What useful stuff has *modern* philosophy accomplished for man-kind?

[Keith&Co.]

Fraud, sex crime and bullying are merely symptoms of the disease at the the heart of science.

Yes, because no other human endeavor is subject to these things.

Science is without adequate foundations, and is thus doomed to further decadence and predatory behavior.

...he said on the internet.
For all of the decadence or predatory behavior, it still produces results. Religious authorities caught in sex crimes or bullying just apologize on TV and go back to what they were doing before. Good thing they have the spiritual foundations to keep them from such behavior.

So, any sign of robot-written papers published as actual research, making it through the peer review process?
Any indication of just how many scientists in total are represented by 64% of the field researchers interviewed?

 

[Togo]

Fascinating though this is, I'm not sure that the 'disease at the heart of science' is really a philosophy topic.

Anyone object if I ask the mods to move it to a more suitable location?

 

[No Robots]

Anyone object if I ask the mods to move it to a more suitable location?

I object. The point is that science is hardly in a position to pass any kind of judgement on philosophy.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've has my work dismissed in public by someone who spoke from position of authority, rather than knowledge. It is one particular case- it hasn't happened often, but it stuck in my mind because of the situation. They totally appealed to their authority in their field of discipline to dismiss something that is true. They said something along the lines of "I've been doing this type of math for over 25 years, almost every day, and I know that you can't do it that way." Guess what? They were wrong.

People who are authorities in their area of expertise can sometimes make stupid mistakes, and assume that the only way to do something is the way they've been doing it for 20+ years, because that is the way they'd been taught to do something. Math is math, and when it works, it works, and that's one of the greatest things about mathematics. You know that your work is right when it generates the same results as the other persons "only correct way to do things".

So while I always questioned authority before this experience, after this experience I absolutely knew as an absolute fact that I could never accept what an authority figure in any discipline claimed was an absolute truth. In other words, I've got to know it myself, which the majority of you here would totally agree with.

Oh man, you must be SERIOUS!
EB

 

[No Robots]

Oh man, you must be SERIOUS!
EB

Another aspect of scientific bullying is in gotcha pranks where public-spirited open-mindedness is mocked as naive vulnerability to woo-woo pranks. Disgusting.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh man, you must be SERIOUS!
EB

Another aspect of scientific bullying is in gotcha pranks where public-spirited open-mindedness is mocked as naive vulnerability to woo-woo pranks. Disgusting.

Naive vulnerability to woo-woo pranks should NOT be mocked? Why not?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone object if I ask the mods to move it to a more suitable location?

I object. The point is that science is hardly in a position to pass any kind of judgement on philosophy.

That might be your point, and, hell, might even be true, but you're hardly making a case for it. More, you're revealing your bias against science. And skepticism. For reasons that are largely in your own head, not 'science.'

On the SAB, i'd have put your derail here into the 'Just Preaching' forum.

 

[Togo]

Anyone object if I ask the mods to move it to a more suitable location?

I object. The point is that science is hardly in a position to pass any kind of judgement on philosophy.

Granted, and it's not actually a point I disagree with. But you're talking about science, not philosophy, you're not applying any philosophical principles or arguments. You're making an ostensibly political argument about science as a cultural force, and it's tendency to pass judgement on areas with which it has no particular knowledge or expertise.

There are lots of philosophical objections to science criticising philosophy, from the tendency of critics to frame their claims of the uselessness of philosophy in the terms and language laid down by positivists, deconstructualists and Hegel, to the irony of self-proclaimed champions of empiricism embracing an argument from authority.

But claiming that science is 'diseased' isn't a philosophical point, it's rhetoric. I suppose it depends whether these boards are for philosophical discussions, or for discussions about philosophy. If the latter, then I guess there isn't a problem.

On the SAB, i'd have put your derail here into the 'Just Preaching' forum.

