The Refuge of the Toads

#21361

"I spent 10 years building bridges... many of them are among the largest bridges in the world, but no one calls me John the bridge builder. I spent another 10 years building airplanes.... some of the fastest ever made, but no one calls me John the airplane builder! But suck one cock...."

#21362

Aneris wrote:I guess the more curious question is: Why is the title 'scientist' even important? Doesn't it suggest that in some communities, milleus, parts of society, the scientist has become a new kind of High Priest, uniquely in tune with The Truth? Couldn't this be the real reason why some people want to have the title, either because they see it as a confirmation of their own self image, or because they think they ought to have it, otherwise the populace won't as readily accept their pronounciations?

It's a useful generic term to lump together people people from disparate fields, just like 'civil servant' lumps together Whitehall mandarins, MI5 field agents, and the guy who does the photocopying in the tax office, but it doesn't really tell you anything about the relative importance of what they do.

#21363

John D wrote:"I spent 10 years building bridges... many of them are among the largest bridges in the world, but no one calls me John the bridge builder. I spent another 10 years building airplanes.... some of the fastest ever made, but no one calls me John the airplane builder! But suck one cock...."

Well, if you insist on referencing that in your LinkedIn profile what can you expect?

#21364

Dave wrote:
d4m10n wrote:Nude yoga? Sounds exactly like an Abby Winters film.
"Subs in Service Intensive"

"Whip it. Whip it good."

"Hardware Store Whipmaking Workshop"

Are these the events RC is thinking of when he speaks of "in the course of events?"

Nude yoga. Heh. No wonder Dickie's not wholly prepared to burn bridges with that hive of woo-ery. I suspect it's a women only thing (it just doesn't go well with having a dick, frankly) but if Dickie wants a leer, he can always claim to be a non-presenting transwoman.

On a completely unrelated note, went to see Civil War today. Pretty damn good - standard superhero fare, but executed extremely well with some satisfying twists and turns in the story. Marvel Films version Spidey is the best Spidey yet seen (despite his story seeming a bit shoehorned in - due to him being a late addition to the script, I guess), and Black Panther was supremely badass. I liked how T'Challa was so softly spoken - gave the Panther a kind of warrior-monk vibe, which really suited the character. So yeah. Good. If you're not into superhero flicks, you won't find anything groundbreaking here. If you are, then I highly recommend it. Also, Marisa Tomei as Aunt May - that's just wrong, but in a good way.

Also had tofu for the first time ever today. It was not what I was expecting. Not bad, just weird.

#21365

dogen wrote:But the point is, Darwin tried to figure out why the beaks were different. *That* was the science. Merely observing the difference, while a first step along the science pathway, doesn't constitute a full cycle of the scientific method (observe-hypothesize-predict-reobserve).

If I observe something and come up with a theory about it, but never test a prediction that my theory makes (maybe because I never come up with a novel prediction derived from my theory), am I doing science?

#21366

dogen wrote:But the point is, Darwin tried to figure out why the beaks were different. *That* was the science. Merely observing the difference, while a first step along the science pathway, doesn't constitute a full cycle of the scientific method (observe-hypothesize-predict-reobserve).

Which is a completely different argument from all the bullshit about academic qualifications, grant applications, students, etc. and entirely consistent with what I wrote earlier:

I'm not arguing that she is a scientist, I'm arguing that being a scientist is about practicing science, not the qualifications you have, the research grants, or the number of students, or any of the other shit the Steersbots have got hung up on.

Darwin was a scientist because he practiced science. Einstein was practicing science in his spare time at the patents office.

Practicing science made them scientists, not formal positions in academia.

#21367

Tigzy wrote:
Dave wrote:
d4m10n wrote:Nude yoga? Sounds exactly like an Abby Winters film.
"Subs in Service Intensive"

"Whip it. Whip it good."

"Hardware Store Whipmaking Workshop"

Are these the events RC is thinking of when he speaks of "in the course of events?"
Nude yoga. Heh. No wonder Dickie's not wholly prepared to burn bridges with that hive of woo-ery. I suspect it's a women only thing (it just doesn't go well with having a dick, frankly) but if Dickie wants a leer, he can always claim to be a non-presenting transwoman.

