@suzianne saidYou do have to prove it if you don't want your reputation as a liar to continue.
I don't have to prove anything.
Untrue information is disinformation. Period.
For the billionth time, it's okay if you don't understand that something is untrue. Just don't waste everyone's time with stuff you don't even know is true, because it's likely not, because your education is stunted (or maybe you never learned to distinguish truth from fiction, that is a fa ...[text shortened]... rew up in, which is why it's important to not raise your kid in a Republican state -- like Florida).
@metal-brain saidI don't have a "reputation" as a liar.
You do have to prove it if you don't want your reputation as a liar to continue.
You'll have to explain better than that.
1 edit
@shallow-blue said"Both" my pals?
True. You, and both your pals, have a reputation as gaslighters.
Funny how exposing gaslighting becomes gaslighting.
2 edits
This thread is a grand example how science gets pushed back. And then you claim "censorship did it". No, disinformation (that too many people believe) did it. Every time false info is embraced as true, science dies a bit. The scientific method is the best way we have to eliminate false info.
Hypothesis > experimentation > analyze the results > eliminate the false hypotheses > new hypothesis > experimentation etc. etc. etc. This is the way science advances. If your science is so bad that you fail to recognize a false hypothesis in the name of securing fame for yourself, you are endangering the advancement of science. There are no shortcuts.
In a nutshell, the scientific method works, but you have to build upon an established set of known (not just guessed at) science.
Embrace the scientific method, eliminate disinformation (AND for God's sake, stop claiming that eliminating disinformation is censorship) and science would enjoy a renaissance again.
@suzianne saidThe biggest threat to science and the scientific method is the corruption of it by sociopathic greed or simply the greater need to keep one's paycheck. Whenever honest science threatens big profits, science usually loses. The best example of this is the food, drug and health care industry.
This thread is a grand example how science gets pushed back. And then you claim "censorship did it". No, disinformation (that too many people believe) did it. Every time false info is embraced as true, science dies a bit. The scientific method is the best way we have to eliminate false info.
Hypothesis > experimentation > analyze the results > eliminate the false hypo ...[text shortened]... claiming that eliminating disinformation is censorship) and science would enjoy a renaissance again.
Apparently they don't teach this in schools.
@suzianne saidEliminating disinformation is censorship because you don't know disinformation when you see it. You have opinions of what is disinformation which means you don't have proof.
This thread is a grand example how science gets pushed back. And then you claim "censorship did it". No, disinformation (that too many people believe) did it. Every time false info is embraced as true, science dies a bit. The scientific method is the best way we have to eliminate false info.
Hypothesis > experimentation > analyze the results > eliminate the false hypo ...[text shortened]... claiming that eliminating disinformation is censorship) and science would enjoy a renaissance again.
For example, you claimed time dilation results from gravity as if it is some sort of byproduct of gravity or something. I told you that you had it backwards, which you did. If you had your way you would censor my assertion that time dilation causes gravity (or more accurately, time dilation "is" gravity) which is the basis for Einstein's General Relativity.
If you were allowed to suppress the basis for Einstein's General Relativity that would be seriously screwed up! Is that the kind of world you want to live in? A backwards bizarro world where science is turned upside down so little progress can be made?
You want to censor science based on opinion. Every time unproven opinion is embraced as fact, science dies a bit. Do cows sleep standing up or laying down? There are people that cannot agree which it is. Which one would you censor?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@metal-brain saidNone of those sentences mean anything.
Eliminating disinformation is censorship because you don't know disinformation when you see it. You have opinions of what is disinformation which means you don't have proof.
For example, you claimed time dilation results from gravity as if it is some sort of byproduct of gravity or something. I told you that you had it backwards, which you did. If you had your way you ...[text shortened]... nding up or laying down? There are people that cannot agree which it is. Which one would you censor?
1 edit
@shallow-blue saidStill nothing to offer? I will offer this:
None of those sentences mean anything.
...and this:
@metal-brain saidBecause you're wrong.
Eliminating disinformation is censorship because you don't know disinformation when you see it. You have opinions of what is disinformation which means you don't have proof.
For example, you claimed time dilation results from gravity as if it is some sort of byproduct of gravity or something. I told you that you had it backwards, which you did. If you had your way you ...[text shortened]... nding up or laying down? There are people that cannot agree which it is. Which one would you censor?
Wrong science needs to go straight to the nearest bin.
"Eliminating disinformation is censorship because you don't know disinformation when you see it."
You mean, of course, that YOU don't know disinformation when you see it.
I finished school and went on to get my BS and am now working on my MS. Disinformation is stuff that is not true, usually disseminated as being true. If you finish your education, the value of that education is that you know stupid science when you see it.
Your entire diatribe about Relativity is backwards, yes. Your BS about Relativity is false science and should be thrown out because it is untrue. I am NOT "suppressing the basis of Einstein's General Relativity". I'm trying to educate you into stopping the dissemination of backwards science. Your idiotic version of Relativity is wrong. This is not an opinion.
@shallow-blue saidI've been trying to beat some reality into him for well over a year now about Relativity.
None of those sentences mean anything.
He still thinks he's right. I don't get how he could think this. He thinks me telling him he's wrong is censorship (which it would be if he were right), but it's just a fact. I say he would hold science back a hundred years, but he says I'm holding science back because I have it wrong and I'm therefore censoring him.
You know what they say. You can't fix stupid. I used to think education fixed stupid. Now it looks like stupid would rather politicize science than learn anything. We are truly in the post-Trump world mindset now, where stupid thinks it is valid.
@metal-brain saidI already proved suzi wrong. She is the perfect example of why science should never be censored. Suzi made my case better than I could imagine. The irony is that she is embracing Lysenkoism even though she claims to be against Russia.
Still nothing to offer? I will offer this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxQTvqcpSg
...and this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNOFxmcECPQ
Suzi wants us to be more like Russia. Perhaps she is Russian.
@suzianne saidScience is looking for truth, and reality, as it is discovery. If you don't allow people
Because you're wrong.
Wrong science needs to go straight to the nearest bin.
"Eliminating disinformation is censorship because you don't know disinformation when you see it."
You mean, of course, that YOU don't know disinformation when you see it.
I finished school and went on to get my BS and am now working on my MS. Disinformation is stuff that is not true, us ...[text shortened]... ination of backwards science. Your idiotic version of Relativity is wrong. This is not an opinion.
to get it wrong, you will never advance; we have to discover what is right by trial
and error. Arguing over what is factual is part of the process; having different
opinions mean people are thinking, which is a good thing; people of good
faith can still come to different conclusions looking at the same data; working that
out can be messy, but to put someone in charge of squashing dissent just means
we are no longer promoting science but someone's dogma in the name of science.e