Yeah.. the fact that there is a special category for people talking purely in religious terms, and not listening to or acknowledging other points of view, but not one for affianados of other subjects, is a can of worms you really don't want opened. If people coming into the philosophy forums and just repeating over and over that philosophy has been replaced by science, without any justification or reason, isn't preaching, then I don't see how No Robots comes close.

 

[Kharakov]

Oh man, you must be SERIOUS!
EB

Another aspect of scientific bullying is in gotcha pranks where public-spirited open-mindedness is mocked as naive vulnerability to woo-woo pranks. Disgusting.

Speakpigeon is fun. And really, in the end, I don't feel bad about it.

I enjoy having a true story to tell about a scientific authority who made an untrue statement about their field of expertise in an argument against me. Now, it could have been on purpose so that I know not to accept things from authority figures, but I kind of doubt it... but maybe not.

 

[No Robots]

But you're talking about science, not philosophy, you're not applying any philosophical principles or arguments. You're making an ostensibly political argument about science as a cultural force, and it's tendency to pass judgement on areas with which it has no particular knowledge or expertise.

Where it is a question of cultural forces, the philosophical and the political tend to become indistinguishable. How can we avoid the charge of politics when we criticize the ideological underpinnings of science? What if our whole premise is that contemporary science is inherently political, and that part of its political programme is to demolish philosophy? If the critique of religion is part of philosophy, why not the critique of science? In what category does the critique of science fall? How does philosophy protect itself from the assault of science?

Here is an instructive passage:

Historically it has proved hard to see ‘science as ideology’ because of the important role of science in driving out the religious ideology of pre-capitalist society. Thus natural science, like capitalism itself, has had a progressive character, criticising and destroying feudal ideas and social formations. Like capitalism it is limited, and in its turn becomes more oppressive than liberatory.--Steven Rose. "The Problematic Inheritance: Marx and Engels on the Natural Sciences." Chapter 1 of The Political Economy of Science: Ideology of / in the Natural Sciences.​

Part of the technique of tyranny is to render criticism illegitimate by categorizing it in inherently destructive ways, ie. as "preaching," "woo." Indeed, control over categories is the primary weapon of tyranny. It makes criticism invisible.

But claiming that science is 'diseased' isn't a philosophical point, it's rhetoric.

I've provided evidence to support my point, some of it philosophical. Here is more:

Barbaric seems to me a materialism according to which a purely external mechanicality, an outwardness devoid of an inwardness runs through nature. Barbaric was the science that preaches such materialism, that is why philosophy perished in it, in its incapacity for thinking.—Constantin Brunner​

Philosophy stands outside and above science, and is thus empowered to criticize it. In fact, the chief duty of philosophy is to criticize, correct and lead science. Here is the guiding principle of philosophy:

[M]an conceives a human character much more stable than his own, and sees that there is no reason why he should not himself acquire such a character. Thus he is led to seek for means which will bring him to this pitch of perfection, and calls everything which will serve as such means a true good. The chief good is that he should arrive, together with other individuals if possible, at the possession of the aforesaid character. What that character is we shall show in due time, namely, that it is the knowledge of the union existing between the mind and the whole of nature…. Thus it is apparent to every one that I wish to direct all sciences to one end and aim, so that we may attain to the supreme human perfection which we have named; and, therefore, whatsoever in the sciences does not serve to promote our object will have to be rejected as useless.—Spinoza / Improvement of the intellect​

 

[WAB]

I object. The point is that science is hardly in a position to pass any kind of judgement on philosophy.

Granted, and it's not actually a point I disagree with. But you're talking about science, not philosophy, you're not applying any philosophical principles or arguments. You're making an ostensibly political argument about science as a cultural force, and it's tendency to pass judgement on areas with which it has no particular knowledge or expertise.

There are lots of philosophical objections to science criticising philosophy, from the tendency of critics to frame their claims of the uselessness of philosophy in the terms and language laid down by positivists, deconstructualists and Hegel, to the irony of self-proclaimed champions of empiricism embracing an argument from authority.

