transparency of your desire to discuss science as a biased endeavor, is obvious.

You have ACTUAL SCIENTISTS telling you you're full of shit and that you don't know what you're taking about. But you continue to assert your stupid anyways. Laugh out load

I worked for big pharma, I know what the scientist we hired do, and what "technicians" do. I know what we paid them for.

You're the one suggesting that scientist aren't employees, lol

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 04:34 AM
Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 05:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 04:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, science is doing useful shit for who ever is paying you. If I run a pharmaceutical company, I'm hiring scientist to make me money, make my shareholders happy, get my drug to the market, pass through FDA evaluations. I'm not paying you to discover objective facts, I'm paying you to benefit my bottom line.

Nope. Totally false.
Science can be employed to perform useful tasks. But it doesn't have to be.
The entire world, (except Tommy) knows science can be divided between "pure" and "applied". As Nasa discovered, pure science comes up with many ideas that can be applied later.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-...plied.html

No science is funded, paid for, for the sake of doing useful shit for whoever is paying their bills, whether now or later. It's purely about utility. It's why when folks here speak about scientific progress, they're more likely to highlight technological advances.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 04:42 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 04:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your example is of a TECHNICIAN who utilizes methods determined by science and scientists to do a job.

YOU are conflating "employee" with "scientist" because you don't accept that scientists use science and peer review to remove bias from results and conclusions. Because YOU want science to be biased and scientists to be biased with respect to their science.

The transparency of your desire to discuss science as a biased endeavor, is obvious.

You have ACTUAL SCIENTISTS telling you you're full of shit and that you don't know what you're taking about. But you continue to assert your stupid anyways. Laugh out load

I worked for big pharma, I know what the scientist we hired do, and what "technicians" do. I know what we paid them for.

You're the one suggesting that scientist aren't employees, lol

If they publish, their research will be critically examined and rejected if not up to standard. If they don't publish then it's a company secret and there's no peer review so it's not 'science' per se - it's in house research. The thing that makes science science is peer review.

I'll bet your "working for big pharma" was pushing pens somewhere. You still seem to have a. a hopelessly negative view of scientists b. no idea what the fuck they do.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
11-05-2016, 06:06 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 04:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your example is of a TECHNICIAN who utilizes methods determined by science and scientists to do a job.

YOU are conflating "employee" with "scientist" because you don't accept that scientists use science and peer review to remove bias from results and conclusions. Because YOU want science to be biased and scientists to be biased with respect to their science.

The transparency of your desire to discuss science as a biased endeavor, is obvious.

You have ACTUAL SCIENTISTS telling you you're full of shit and that you don't know what you're taking about. But you continue to assert your stupid anyways. Laugh out load

I worked for big pharma, I know what the scientist we hired do, and what "technicians" do. I know what we paid them for.

You're the one suggesting that scientist aren't employees, lol

And yet you persist with your straw man of scientists = technicians who work for companies

Why? It doesn't fit your narrative otherwise?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
11-05-2016, 06:14 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 04:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No science is funded, paid for, for the sake of doing useful shit for whoever is paying their bills, whether now or later. It's purely about utility.

So, it's the exact opposite of religion.

(11-05-2016 04:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's why when folks here speak about scientific progress, they're more likely to highlight technological advances.

Like that computer you're typing on?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
11-05-2016, 06:19 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 04:42 AM)morondog Wrote:  If they publish, their research will be critically examined and rejected if not up to standard. If they don't publish then it's a company secret and there's no peer review so it's not 'science' per se - it's in house research. The thing that makes science science is peer review.

There are a variety of journals that publish a variety of studies. The journals themselves are interested in the type of studies that increase their readership, gain attention, increase their brand recognition, keep them profitable, keep their editorial board employed.

A recent study of over 100 studies published in three prestigious journals, were only able to be replicated about 39% percent of the time. This wasn't a study done by the journals themselves, but my researchers interested in the accuracy of studies published in peer reviewed journals. Is this likely to change how journals operate, the studies they select? probably not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spea...-36-times/

1.5 million studies get published every year, they might get read, but not necessarily attempted to be replicated. Because it cost money to do so, it's unlikely that the publications are doing so themselves, and it's also unlikely that any organizations unless having some incentive would replicate the bulk of these studies as well.

Quote:I'll bet your "working for big pharma" was pushing pens somewhere. You still seem to have a. a hopelessly negative view of scientists b. no idea what the fuck they do.

Actually no, I dealt with organizational management, what workers do, how resources are allocated, how the company as a whole is structured, etc....

And no. I don't have a hopelessly negative view of scientists. They're just employees of a variety of organizations, and private industries like everyone else. I have no more of a hopelessly negative view of them, than I do doctors, cops, mechanics, pharmacist, or Best Buy clerks, It's just that folks here have a dewey eyed view of them. TbD went as far as suggesting they're not employees, that a distinction needs to be drawn between employees and scientists, for no other purpose than to preserve the myth.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 06:21 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-05-2016 04:42 AM)morondog Wrote:  If they publish, their research will be critically examined and rejected if not up to standard. If they don't publish then it's a company secret and there's no peer review so it's not 'science' per se - it's in house research. The thing that makes science science is peer review.

There are a variety of journals that publish a variety of studies. The journals themselves are interested in the type of studies that increase their readership, gain attention, increase their brand recognition, keep them profitable, keep their editorial board employed.

A recent study of over 100 studies published in three prestigious journals, were only able to be replicated about 39% percent of the time. This wasn't a study done by the journals themselves, but my researchers interested in the accuracy of studies published in peer reviewed journals. Is this likely to change how journals operate, the studies they select? probably not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spea...-36-times/

1.5 million studies get published every year, they might get read, but not necessarily attempted to be replicated. Because it cost money to do so, it's unlikely that the publications are doing so themselves, and it's also unlikely that any organizations unless having some incentive would replicate the bulk of these studies as well.

Quote:I'll bet your "working for big pharma" was pushing pens somewhere. You still seem to have a. a hopelessly negative view of scientists b. no idea what the fuck they do.

Actually no, I dealt with organizational management, what workers do, how resources are allocated, how the company as a whole is structured, etc....

And no. I don't have a hopelessly negative view of scientists. They're just employees of a variety of organizations, and private industries like everyone else. I have no more of a hopelessly negative view of them, than I do doctors, cops, mechanics, pharmacist, or Best Buy clerks, It's just that folks here have a dewey eyed view of them. TbD went as far as suggesting they're not employees, that a distinction needs to be drawn between employees and scientists, for no other purpose than to preserve the myth.

And he just keeps on straw manning and throwing out red herrings.

Same old bullshit, different topic.

TommyBoy is an expert on science and scientists because he used to work with technicians at a company and now he knows science and scientists better than scientists.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: