You are engaging in ascientific juvenile and immature wordsmithing.
You are "a skeptic" - people who have looked at either the same, or more information than you have and drawn different conclusions are "denialists".
Skepticism is not Science, it's critique, it's rhetoric and it's opinion.
The first Skeptics to go under that banner were not men of science, they were the Greek thinkers Diogenes and Pyrrho. They were contrarians.
Thus, a Skeptic can never be a Scientist, and likewise, a Scientist can never a Skeptic - a Skeptic never espouses or commits to an idea or theoretical model or philosophy of his own, he merely seeks to critique, deconstruct, unravel and find fault with those of others; thus, they never have a better theory to propose or submit to the same level of public scrutiny.
Science proceeds from the evidence, nothing more, nothing less.
Observable, objectively measurable and reproducible effects.
If the theory currently in vogue fails to consistently predict future results, then you are welcome to propose a better theory, if you have one.
If you do not have one, the extent to which you are able to make a useful contribution to any given matter is limited in the extreme.
If you can do better, then do so.
What you are NOT permitted to do is sit around, imagining possible explanations for why it may not be right.
If it's not right, we will easily be able to see that it s not right be repeating the experiment with different input values for the main variables to see if the results differ in the expected way, in accordance with the underlying theoretical assumptions of each given case.
The approach that you adhere to is NOT Science, it's dialectics.
"This is an illusion - I deny it!"
No comments:
Post a Comment