But claiming that science is 'diseased' isn't a philosophical point, it's rhetoric. I suppose it depends whether these boards are for philosophical discussions, or for discussions about philosophy. If the latter, then I guess there isn't a problem.

On the SAB, i'd have put your derail here into the 'Just Preaching' forum.

Yeah.. the fact that there is a special category for people talking purely in religious terms, and not listening to or acknowledging other points of view, but not one for affianados of other subjects, is a can of worms you really don't want opened. If people coming into the philosophy forums and just repeating over and over that philosophy has been replaced by science, without any justification or reason, isn't preaching, then I don't see how No Robots comes close.

Actually, No Robots has not come anywhere near preaching. Any claim that he/she has been preaching is completely unfounded. If someone expressing views that someone else disagrees with is considered preaching, then everyone on this board is guilty of preaching.

 

[WAB]

Another aspect of scientific bullying is in gotcha pranks where public-spirited open-mindedness is mocked as naive vulnerability to woo-woo pranks. Disgusting.

Naive vulnerability to woo-woo pranks should NOT be mocked? Why not?

Why resort to mockery? In my view, when I see someone resorting to mockery, I figure it's all they've got, or, it just makes them feel better.

I know you've got more than just mockery, Keith, I just don't know why such an intelligent person would resort to mockery. To be honest, most of the criticism of theism and/or 'woo' theories on FRDB were grounded in mockery rather than rational attempts to examine those unpopular views.


Alexander Pope, one of the greatest poets who ever lived, wasted his talents on mockery: on mocking lesser poets and their sub-par work. He was obsessed with it. When I did some extensive reading on Pope, I learned that he was inordinately concerned with the fact that he was very short and disfigured from curvature of the spine. He was wickedly intelligent and gifted but extremely paranoid and vulnerable. I also learned that he was easily hurt by attacks on his agenda to belittle lesser poets and writers, because deep down he knew he was being rather silly.

I shudder to think of the truly epic work he could have done had he the strength to trust his own talents and concentrate on writing great poetry rather than satirical verse (albeit expertly written) that exhausted all of his energies in poking fun at people who couldn't hold a candle to him.

John Keats was very short, was belittled and scorned by critics, and furthermore had a fatal disease which he knew would shorten his life. Rather than spend his energies in mockery, he spent his last years perfecting his art and becoming one of the most venerated English poets.

Funnily enough, Pope was a devout Christian, and Keats was agnostic (most probably an atheist).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Naive vulnerability to woo-woo pranks should NOT be mocked? Why not?

Why resort to mockery?

Why not?

In my view, when I see someone resorting to mockery, I figure it's all they've got, or, it just makes them feel better.

Okay. Well, if someone offers evidence, i could critique the evidence. If someone offers assertions and blames the listener for not accepting his claims at face value, why treat that sort of shit with respect?

I know you've got more than just mockery, Keith, I just don't know why such an intelligent person would resort to mockery.

What does intelligence have to do with it? I like the mockery of intelligent people. It always beats the unholy crap out of 'Hey, fuck off!' and often i feel inspired by it. Inspired being, of course, a polite way to say plagiarize.

To be honest, most of the criticism of theism and/or 'woo' theories on FRDB were grounded in mockery rather than rational attempts to examine those unpopular views.

In my experience, people don't get mocked until it's clear that they're not really paying attention to critiques and rebuttals, or blaming the audience because the argument isn't received as gospel. Or if the woo supporter tries to attack without really having their ducks in a row.

Alexander Pope, one of the greatest poets who ever lived, wasted his talents on mockery:

Well, see, i don't consider that a waste in and of itself.
If that's one of your hot button issues, then i feel sorry for you.

I also learned that he was easily hurt by attacks on his agenda to belittle lesser poets and writers, because deep down he knew he was being rather silly.

