Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"




by ABC2019 » 19/11/20, 08:58

Janic wrote:
Christophe wrote: Aren't the worst ultracrepidarianists journalists now? How many have taught scientists lessons since the onset of the covid crisis? In particular with regard to Raoult!
This is certainly not the opinion of Etienne Klein who is a scientist.
SAM, the zetetist, tried to trap Klein by wanting to lead him into his delirium on sects and charlatans (well other sects and charlatans than his own) Klein who knows the character replied that all scientists were necessarily charlatans insofar as they only partially knew this science and therefore all their speeches were charlatanism, including his!
And pan in the teeth of all those who recommend themselves to the term "scientific". :?


the problem is in "being", as if it were an "essential" characteristic to be right or wrong. While everything shows that all individuals are fallible, all great scientists have made mistakes, everyone has their dark side.

But you deduce that the scientific approach does not exist, that everything is equal, and that there is no difference between zetetics and obscurantism. You don't understand that rationality exists in the process and not in the person. You use authoritative arguments to say that such and such a person who has such and such a title or has spent so many years studying the problem is "therefore" necessarily right, when it is very possible to spend all your life saying whatever. Not having a clear awareness yourself of what a rational attitude is, you conclude that it does not exist, and you accuse others of your own faults.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"




by Janic » 19/11/20, 09:37

the problem is in "being", as if it were an "essential" characteristic to be right or wrong. While everything shows that all individuals are fallible, all great scientists have made mistakes, everyone has their dark side.
but my coconut, I can only agree with this kind of reflection! Because who doesn't make mistakes? But when these errors are regarded as a truth which should not be disputed, even when it is the height of the error, then transformed into a lie, one can ask questions: no?
But you deduce that the scientific approach does not exist, that everything is equal, and that there is no difference between zetetics and obscurantism.
And crac he left in his fantasies! So read what Exmachin wrote! According to ARE discourse obscurantism can not be precisely their doing, but only those who are precisely not Zététicien. In which Z, we would find, but certainly ultra exceptionally, fundamentalists, but then very, very rarely, that goes without saying! Could he quote one besides since they never question themselves, with them the doubt on themselves does not exist, the doubt is just reserved against the others, in binary.
You don't understand that rationality exists in the process and not in the person.
You will always amaze me! Your constant pirouettes end up self-canceling permanently.
The rationality of hygienism which has existed since long before your pseudo-scientific references made half a quarter of almost nothing, has been confirmed by the facts in its application, not in theories outside the reality of the field, to know about entire populations since its origins. (phase 4!) And you the funny one who is not except for a contradiction, you bring back to ONE individual (in this case C) what is of the order of the process and not of the person.
You use authoritative arguments to say that such and such a person who has such and such a title or has spent so many years studying the problem is "therefore" necessarily right, when it is very possible to spend all your life saying whatever.
You know something about it since you proclaim yourself a connoisseur in the quantum field (and why not), you even think of a self-proclaimed method and you act as if (by a wave of a magic wand) it makes you competent in multiple areas where you ignore everything, but where you make value judgments that even experts would hesitate to make!
Not having a clear awareness yourself of what a rational attitude is, you conclude that it does not exist, and you accuse others of your own faults.
Mirror effect ! :(
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"




by ABC2019 » 19/11/20, 09:57

Janic wrote:
the problem is in "being", as if it were an "essential" characteristic to be right or wrong. While everything shows that all individuals are fallible, all great scientists have made mistakes, everyone has their dark side.
but my coconut, I can only agree with this kind of reflection! Because who doesn't make mistakes? But when these errors are regarded as a truth which should not be disputed, even when it is the height of the error, then transformed into a lie, one can ask questions: no?

but sweetie, I can only agree with this kind of reflection: but who here is passing errors as a truth that should not be disputed? give specific examples instead of throwing accusations in the air !!

You don't understand that rationality exists in the process and not in the person.
You will always amaze me! Your constant pirouettes end up self-canceling permanently.
The rationality of hygienism which has existed since long before your pseudo-scientific references made half a quarter of almost nothing, has been confirmed by the facts in its application, not in theories outside the reality of the field, to know about entire populations since its origins.

it seems that the position of the philosophers is rather than the scientific method is a novelty of the modern mind which developed from the Renaissance and began to be fully formalized at the Age of Enlightenment, mainly in the West, and which has led to revolutionize human life (the computer you type your messages on is a vivid example, if you think about the amount of NEW inventions that were needed to build it).

Do you dispute this point?
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"




by Janic » 19/11/20, 10:38

but my coco I can only agree with this kind of reflection:
but who here passes errors as a truth that should not be disputed? give specific examples instead of throwing accusations in the air !!
Example official statistics on vaccinations which are not contested, neither by provaxx, nor by nonvaxx! What is the subject of dispute is the way in which they are interpreted according to each other!
You don't understand that rationality exists in the process and not in the person.
You will always amaze me! Your constant pirouettes end up self-canceling permanently.
The rationality of hygienism which has existed since long before your pseudo-scientific references made half a quarter of almost nothing, has been confirmed by the facts in its application, not in theories outside the reality of the field, to know about entire populations since its origins.