Hah! I thought I was making a bad joke by reading too much into those titles.

Nope.

They are exactly what they sound like:

http://www.columbusspace.com/event-2187917

https://columbusspace.com/event-2157080

But I think this one is the best: http://www.columbusspace.com/event-2233958

Fine company youre keeping there RC.

#21368

If anyone is actually advocating for either the most broad or most narrow definition of "scientist," say so and make it clear.

If you think someone else is doing so, name them and see if they agree.

Otherwise feel free to continue unproductively talk past one another for another twelve pages.

#21369

Billie from Ockham wrote:
dogen wrote:But the point is, Darwin tried to figure out why the beaks were different. *That* was the science. Merely observing the difference, while a first step along the science pathway, doesn't constitute a full cycle of the scientific method (observe-hypothesize-predict-reobserve).
If I observe something and come up with a theory about it, but never test a prediction that my theory makes (maybe because I never come up with a novel prediction derived from my theory), am I doing science?

Which is why I brought up string theory earlier.

Is an untestable 'theory' even a theory, never mind a science?

Is a science where you can double the number of particles, and treble the number of dimensions - which are invisible even in principle - then add another dimension, just because the maths is more 'elegant', a science?

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it doesn't employ the scientific method of generating and testing hypotheses that has worked well for hundreds of years.

#21370

[youtube]XVX7wMyhGhY[/youtube]

#21371

Keating wrote:That's nothing. Listen to an American pronounce 'emu'.

Buoy has to be my favourite :lol:

#21372

Columbus sounds like a groovy place! :drool:
[youtube]n8a8GwN1maw[/youtube]
Interesting having a podcast with no sound. I guess that makes it alternative.

#21373

Dave wrote:
But I think this one is the best: http://www.columbusspace.com/event-2233958

Fine company youre keeping there RC.

Har-de har!! I'm sure lifelong feminist Dickie will put them right, that book sounds hilarious :D

#21374

Shatterface wrote:
Billie from Ockham wrote:
Shatterface wrote:I'm not arguing that she is a scientist, I'm arguing that being a scientist is about practicing science, not the qualifications you have, the research grants, or the number of students, or any of the other shit the Steersbots have got hung up on.
Agreed! :clap:
Apparently some here see science as an exclusive club that even fucking Darwin couldn't join.

That hack? I don't see how his awards are suppose to be doing science.

#21375

free thoughtpolice wrote:Columbus sounds like a groovy place! :drool:
[youtube]n8a8GwN1maw[/youtube]
Interesting having a podcast with no sound. I guess that makes it alternative.

Looks like a great place to have sex with chubby people in masks.

#21376

Oglebart wrote:
Dave wrote:
But I think this one is the best: http://www.columbusspace.com/event-2233958

Fine company youre keeping there RC.

Har-de har!! I'm sure lifelong feminist Dickie will put them right, that book sounds hilarious :D

John Norman's books are . . . interesting.

Theres something like 35 of them.

The first few are passable sci-fi/fantasy pulp fiction. Nothing great but not terrible either. Some subplots about the enslaved role of women, but still a passable story.

Somewhere around book 5 or so he drops all pretense at the books being anything other than sexual fantasies about female enslavement.

I skipped ahead to somewhere in the 20s and it was just full-on porn, interspersed with occasional weird 3-5 page dissertations about the intricacies of Gorean maps or the compass or some such nonesense.

But the books have some die-hard fandom.

#21377

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Is Scibabe appearing at this con in her quality as a scientist, or as the popular science communicator she presents as when being Scibabe?

If the former, then yes "scientist" should be the qualifier attached. If the later, then Scibabe should be the qualifier.

Simple as that.

If Greg Graffin is invited to speak at a punk-rock event about the US punk scene in the last 30 years, is there a point in advertising him as a paleontologist? If he's presenting a lecture on early dinosaurs at a paleontology convention, should he be presented as the singer from Bad Religion?

Of course, he could be presented as both for both gatherings. That would work.

