0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions?
And I don't want to post it for the general public to see.
Quote from: CG on Today at 16:35:38And I don't want to post it for the general public to see.QuoteThen don't put it on the internet..
Then don't put it on the internet.
What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions? I have an idea that could be weaponized but I don't want any joe lunchbox poopooing my idea. And I don't want to post it for the general public to see. Any Defence DARPA connected experts out there?
Any Defence DARPA connected experts out there?
Bunch of amatuers,
I have an idea that could be weaponized
I guess there is no one qualified to answer the question. Bunch of amatuers,
Some are; some aren't. Some of us can spell amateur.
Quote from: CG on 24/04/2020 16:35:38What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions? I have an idea that could be weaponized but I don't want any joe lunchbox poopooing my idea. And I don't want to post it for the general public to see. Any Defence DARPA connected experts out there?The answer to the question depends on the answer you are looking for. If you want a status quo answer, or an answer that will appear on a test at school, your best responders would be educators in the subjects. A PhD means someone trained for detailed research, who can come to focus, in terms of their education. Their thesis would be very targeted in terns of a specialty within a specialty. These people are better at a targeted answers instead of a more generalized answer. They may prefer use the math instead of develop the conception landscape; bulls eye. There are also Generalists, who know something about a lot of things and will answer questions by crossing the boundaries of specialty. They may have one or more area of formal educational specialty, and many other areas of self learning, without a formal degree. Good education teaches us how to keep learning, on our own. As an example of a contrast between a specialist and generalists, if you were asking a question about a dream, to someone who was specialized in psychology, they may answer your question in a certain way connected to repression and symbolism. If that person was also knowledgeable in biochemistry, they might also answer that same question, based on chemical imbalances. Both can be part of the truth. If you were a chemistry specialist you may not like the symbolism answer even if the person had a PhD. You may prefer the chemical answer. If those answering the question are research and development people, you may get a an entirely different approach, than someone who is a manufacturing scientist. Both ca be very educated. The first will be tempted to think outside the box, since this is what they do for a living The latter will stay inside the box, since making management comfortable is part of their job. R&D people have different types of handlers who cut them slack, since they need to try new things. In the forums, one can get a variety of approaches to questions, by differently qualified scientists and science enthusiasts. This is not right or wrong, unless you are studying for a test and the status quo or teachers opinions is how you get the A. One thing to consider, in terms of answers, is the idea of a science consensus. This is an oxymoron, since science is about repeatable fact. Politics is about the consensus of opinion. Consensus implies some level of subjectivity allowing us to vote on it. Political parties have the same facts, but each uses different theory. Consensus is something one can build, apart from the facts. The whip in politics makes sure everyone votes the same. Those afraid of the whip of consensus, may wish to avoid new ideas. They may only want the party line. In the golden age of science, theory had a much tougher standard, than it doescoday. If there was new data that did not agree with a theory, the theory needed to be revised or updated. or cast aside. Many people hated Einstein's relativity, and worked hard to experimentally disprove it, But it stood the test of time and scored 100% even until today. This is old school. When statistics entered the scene, the concept of margin of error, watered down the standards of theory. "Margin of error", allows bad theory to persist using a loophole. The standard got watered down, which is why consensus and politics have entered the scene. If we have to decide between two competing theories, that are not perfect to all the data, we will use a whip, and then take a vote. Many of the debates, which may have caused you to question people's credentials, is connected to some people using the old fashion higher standard. Others use use the water down standard of consensus, to ignore any inconsistent data. For example, the solid core of the earth; about the size of the moon, rotates faster than the surface. This data have been around since 2005. When I first heard about it, I was excited for the future of earth science. This would change everything. However, it is still not part of the status quo theory, other than as a possible footnote. The whip came out. Common sense says such a large moving object, inside the earth, should be near the top of any good earth theory worth its weight in salt. That is not rocket science but common sense. However, that framework, is still not taught by education. Formal education is not always the deciding factor, when it comes to new data, and the implications with respect to existing theory. If your goal, is an A on the finals, a large rotating earth core is the last thing you wish to think about, since it could make harder to memorize the stock answers. What are looking for in terms of science answers? All the paths and styles are represented in the forums, if you look closer. However, this variety will not come across in a way that is consistent with a consensus approach to science. Consensus is subjective, about whips, chains and politics and not science; science bondage. Forums allow for anonymity without too many tethers, chains and whips, although these will come out.
Why does this forum allow anti-science soap boxing. If someone has a non-mainstream idea that's fine, but having some bozo hijack a thread simply rant about how bad science is seems like it should deserve a warning of some sort.What does pushing the report button accomplish? I guess I don't know what the rules are for this forum.