Ah. Well, if you feel guilty about being silly, then you deserve to be vulnerable there.
I'm silly all the time, but it doesn't bother me to admit it. Much less as an accusation.

But, hey, plenty of people judge me for being silly. Then again, plenty judge me for being an atheist. And plenty atheists judge me for believing in ghosts. Let's see. Judged for being a sailor. Judged for handling nuclear weapons. Judged for being a military-industrial contractor. Judged for being an American. Judged for being white. Judged for having an interracial marriage.
I've been judged for not being serious on the internet. I've been judged for being too serious. I've been judged for being an atheist AND for not being atheist ENOUGH if that makes any sense. I've been judged for asking people to pony up support for their claims and for putting jackasses on ignore. Judged for writing fanfiction. Judged for writing graphic fanfic. And O.M.G, the judgment for writing graphic The Books fanfic? Outta this world.

Near as i can tell, 'judged' is the human condition.

You wanna be the person who tells me how i should post on the internet, i'm sorry but you'll simply have to get in line.

 

[WAB]

Why resort to mockery?

Why not?

In my view, when I see someone resorting to mockery, I figure it's all they've got, or, it just makes them feel better.

Okay. Well, if someone offers evidence, i could critique the evidence. If someone offers assertions and blames the listener for not accepting his claims at face value, why treat that sort of shit with respect?

I know you've got more than just mockery, Keith, I just don't know why such an intelligent person would resort to mockery.

What does intelligence have to do with it? I like the mockery of intelligent people. It always beats the unholy crap out of 'Hey, fuck off!' and often i feel inspired by it. Inspired being, of course, a polite way to say plagiarize.

To be honest, most of the criticism of theism and/or 'woo' theories on FRDB were grounded in mockery rather than rational attempts to examine those unpopular views.

In my experience, people don't get mocked until it's clear that they're not really paying attention to critiques and rebuttals, or blaming the audience because the argument isn't received as gospel. Or if the woo supporter tries to attack without really having their ducks in a row.

Alexander Pope, one of the greatest poets who ever lived, wasted his talents on mockery:

Well, see, i don't consider that a waste in and of itself.
If that's one of your hot button issues, then i feel sorry for you.

I also learned that he was easily hurt by attacks on his agenda to belittle lesser poets and writers, because deep down he knew he was being rather silly.

Ah. Well, if you feel guilty about being silly, then you deserve to be vulnerable there.
I'm silly all the time, but it doesn't bother me to admit it. Much less as an accusation.

But, hey, plenty of people judge me for being silly. Then again, plenty judge me for being an atheist. And plenty atheists judge me for believing in ghosts. Let's see. Judged for being a sailor. Judged for handling nuclear weapons. Judged for being a military-industrial contractor. Judged for being an American. Judged for being white. Judged for having an interracial marriage.
I've been judged for not being serious on the internet. I've been judged for being too serious. I've been judged for being an atheist AND for not being atheist ENOUGH if that makes any sense. I've been judged for asking people to pony up support for their claims and for putting jackasses on ignore. Judged for writing fanfiction. Judged for writing graphic fanfic. And O.M.G, the judgment for writing graphic The Books fanfic? Outta this world.

Near as i can tell, 'judged' is the human condition.

You wanna be the person who tells me how i should post on the internet, i'm sorry but you'll simply have to get in line.

I think it's perfectly fine to argue your points in the way you see fit. I never suggested that you shouldn't post the way you do, only that I see an inordinate need for mockery. I think mockery is the wrong way to go. You disagree with that. Fine! In case you haven't noticed, I'm good at mockery: I mock myself all the time. I'd rather do that than mock someone else. Mockery is too easy.

Thomas Carlyle has a long introduction to the poems of Novalis, a German poet who was made fun of a lot by critics for his romantic mysticism. Carlyle goes to great length describing why mockery and satire is essentially a convenient and easy means of criticism.