it seems that the position of the philosophers is rather than the scientific method is a novelty of the modern mind which developed from the Renaissance and began to be fully formalized at the Age of Enlightenment, mainly in the West, and which has led to revolutionize human life (the computer you type your messages on is a vivid example, if you think about the amount of NEW inventions that were needed to build it).
Stop your ox cart! I have been professionally in the field of industrial creation and therefore the field I know it by heart. You speak of modern as if it was something in opposition to a hypothetical ancient. SCIENCE has no specific epoch, it is independent of those who believe themselves or claim to be scientists, even though they barely touch its dimension. " the interest of knowledge is to make us perceive our unknown “Etienne Klein (to be re-read in its original formulation)
Your scientific method of lights would have denied the possibility of heavier-than-air flight, of going into "the stars" to live months, years underwater, that people can live with the heart of a other, that we give hands to a penguin, radio / TV, internet, the atomic bomb, etc ... and the first were scientists of the time imbued with their certainties that it was important not to challenge and question. "there is nothing new under the sun, what is has been and still will be »
Ecclesiastes
So your reductionist vision of science reduced to individuals who claim to be such, very little for me! who knows how to link science and philosophy of science!)
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"




by ABC2019 » 19/11/20, 11:11

Janic wrote:Your scientific method of lights would have denied the possibility of heavier-than-air flight, of going into "the stars" to live months, years underwater, that people can live with the heart of a other, that we give hands to a penguin, radio / TV, internet, the atomic bomb, etc ...



and well here is a very illustrative example of the confusion which you make between the method and the people. The method does not deny anything at all since it is not intended to decree what is possible to do or not to do, but only to verify the hypotheses with rigorous experimental protocols.

And all that you quote could only have been possible AFTER we had agreed to use it, it was absolutely not possible "at all times", so it is indeed the scientific method. and not another which allowed their realization. For once you are uttering obvious untruths.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"




by Janic » 19/11/20, 12:38

ABC2019 »19/11/20, 12:11
janic wrote: Your scientific method of lights would have denied the possibility of heavier-than-air flight, of going into "the stars", of living months, years underwater, that people could live with the heart of another, that we give hands to a penguin, radio / TV, internet, the atomic bomb, etc ...
and well here is a very illustrative example of the confusion which you make between the method and the people. The method does not deny anything at all since it is not intended to decree what is possible to do or not to do, but only to verify the hypotheses with rigorous experimental protocols.
Ah blah blah for plums! Casasnovas, in question, does not propose anything other than the practice of a method or way of life of which he is not even the author and which has been practiced for millennia, but of which many aspects have been obscured. by successive cultures. but you don't care refusing to consider the matter like you do, and yet to be affirmative, each time as with the H or the vaxx.
I refer you to what Klein says about zigotos like you!
So don't brag about rigor, reality, and other claims that you don't even put into practice.
As for your rigorous protocols, humanity and the rest of the living did not wait for your protocols to exist until today!
And all that you quote could only have been possible AFTER we had agreed to use it, it was absolutely not possible "at all times", so it is indeed the scientific method. and not another which allowed their realization. For once you are uttering obvious untruths.
what empty speech! How could they have come to an agreement on something that did not yet exist? Oh funny!
according to you, therefore, the newborn child should follow a scientific protocol imposed by your friends in order to have the right to breathe, to eat, to sleep, etc ...
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"




by ABC2019 » 19/11/20, 13:06

Janic wrote:ABC2019 »19/11/20, 12:11
janic wrote: Your scientific method of lights would have denied the possibility of heavier-than-air flight, of going into "the stars", of living months, years underwater, that people could live with the heart of another, that we give hands to a penguin, radio / TV, internet, the atomic bomb, etc ...
and well here is a very illustrative example of the confusion which you make between the method and the people. The method does not deny anything at all since it is not intended to decree what is possible to do or not to do, but only to verify the hypotheses with rigorous experimental protocols.
Ah blah blah for plums! Casasnovas, in question, does not offer anything other than the practice of a method or way of life of which he is not even the author and which has been practiced for millennia,

well if in the extract that pedro had noted, it presented something else since it does not seem to me that drinking vegetable juice and praying to Jesus Christ to grow back an amputated arm is a method that has been practiced for millennia, in all case I haven't heard of it. Do you have any references?
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"




by ABC2019 » 19/11/20, 13:09

Janic wrote:what empty speech! How could they have come to an agreement on something that did not yet exist? Oh funny!

they agreed on the METHOD, don't you understand that? tons and tons of epistemological literature have been written to understand exactly what the scientific method has of original compared to the previous ones, cultivate yourself a little instead of spending your time writing nonsense and insults.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Format ... ientifique

according to you, therefore, the newborn child should follow a scientific protocol imposed by your friends in order to have the right to breathe, to eat, to sleep, etc ...

not for that, but if he wants to become a cosmonaut, yes, he has every interest in learning it.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"




by Janic » 19/11/20, 19:49

according to you, therefore, the newborn child should follow a scientific protocol imposed by your friends in order to have the right to breathe, to eat, to sleep, etc ...
not for that, but if he wants to become a cosmonaut, yes, he has every interest in learning it.
For one in 7 billion! If he can no longer breathe for polluted air, for lack of fuel [*], to be sick of junk food, to leave heaps of waste in the sky like us on earth, etc ... hello method!

[*] or are we at the standards on rocket pollution to send a man up, the WLTP explodes!
Last edited by Janic the 19 / 11 / 20, 19: 58, 1 edited once.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
thibr
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 723
Registration: 07/01/18, 09:19
x 269

Re: Etienne Klein: "Engineers, frankly, we don't hear them much"




by thibr » 19/11/20, 19:58

ping pong return : Mrgreen:
0 x

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : A.D. 44, Remundo and 157 guests