What does pushing the report button accomplish? I guess I don't know what the rules are for this forum.
Quote from: puppypower on 26/04/2020 14:12:14Quote from: CG on 24/04/2020 16:35:38What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions? I have an idea that could be weaponized but I don't want any joe lunchbox poopooing my idea. And I don't want to post it for the general public to see. Any Defence DARPA connected experts out there?The answer to the question depends on the answer you are looking for. If you want a status quo answer, or an answer that will appear on a test at school, your best responders would be educators in the subjects. A PhD means someone trained for detailed research, who can come to focus, in terms of their education. Their thesis would be very targeted in terns of a specialty within a specialty. These people are better at a targeted answers instead of a more generalized answer. They may prefer use the math instead of develop the conception landscape; bulls eye. There are also Generalists, who know something about a lot of things and will answer questions by crossing the boundaries of specialty. They may have one or more area of formal educational specialty, and many other areas of self learning, without a formal degree. Good education teaches us how to keep learning, on our own. As an example of a contrast between a specialist and generalists, if you were asking a question about a dream, to someone who was specialized in psychology, they may answer your question in a certain way connected to repression and symbolism. If that person was also knowledgeable in biochemistry, they might also answer that same question, based on chemical imbalances. Both can be part of the truth. If you were a chemistry specialist you may not like the symbolism answer even if the person had a PhD. You may prefer the chemical answer. If those answering the question are research and development people, you may get a an entirely different approach, than someone who is a manufacturing scientist. Both ca be very educated. The first will be tempted to think outside the box, since this is what they do for a living The latter will stay inside the box, since making management comfortable is part of their job. R&D people have different types of handlers who cut them slack, since they need to try new things. In the forums, one can get a variety of approaches to questions, by differently qualified scientists and science enthusiasts. This is not right or wrong, unless you are studying for a test and the status quo or teachers opinions is how you get the A. One thing to consider, in terms of answers, is the idea of a science consensus. This is an oxymoron, since science is about repeatable fact. Politics is about the consensus of opinion. Consensus implies some level of subjectivity allowing us to vote on it. Political parties have the same facts, but each uses different theory. Consensus is something one can build, apart from the facts. The whip in politics makes sure everyone votes the same. Those afraid of the whip of consensus, may wish to avoid new ideas. They may only want the party line. In the golden age of science, theory had a much tougher standard, than it doescoday. If there was new data that did not agree with a theory, the theory needed to be revised or updated. or cast aside. Many people hated Einstein's relativity, and worked hard to experimentally disprove it, But it stood the test of time and scored 100% even until today. This is old school. When statistics entered the scene, the concept of margin of error, watered down the standards of theory. "Margin of error", allows bad theory to persist using a loophole. The standard got watered down, which is why consensus and politics have entered the scene. If we have to decide between two competing theories, that are not perfect to all the data, we will use a whip, and then take a vote. Many of the debates, which may have caused you to question people's credentials, is connected to some people using the old fashion higher standard. Others use use the water down standard of consensus, to ignore any inconsistent data. For example, the solid core of the earth; about the size of the moon, rotates faster than the surface. This data have been around since 2005. When I first heard about it, I was excited for the future of earth science. This would change everything. However, it is still not part of the status quo theory, other than as a possible footnote. The whip came out. Common sense says such a large moving object, inside the earth, should be near the top of any good earth theory worth its weight in salt. That is not rocket science but common sense. However, that framework, is still not taught by education. Formal education is not always the deciding factor, when it comes to new data, and the implications with respect to existing theory. If your goal, is an A on the finals, a large rotating earth core is the last thing you wish to think about, since it could make harder to memorize the stock answers. What are looking for in terms of science answers? All the paths and styles are represented in the forums, if you look closer. However, this variety will not come across in a way that is consistent with a consensus approach to science. Consensus is subjective, about whips, chains and politics and not science; science bondage. Forums allow for anonymity without too many tethers, chains and whips, although these will come out.Why does this forum allow anti-science soap boxing. If someone has a non-mainstream idea that's fine, but having some bozo hijack a thread simply rant about how bad science is seems like it should deserve a warning of some sort.What does pushing the report button accomplish? I guess I don't know what the rules are for this forum.
You are passing an emotional judgement,
. My hope, in making this claim, is that someone will show me hard data to disprove my claim.
Socialism has been around since the French Revolution in 1789.
We have established, in line with the actual topic of the thread, that you are not qualified to talk on this subject since you make obvious errors of fact.Please desist from further comment.