I want to repeat though, No Robots hasn't done anything, as far as I can see, that deserves to be treated the way you've treated his posts. He's obviously well-read and has strong opinions about the growth of scientism. I happen to agree with his position, at least to a certain degree. I don't agree with everything he's said.

 

[WAB]

William Blake, the now legendary English poet, a mystic and visionary, wrote a now famous poem:

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau;
Mock on, mock on; 'tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.

And every sand becomes a gem
Reflected in the beams divine;
Blown back they blind the mocking eye,
But still in Israel's paths they shine.

The Atoms of Democritus
And Newton's Particles of Light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israel's tents do shine so bright.

And William Butler Yeats, another famous poet, an Irish mystic and visionary, wrote this one:

Come let us mock at the great
That had such burdens on the mind
And toiled so hard and late
To leave some monument behind,
Nor thought of the levelling wind.

Come let us mock at the wise;
With all those calendars whereon
They fixed old aching eyes,
They never saw how seasons run,
And now but gape at the sun.

Come let us mock at the good
That fancied goodness might be gay,
And sick of solitude
Might proclaim a holiday:
Wind shrieked -- and where are they?

Mock mockers after that
That would not lift a hand maybe
To help good, wise or great
To bar that foul storm out, for we
Traffic in mockery.

- part V from Nineteen Nineteen

Monty Python, those mockers extraordinaire, gave an interview on a British talk show wherein Michael Palin and John Cleese (two of Python's troupe) argued eloquently and rationally with two religious guys, one of them an Anglican Cardinal or Bishop who was famous in England, the other a well-credited intellectual of high stature (can't remember his exact field). Ironically, it was the Pythons who maintained a serious and totally respectful dialogue, while defending their film "Life of Brian", and the religious duo who did little but resort to mockery and ad homs. "tenth-rate film", "bufoonery", etc. Naturally, Cleese and Palin did have some barbs of their own, but on the whole they were nowhere near as belittling and insulting as the religious guys, whose entire argument was based on a supposed dislike and disapproval of the mockery and satire contained in the film in question.

Palin and Cleese tried to explain that, contrary to popular opinion, their film was NOT a mockery of Jesus Christ, but a film that basically poked fun at people who can't think for themselves. The religious guys couldn't grasp the simple fact that the film was the life of BRIAN, NOT the life of Jesus. Christ made a brief appearance in the beginning of the film. He was played by a serious British actor, and there was nothing in that brief performance that mocked Jesus.

Palin and Cleese, and I believe all of the Python troupe, are/were atheists.

My overall point is that there is a place for mockery and satire, and a place for rational discussion. Mockery and satire are perfectly fitting in a comedic film, for example, but not in a talk show which is intended for rational discussion. This forum is called Talk Freethought, and I assume it's supposed to be intended for rational discussion. Not that rational discussion cannot at times devolve to mockery and satire, if a poster is being particularly foolish or downright stupid.

No Robots doesn't fit that latter description.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl8acXl3qVs

Maybe one of us can open a thread somewhere about mockery and satire, and we can talk at greater length about it, rather than keep derailing this one?

 

[DBT]

Fraud, sex crime and bullying are merely symptoms of the disease at the the heart of science. As Marx puts it, "cience, unlike other architects, builds not only castles in the air, but may construct separate habitable storeys of the building before laying the foundation stone." Science is without adequate foundations, and is thus doomed to further decadence and predatory behavior.

Is there such a thing as a perfect human organization or endevour? Take a look at the record of Religious organizations for fraud, bullying, torture, conflict, war, etc, and consider the value of religious belief in relation to furthering our understanding of the world. There is no comparison to science. Despite the all too human faults and flaws of scientists, the achievements of science is not only incomparable to religion, politics and the rest, it is quite astounding.

 

[WAB]

Fraud, sex crime and bullying are merely symptoms of the disease at the the heart of science. As Marx puts it, "cience, unlike other architects, builds not only castles in the air, but may construct separate habitable storeys of the building before laying the foundation stone." Science is without adequate foundations, and is thus doomed to further decadence and predatory behavior.