But it's because he's a real scientist... :dance:

I keep waiting for Graffin to put out a Bad Religion album about dinosaurs.

#21378

Tigzy wrote: On a completely unrelated note, went to see Civil War today. Pretty damn good - standard superhero fare, but executed extremely well with some satisfying twists and turns in the story. Marvel Films version Spidey is the best Spidey yet seen (despite his story seeming a bit shoehorned in - due to him being a late addition to the script, I guess), and Black Panther was supremely badass. I liked how T'Challa was so softly spoken - gave the Panther a kind of warrior-monk vibe, which really suited the character. So yeah. Good. If you're not into superhero flicks, you won't find anything groundbreaking here. If you are, then I highly recommend it. Also, Marisa Tomei as Aunt May - that's just wrong, but in a good way.

Also had tofu for the first time ever today. It was not what I was expecting. Not bad, just weird.

Thanks for the Spoiler free review. I get to see it Thursday night (bought my ticket months ago).

My favorite tofu is a "tofu steak" from this Japanese place in Madison Al. You should check it out I am sure it's not unique to that place.

#21379

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:FFS Abbie, did you have to invoke the SteersWonderistWelch. He is never wrong, even when some level of subjectivity is concerned. He argues like a sack of wet cats and is ALWAYS dogmatic about it.

How else will we get such cutting barbs as "bless your heart" and witness the supreme command of caps lock?

#21380

Shatterface wrote:
Billie from Ockham wrote:
Shatterface wrote:I'm not arguing that she is a scientist, I'm arguing that being a scientist is about practicing science, not the qualifications you have, the research grants, or the number of students, or any of the other shit the Steersbots have got hung up on.
Agreed! :clap:
Apparently some here see science as an exclusive club that even fucking Darwin couldn't join.

Both of those examples are from another era, when the scientific community and science were in a less formal state. Importantly they practiced actual science, and contributed to their field.

Granted that the word "scientist" means different things to different people, would you personally say that SciBabe qualifies as a scientist? Where would you draw the line for somebody that insisted on claiming the title of Scientist?

#21381

You all sound like stupid science bitches.

#21382

free thoughtpolice wrote:[youtube]XVX7wMyhGhY[/youtube]

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/56391601.jpg

And Carrie Poppy drops in with a new essay at CSI to remind us all that any statistics that make men look like victims are fallacious and must be debunked, but any that make women look like victims are totally accurate and require zero scrutiny.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s ... ion_needed

That's right. Look what she's able to say about statistics related to online harassment of men:

In the last couple of years, we’ve seen articles claiming that men are harassed more than women online, that abuse of men and women can’t be compared because they are contextually distinct, that abuse of men is categorically underreported, or that men are more likely to be verbally abused, but women are more likely to be the victims of serious threats of violence and stalking. Some of these articles are well-written and clearly researched, so I mean no indictment of them as a whole, but with such drastically different conclusions based on a small handful of the same studies, something is up in Journalism Town.

Could she imagine saying the same about the ridiculous 2-7% false rape accusation statistics?

#21383

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:FFS Abbie, did you have to invoke the SteersWonderistWelch. He is never wrong, even when some level of subjectivity is concerned. He argues like a sack of wet cats and is ALWAYS dogmatic about it.
How else will we get such cutting barbs as "bless your heart" and witness the supreme command of caps lock?

I just thought I would point out that phrases such as "bless your heart" and "oh, honey" are, to the best of my knowledge insults.

I am unclear as to exactly what they mean, but I get the impression that they imply that someone is not exactly firing on all cylinders, or something.

My source is someone I knew when I was a pre-teen and who apparently was 21 years old before she realized that DammYank was in fact two words.

