The factory of ignorance (Arte Reportage)

[Janic]

[ABC2019]

Janic, you consider fulfilling scientific standards better than those you oppose on the forum?

[Christophe]

Janic, you consider fulfilling scientific standards better than those you oppose on the forum?

Roooh how are you mean there!

Because, sorry but, as long as he doesn't talk about math (oops ...) or physics or vaccines or medicine or evolution or GMOs ... well I find him rather convincing !

For example, I think he's stronger than you in metaphysics

[ABC2019]

Janic, you consider fulfilling scientific standards better than those you oppose on the forum?

Roooh how are you mean there!

Because, sorry but, as long as he doesn't talk about math (oops ...) or physics or vaccines or medicine or evolution or GMOs ... well I find him rather convincing !

For example, I think he's stronger than you in metaphysics

it's not mean, it's just a question. One can have great qualities, for example as an artist, politician, etc. without claiming to have great scientific rigor, and vice versa. I was just curious to know how he saw himself in relation to the criterion of scientific rigor.

[Christophe]

Well I think I was meaner than you on this one ... suddenly!

[Janic]

ABC2019 »24/02/21, 12:28
Janic, you consider fulfilling scientific standards better than those you oppose on the forum?

There is only you to pretend it, not me! When I give my opinion on a subject, it is only an opinion, not a dogma. So when I do not have the skills or knowledge on a "scientific" subject I refer to those who have the skills and not to those who believe they have the skills.
So you who pretend you scientist and who gives a personal opinion of ignorance and disinterest in a subject like H, but who behaves as if you knew and had studied the subject, and end of the end of the scientist, high level, appeal to a public entertainer in reference, it is ridiculous! And then you are surprised to be taken for an idiot and a narcissistic pervert!
And you want to put on trial those who, THEY, have closely studied the subject in question.

it's not mean, it's just a question. One can have great qualities, for example as an artist, politician, etc. without claiming to have great scientific rigor, and vice versa. I was just curious to know how he saw himself in relation to the criterion of scientific rigor.

Professionally, I have exercised a profession based on scientific rigor, not on abstract theoretical points of view, otherwise it is guaranteed dismissal, ask Christophe and Remondo what they say about it. And you ?

Christophe

For example, I think he's stronger than you in metaphysics

Not quite ! Exegesis of texts like those of the various Bibles which have influenced and continue to influence our societies; this does not require being gifted in metaphysics, but rather in the rationality of the texts studied. Now if this helps to have a more metaphysical perception of reality, it is more interesting and it opens the mind to an understanding that is not exclusively materialistic of zigotos like AFIS (or similar) and its pseudo-pseudo -scientists.

[ABC2019]

ABC2019 »24/02/21, 12:28
Janic, you consider fulfilling scientific standards better than those you oppose on the forum?

There is only you to pretend it, not me!

I'm not claiming it, I'm just asking you the question about what you think about it.

When I give my opinion on a subject, it is only an opinion, not a dogma. So when I do not have the skills or knowledge on a "scientific" subject I refer to those who have the skills and not to those who believe they have the skills.

Does that suppose anyway that you think you have the right criteria to distinguish the two?

[Janic]

ABC2019 »24/02/21, 12:28
Janic, you consider fulfilling scientific standards better than those you oppose on the forum?
There is only you to pretend it, not me!

Ah, funny, you do the same thing every time and I have already answered, it's up to you to get down to it!

I'm not claiming it, I'm just asking you the question about what you think about it.

When I give my opinion on a subject, it is only an opinion, not a dogma. So when I do not have the skills or knowledge on a "scientific" subject I refer to those who have the skills and not to those who believe they have the skills.

Does that suppose anyway that you think you have the right criteria to distinguish the two?

I think, unlike you, it is the competent professionals who have their right criteria, not me! Afterwards, by comparison each one chooses what is best suited! You choose AFIS, its prophet and its jokes, I choose the really competent professionals them!

[ABC2019]

ABC2019 »24/02/21, 12:28
Janic, you consider fulfilling scientific standards better than those you oppose on the forum?
There is only you to pretend it, not me!

Ah, funny, you do the same thing every time and I have already answered, it's up to you to get down to it!

since my question was about the perception you had of yourself, I don't really see how I could "get down to it" ...

I think, unlike you, it's the competent professionals who have their right criteria, not me!

So you exclude that there are naives, crooks, or simply people making mistakes in good faith?

[ABC2019]

Afterwards, by comparison each one chooses what is best suited!

but you would be able to say on what criteria do you know if "it suits you best", if you have to choose between two professionals who treat each other as incompetent, for example?