teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:46 amWell, what usually goes wrong is that people think they hear both sides of the story, but they actually don't.Let them hear both sides! Evolution AND creation! Civil rights AND white nationalism! No way that can go wrong...
Think of it this way, the Flat Earth Society Forum makes you think you hear both sides of the story, but actually you don't hear a single one (the most active Flat-Earther member on that forum, JROA, is almost certainly a troll).
Or, think of the web-page where I presented my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms:
I tried to explain what the mainstream linguistics claims and why I think it's wrong. Did I accurately represent the mainstream linguistics? To my best knowledge, yes, but it's quite possible that I unintentionally misrepresented it.
It's almost impossible to actually make people hear both sides of the story (none of them being misrepresented), even if you honestly want them to.
If people actually heard what creationists actually have to say (the conspiracy theories about the measurements of the parallaxes of the stars being falsified to make it look like stars are further away than they actually are, the conspiracy theories that scientists know that the half-time of some radioactive isotopes isn't constant but hide that...), I am pretty sure that even less people would believe in creationism.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:46 amWell, yes, most scientific theories are wrong. But the same is true for the theories made by "qualified" people. And whether or not you are "qualified" is impossible to tell.Rarely. And less and less as time goes on and the knowledge and resources required for advancement grow.
More often these people just waste time and resources, and do harm.
Red wrote: ↑You haven't really learned anything at all from this experience, have you? brimstone went over this with you about 20 times in the Flat Earth thread.
No scientific theory has been disproved in about 100 years or so. Do you know what a scientific theory is? Can you list some theories in recent memory that have been disproved?
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑There are different magnitudes of wrongness and plausibility.
Being a little off about how electrons interact when the details are still fuzzy is different from being off on the shape of the Earth.
When theories created by actual scientists are wrong, they are mistaken hypotheses trying at an understanding we don't yet have. A simple mistake which, based even on good knowledge, seemed plausible. When pseudoscientific theories are wrong it's a very different kind of fractal wrongness.
Saying they're both usually wrong is deceptive because it fails to account for degree.
Also: Lay people rarely create actual theories, but hypotheses that fail to be precise enough to be testable (that is typical of pseudoscience).
teo123 wrote: ↑Actually, I can. Remember Lysenkoism? Up until the late 1950s, the Mendelian genetics was not accepted by a significant number of biologists, who instead believed in Lysenkoism (which is now considered pseudoscience). And the government of some countries tried to implement science-based agriculture, taking Lysenkoism to be respectable science. And it had devastating results.
Red wrote: ↑No, that was not considered a scientific theory, and was well known to be pseudoscience, even among the scientists who came out in support of it. It was promulgated by political activists, not scientists (biologists in particular) who knew the consequences that would ensue.
Firstly, this took place in the Soviet Union (so not a global consensus, and not representative of the entire community) under a dogmatic and oppressive government where they basically forced the scientists at gunpoint to discard the accepted theory of genetics in favor of a new one, and some were imprisoned or killed for not obeying orders.
So basically, it was not a scientific theory in any sense of the term, and was never honestly considered one.
teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:58 amThat certainly played a role, but I don't think that negates my point. The truth is, up until the middle of the 20th century, many biologists didn't accept Mendel's genetics, and instead believed in something like Lysenkoism. And when the government tried to implement science-based agriculture (as was recommended by Karl Marx), it was misled by that.
True, the consequences would be less severe if the government protected free speech.
But, you are not arguing for a government that protects free speech, you are arguing for a government that censors "pseudoscience", right?
Also, the consequences would be even less severe had the government just left agriculture alone.
Red wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:28 amYou completely ignored everything I wrote and insist on citing this irrelevant nonsense and shoving words into my mouth.
Please, go back and read what I wrote, which addresses what you said. First, get an idea of what a scientific theory is, then see my response to you.
Why are you bringing up free speech? The Soviet Union had little of such a thing, and Stalin (who supported the campaign) was always quick to oppress. I assume you just want to get your anarchist/libertarian foot in. You are right though; I do support censoring of pseudoscience by the government, since the harm done otherwise is much too immense.
teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:10 amHow is that irrelevant nonsense? The truth is, the Mendelian genetics wasn't accepted by most of the biologists until the early 20th century. And, some biologists didn't accept it even until as late as the middle of the 20th century. And Stalin and Mao were misled by that.
Appreciate the cliff notes of how you misunderstood the conversation teo, but you said it all in your opening post. You want to blame your linguistic research failings on lack of communication in academia, so you have to keep up this fatalist conspiracy ridden imagining of how scientific theories are developed. It's just really sad you would think using the most blatent hoax in history, Stalin needing to build a cult of personality with such feats as miracle crops would qualify as evidence of how mainstream scientific consensus can be more wrong than you striking upon a linguistic theory.Red wrote:It's completely irrelevant to the original point you were making. Have you forgotten what that was already?
I said there haven't been any scientific theories disproven in the past 100 or so years, you brought up Lysenkoism and how most biologists accepted it, I explained how it was not actually accepted by biologists who were forced to accept it at gunpoint, and how it was never considered a scientific theory by the community abroad. You did not address my point or my arguments at all. Go do that now.
If you really need to scratch an itch for discovering something, fly to the rainforest before Bolsenaro cuts it down and discover a new species, apparently that's still fairly easy to do within a few days/weeks and a keen eye. Otherwise join a citizen science group and take pride in documenting evidence that someone with millions of pounds of labratory tech and 10s of years studying the field can use to build on scientific theories. And work to get there yourself one day.
Anyone who wants to talk to you has to segment their posts and remind you a billion times to respond to the train of discussion. I get some of it is you just not understanding, but a lot of it is over-confidence, and it's really not fair to expect everyone visiting the forum to have to do this to get you to stay on point.