Is there such a thing as a perfect human organization or endevour? Take a look at the record of Religious organizations for fraud, bullying, torture, conflict, war, etc, and consider the value of religious belief in relation to furthering our understanding of the world. There is no comparison to science. Despite the all too human faults and flaws of scientists, the achievements of science is not only incomparable to religion, politics and the rest, it is quite astounding.

DBT, I basically agree with you. I don't expect anyone to remember my post history, but you and I have interacted so much that I sense you must recall that I've always defended science, and have said numerous times that attacking science is absurd; I've also said numerous times that, when all is said and done, and on balance, humanity is in far greater debt to science for our current progress than to religion. Without science, and the scientific method, humanity would not even be at a medieval stage, we would be sitting around in caves picking bugs out of one another's hair.

That being said, No Robots is not attacking science per se, or science qua science, but certain scientists, and the proliferation of scientism. Scientism isn't merely a bad word thought up by theists or wooers to be offensive to science, it's a very real thing: it is happening. This is NOT to say that it is indicative of a state of affairs wherein the majority of scientists, or people who endorse and advocate the manifest success of science, are guilty of scientism. It is only to draw attention to the fact that some people endorse and advocate science to the near exclusion of any other form of intellectual endeavor, and that this is an unfortunate symptom of the proliferation of scientism.

Obviously, religion and its dogmatic adherents have wreaked untolled havoc and catastrophe all across history. No Robots understands that as well as anyone, hence his calling himself a Brunnerian (it's right there in his profile), and not a Christian, Jew, or whatever else.

There was a thread at FRDB about someone who had published a nonsense paper in a prestigious journal. This person did that to illustrate the exact problem that No Robots is attempting to hone in on: the general ease with which a person who knows just enough in a particular field, and just enough popular rhetoric and jargon, can hoodwink his/her colleagues.

It isn't only in scientific disciplines that this can occur, in fact I think it's FAR more common in the fields of psychology, theology, and philosophy. Many prominent philosophers, for example, are people who basically hoodwinked the world with word-salad and nonsense, and whose reputations are nonetheless still rock solid today!

There's even a world-renowned, awarded, hyper-praised American poet who has done very much the same thing as I described above. He's the author of a kind of poetry that is mostly smoke and mirrors, a beautiful-looking fakery. His name is John Ashbery. Ashbery spawned a plethora of devout followers.

Nonsense poetry goes much further back than Ashbery, of course. There was Lewis Carroll ("Jabberwocky") and Edward Lear; but with those two greats, it was apparent and on the surface that they were writing nonsense. With Ashbery, the nonsense is so subtle, so expertly written, that it's easily accepted as upper-strata, highly intellectual, serious poetry, even by such lights as Harold Bloom, who's probably the world's greatest living critic of poetry who writes in English, with the possible exception of Helen Vendler. I've read Bloom, but I haven't read Vendler, so I can't give a qualified opinion of her work.

 

[DBT]

That being said, No Robots is not attacking science per se, or science qua science, but certain scientists, and the proliferation of scientism. Scientism isn't merely a bad word thought up by theists or wooers to be offensive to science, it's a very real thing: it is happening. This is NOT to say that it is indicative of a state of affairs wherein the majority of scientists, or people who endorse and advocate the manifest success of science, are guilty of scientism. It is only to draw attention to the fact that some people endorse and advocate science to the near exclusion of any other form of intellectual endeavor, and that this is an unfortunate symptom of the proliferation of scientism.

I think that you are saying is reasonable. But I got the impression, given some of his remarks, that No Robots was going a fair bit further than attacking certain scientists and 'scientism.'

