5 ms·

I guess cauz it provides knowledge directly from scientists

by ivarrr 13y ago

jasallen 13y ago
That would be our high priest caste of "scientist" from which all knowing is given. We needn't evidence or studies, people, the 'scientists' said it is so. (FWIW, not a commentary on source link, just on parent comment)
- wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
  1+1=2[0] Happy now? [0] http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401 http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhist...
- kghose 13y ago
  That's what science is. Stuff said by scientists, often referring to other stuff said by other scientists before.
  - jasallen 13y ago
    I can't think you really believe that to be true. Your description says you are a neuro-scientist. So science is just something you say? If you say it, it is true? Or do you usually try to provide supporting documentation? Show statistical evidence and provide the parameters under which such figures were gathered? Encourage others to reproduce such results rather than merely relying on 'stuff you said'? In this age research fraud run amok I think "its science cuz scientists said it" is a particularly dangerous viewpoint.
    - ivarrr 13y ago
      Dangerous viewpoint is when science is provided by anonymous wikipedia, but not by scientists themselves.
      - judk 13y ago
        It's how we avoid cult of personality and the fallacy of argument from authority.
    - tokipin 13y ago
      i think you're jumping the gun. he means that science is vetted by consensus. and this particular website has a casual tone and the videos look like layman explanations for people who aren't afraid of getting a teeny bit technical. though, i would agree that citations wouldn't hurt if particular claims are being made, but a lot of the videos look like overviews of generic knowledge
      - kghose 13y ago
        Lectures often don't have citations. It breaks up the flow. Basic text books often don't have citations. Citations by themselves are also meaningless. The ideal of science that we are taught boils down to one premise and one premise only: as part of a scientific statement there will be a recipe. By following this recipe we can replicate the findings of the author. This ideal is met less and less the more complex and expensive our science gets. (Thanks for the support and clarification btw!)

I guess cauz it provides knowledge directly from scientists

by ivarrr 13y ago

I guess cauz it provides knowledge directly from scientists

That would be our high priest caste of "scientist" from which all knowing is given. We needn't evidence or studies, people, the 'scientists' said it is so. (FWIW, not a commentary on source link, just on parent comment)

wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
1+1=2[0] Happy now? [0] http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401 http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhist...
kghose 13y ago
That's what science is. Stuff said by scientists, often referring to other stuff said by other scientists before.
- jasallen 13y ago
  I can't think you really believe that to be true. Your description says you are a neuro-scientist. So science is just something you say? If you say it, it is true? Or do you usually try to provide supporting documentation? Show statistical evidence and provide the parameters under which such figures were gathered? Encourage others to reproduce such results rather than merely relying on 'stuff you said'? In this age research fraud run amok I think "its science cuz scientists said it" is a particularly dangerous viewpoint.
  - ivarrr 13y ago
    Dangerous viewpoint is when science is provided by anonymous wikipedia, but not by scientists themselves.
    - judk 13y ago
      It's how we avoid cult of personality and the fallacy of argument from authority.
  - tokipin 13y ago
    i think you're jumping the gun. he means that science is vetted by consensus. and this particular website has a casual tone and the videos look like layman explanations for people who aren't afraid of getting a teeny bit technical. though, i would agree that citations wouldn't hurt if particular claims are being made, but a lot of the videos look like overviews of generic knowledge
    - kghose 13y ago
      Lectures often don't have citations. It breaks up the flow. Basic text books often don't have citations. Citations by themselves are also meaningless. The ideal of science that we are taught boils down to one premise and one premise only: as part of a scientific statement there will be a recipe. By following this recipe we can replicate the findings of the author. This ideal is met less and less the more complex and expensive our science gets. (Thanks for the support and clarification btw!)