Critical look at zetetics

[humus]

no it is on the contrary a fundamental question, how do you manage to distinguish the two, on what criteria?

I answered you but since that does not fit into your restrictive framework, you do not hear it. For you I did not answer
We are light years away, I understand you but the reverse is not true, so I will not insist (unnecessarily)

Okay, I'm going to be nice, I'm going to clarify, I don't walk according to the criteria (which ones are yours?) But to the inner compass.

[ABC2019]

Okay, I'm going to be nice, I'm going to clarify, I don't walk according to the criteria (which ones are yours?) But to the inner compass.

my criteria are their competence in the application of the scientific method, that is to say in particular if they understand well what a test of significance is. Unfortunately there are good and bad scientists.

If you do not have a criterion to distinguish the two, the most likely is that you believe those you want to believe, and therefore that your opinion on scientists is not very valuable, any more than that of religious beliefs.

[Janic]

abcon

If you don't have a criterion to distinguish the two, the more likely it is that you believe those you want to believe, nor that of religious beliefs.

it's funny, the funny one, who plays the mirror effect "is that you believe those you want to believe,"Bingo exactly what he does himself, so look at yourself in a mirror at the narcissist before fantasizing about others.

and therefore that your opinion on scientists is of little value,

but no, my coco, it is not THE scientists but DES scientists in whom you believe religiously and even superstitiously therefore without value at all, that other scientists of the same professional competence do not share!
Go lie down, in the doghouse the pug!

[Obamot]

Okay, I'm going to be nice, I'm going to clarify, I don't walk according to the criteria (which ones are yours?) But to the inner compass.

my criteria is their competence in the application of the scientific method, that is to say in particular if they have a good understanding of what a significance test is. Unfortunately there are good and bad scientists.

If you do not have a criterion to distinguish the two, the most likely is that you believe those you want to believe, and therefore that your opinion on scientists is not very valuable, any more than that of religious beliefs.

Why do you have to think at the slightest hint that we have “Galileo's syndrome”?

Since the time, you should know that here there is hardly anybody who carburizes according to a logic of faith or a logic conspi. Someone who was or insisted would very quickly be kicked out by others. You are constantly denigrating this, and this is not justified, especially since in many cases, you show a total lack of seriousness, I have cornered you on several occasions.

So change the record and stop relying on “science” you have absolutely no monopoly on it!

[ABC2019]

but DES scientists in whom you believe religiously and even superstitiously therefore without value at all, that other scientists of the same professional competence do not share!

a priori if there are some who are right and others who are wrong, it is rather that there are some more competent than others ...

but even if they have "the same" professional competence (which supposes that you are able to judge their competence ...), how then do you go to choose between the two?

[ABC2019]

Since the time, you should know that here there is hardly anybody who carburizes according to a logic of faith or a logic conspi. Someone who was or insisted would very quickly be kicked out by others. You are constantly denigrating this, and this is not justified, especially since in many cases, you show a total lack of seriousness, I have cornered you on several occasions.

nice series of absolute untruths debited in the chain, you have surpassed yourself in your usual exercise ....

So the arms that push back, homeopathy, perpetual motion, and now the paranormal, that does not obey any logic of faith or logic of conspiracy?

who told me that I had never discussed with crazy people?

[Obamot]

Once again you put your finger in the eye. Homeopathy is an academic discipline and you keep denying it ,,,
And healers are regularly called in by teaching hospitals in some cases. Everything else is just anecdotal. Pranks in which you fall headlong ...

On the other hand, you say disproportionate words with excessive contours, something that would not do any of the scientists that I meet regularly.
Which proves once again that you are not who you claim to be and that you are inventing a life and a character for yourself, ..

I pity your kids (if you really have any) for having such an immature father.

[ABC2019]

Once again you put your finger in the eye. Homeopathy is an academic discipline and you keep denying it ,,,
And healers are regularly called in by teaching hospitals in some cases. Everything else is just anecdotal. Jokes in which you fall headlong ...:

but absolutely, the placebo effect has some efficacy, it's scientifically proven, so why not take advantage of it?
what is part of a "logic of faith" is to believe that it is more than that. All the rest is only anecdotal. Jokes in which you fall headlong ...

[humus]

Okay, I'm going to be nice, I'm going to clarify, I don't walk according to the criteria (which ones are yours?) But to the inner compass.

my criteria are their competence in the application of the scientific method, that is to say in particular if they understand well what a test of significance is. Unfortunately there are good and bad scientists.

If you do not have a criterion to distinguish the two, the most likely is that you believe those you want to believe, and therefore that your opinion on scientists is not very valuable, any more than that of religious beliefs.

because you are behind every scientist's ass to get what he does and how he does it?

You have to accept a part of irrationality in life. Attention I said a part.
I trust what I feel is true.
You can say that I validate my beliefs, if that reassures you.
I can't convince you that I feel some true and some wrong things and that it is overall effective.
And even very often afterwards, I have to row to find the arguments to convince of what "I know" without the arguments.
Yes, it's a bit paranormal.
if you're not open, you can't see anything.
Your best sentence being "I can't see .."

[Janic]

ABCon» 08/12/21, 05:38
Janic wrote:

but Scientists in whom you believe religiously and even superstitiously therefore without value at all, that other scientists of the same professional competence do not share!

a priori if there are some who are right and others who are wrong, it is rather that there are some more competent than others ...

Oh yes ? And how do you distinguish the pluses from the minuses? By your ignorance? This is blatant incompetence!
In addition, when some only see one side of a part while denying that there can be another side under the pretext that it does not reproduce the same engravings, it is not a good indication to be right !
The existence and even the practice of several modes of care show that those who think and act in this way are therefore more competent than those who limit themselves to a single aspect, a single criterion: exclusively synthetic big pharmacochemistry.

but even if they have "the same" professional competence (which supposes that you are able to judge their competence ...), how then do you go to choose between the two?

This is the question to which you should have answered from the start, but that you have awkwardly avoided making you lose all possible credibility.
Then, to judge skills, in this area of ​​the university, it is those who deliver these diplomas who are the judges, not you, nor me. You who claim, without proving it, that you have a doctorate in ... whatever, you mean then that those who granted it were unable to judge the skills acquired in your field. With this subversive discourse, it can go a long way!
Finally : " how do you go about choosing between the two? »It's simple, like everyone else! I choose shoes in my size, not the smallest or the largest, so that my feet do not suffer when walking or running. But you are free to do the opposite by using only one size, known as universal, from the great BP shoemaker!

so the arms that grow back,

already seen, you turn in circles around your navel again. You push back well when you cut the whistle, but apart from your bullshit with 7 heads, nature shows you that in some animals and plants there is regrowth, but you are too stupid to realize it:

homeopathy, (…) that does not obey any logic of faith or logic conspi?

It obeys the same rules as your faith in your pseudo science, called zetetic, and its conspi towards everything that is not them

who told me that I had never discussed with crazy people?

who told me that I had never discussed with a crazy narcissistic, liar, hypochondriac and so on?

but absolutely, the placebo effect has some efficacy, it's scientifically proven, so why not take advantage of it?

you said puffy, since you're right in it believing to the placebo (but also nocébo) of phony pseudo vaccines and therefore you benefit in the same way, which is not a benchmark by the way.

what is part of a "logic of faith" is to believe that it is more than that. All the rest is only anecdotal. Jokes in which you fall headlong ...

and Bing, he goes over the mirror effect, criticizing what is only his reflection! And he falls headlong right in.… His usual shit of course!