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've has my work dismissed in public by someone who spoke from position of authority, rather than knowledge. It is one particular case- it hasn't happened often, but it stuck in my mind because of the situation. They totally appealed to their authority in their field of discipline to dismiss something that is true. They said something along the lines of "I've been doing this type of math for over 25 years, almost every day, and I know that you can't do it that way." Guess what? They were wrong.

People who are authorities in their area of expertise can sometimes make stupid mistakes, and assume that the only way to do something is the way they've been doing it for 20+ years, because that is the way they'd been taught to do something. Math is math, and when it works, it works, and that's one of the greatest things about mathematics. You know that your work is right when it generates the same results as the other persons "only correct way to do things".

So while I always questioned authority before this experience, after this experience I absolutely knew as an absolute fact that I could never accept what an authority figure in any discipline claimed was an absolute truth. In other words, I've got to know it myself, which the majority of you here would totally agree with.

Oh man, you must be SERIOUS!
EB

Another aspect of scientific bullying is in gotcha pranks where public-spirited open-mindedness is mocked as naive vulnerability to woo-woo pranks. Disgusting.

Your misinterpretation...

Kharakov is notorious for posting deadpan nth-level humour and I have been had several times taking his posts too seriously. My last post was only understandable in this context.

I would in fact concur that some posters on the science forum, sometimes venturing into a philosophy forum, have a tendency to reply at the level of schoolyard culture to non-hard-science topics. I started a thread a few months ago on FRDB about the significance of human beings in the universe and got mostly horseshit from the science forum.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh man, you must be SERIOUS!
EB

Another aspect of scientific bullying is in gotcha pranks where public-spirited open-mindedness is mocked as naive vulnerability to woo-woo pranks. Disgusting.

Speakpigeon is fun. And really, in the end, I don't feel bad about it.

Yeah but this time it was really easy to tell with the sticking-tongue giveaway.

I enjoy having a true story to tell about a scientific authority who made an untrue statement about their field of expertise in an argument against me. Now, it could have been on purpose so that I know not to accept things from authority figures, but I kind of doubt it... but maybe not.

There was a BBC Radio 4 programme a couple of days ago ("Life scientific" I think) about a woman scientist who repeatedly got the hard treatment from male colleagues. There is of course nothing surprising in that, these people being human beings they do what those do most of the time. But they did get their comeuppance when eventually she was distinguished for her work.

Interestingly there is also a similarity with your case. She had been working on an apparatus I can't remember the name of but normally used at the time only to identify simple chemical components and she spent years working on expending this to identify complex biological molecules. All the while she had to contend with all the idiot senior scientists telling her it couldn't possibly be done, obviously without any possible proper justification since at the end she did do it.

Scientists are idiots like everybody else.

PS I'd like to enjoy your sense of humour but unfortunately it's often a little bit to steeped into your local culture for me to understand (assuming anyone at all understand it ).
EB

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think it's perfectly fine to argue your points in the way you see fit. I never suggested that you shouldn't post the way you do,

You have an odd relationship wit

Thomas Carlyle has a long introduction ... why mockery and satire is essentially a convenient and easy means of criticism.

Um, quite sincerely, why should i give a shit what Thomas Carlyle said?
Seriously, how do i determine if he's in a position of authority with respect to satire, or if he's just jealous of those that do it and get away with it?
I mean, this is thesame sort of thing a lot of critics say, about a lot of topics, and more than a little of it is jealousy.

I want to repeat though, No Robots hasn't done anything, as far as I can see, that deserves to be treated the way you've treated his posts. He's obviously well-read and has strong opinions about the growth of scientism.

Ah. So when he quotes one philosopher, about that philosopher's philosophy, and presents it as the very definition of philosophy, he's well read?
When he accuses all of science based on a prank pulled by a few scientists, that's to be respected as his opinion?
When he won't come back and either defend or retract egregious errors, what? He's well read or just strongly opinionated?
And, really, if being well-read means he doesn't deserve mockery, would that mean being under-read DOES? If so, that's bullying.
If not, then why bring it up in his defense?