(I think I mentioned this before but eh, whatever)

#21384

Really? wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:[.youtube]XVX7wMyhGhY[/youtube]
[.img]https://cdn.meme.am/instances/56391601.jpg[/img]

And Carrie Poppy drops in with a new essay at CSI to remind us all that any statistics that make men look like victims are fallacious and must be debunked, but any that make women look like victims are totally accurate and require zero scrutiny.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s ... ion_needed

That's right. Look what she's able to say about statistics related to online harassment of men:

In the last couple of years, we’ve seen articles claiming that men are harassed more than women online, that abuse of men and women can’t be compared because they are contextually distinct, that abuse of men is categorically underreported, or that men are more likely to be verbally abused, but women are more likely to be the victims of serious threats of violence and stalking. Some of these articles are well-written and clearly researched, so I mean no indictment of them as a whole, but with such drastically different conclusions based on a small handful of the same studies, something is up in Journalism Town.
Could she imagine saying the same about the ridiculous 2-7% false rape accusation statistics?

*shrug*

If what she says about Demos is true she might have a point.

Her main beef with Pew/Demos apparently is related to how some news outfits presented the study(s) hence I suppose her reference to "something is up in Journalism Town"?

Anyway, without delving deeper into her history (sorry but I really have not been paying attention to Popper) I really do not know where she is going with the Journalism Town reference. Is she saying that there is some sort of conspiracy?

In any event she does appear somewhat alarmed that men could be represented as victims. You could infer all kinds of things from that I suppose.

#21385

Shatterface wrote:
dogen wrote:But the point is, Darwin tried to figure out why the beaks were different. *That* was the science. Merely observing the difference, while a first step along the science pathway, doesn't constitute a full cycle of the scientific method (observe-hypothesize-predict-reobserve).
Which is a completely different argument from all the bullshit about academic qualifications, grant applications, students, etc. and entirely consistent with what I wrote earlier:

I'm not arguing that she is a scientist, I'm arguing that being a scientist is about practicing science, not the qualifications you have, the research grants, or the number of students, or any of the other shit the Steersbots have got hung up on.
Darwin was a scientist because he practiced science. Einstein was practicing science in his spare time at the patents office.

Practicing science made them scientists, not formal positions in academia.

If you accept that professional engagement and interaction with the scientific community is a marker then it is reasonable to look for KPIs to measure that engagement. Possibly tabulated for clarity.

................

It's always amusing/disconcerting watching the Pit rage. Clearly :mrgreen: there are different definitions at work in society and it's overlapping use that is causing the shakes.

You have the fundamentally useless, though self referencingly accurate "they who do science". This works from the 5yo testing a cookie hypothesis to Darwin's beak queries.

You have the scientist by popular acclaim - those who the public accept as "being of science" and a representative thereof because of their leadership position. NDT, Sagan, the science guy, Prof Julius Sumner Miller. "Scientist" here is a shorthand bestowed by the masses. Quals are secondary.

Then you have the professional scientist recognised by their peers through achieving stringent achievements which place them into the practicing, operational elite. BSc need not apply. Modern day criteria (not appropriate for the 19 century) are applied.

The problem with scibabe is that she is not qualified for Type 3, hadn't been recognised for Type 2 (because she trades under dirty joke sciwench) and Type 1 never figures outside conversations like "yeah Bob, he's a bit of scientist ain't he?" Further at a science orientated con attendees quite rightly expect the term, when unilaterally imposed, to refer to Type 3 operatives. A box of chocolates approach is unhelpful.

Ok. Now rage on the machine. Find that elusive objective meaning. :popcorn:

#21386

[youtube]LIfxV7uNZXQ[/youtube]

#21387

Dave wrote:
Oglebart wrote:
Dave wrote:
But I think this one is the best: http://www.columbusspace.com/event-2233958

Fine company youre keeping there RC.

Har-de har!! I'm sure lifelong feminist Dickie will put them right, that book sounds hilarious :D
John Norman's books are . . . interesting.

Theres something like 35 of them.

The first few are passable sci-fi/fantasy pulp fiction. Nothing great but not terrible either. Some subplots about the enslaved role of women, but still a passable story.

Somewhere around book 5 or so he drops all pretense at the books being anything other than sexual fantasies about female enslavement.

I skipped ahead to somewhere in the 20s and it was just full-on porn, interspersed with occasional weird 3-5 page dissertations about the intricacies of Gorean maps or the compass or some such nonesense.

But the books have some die-hard fandom.

Ever read any Jack Chalker? His books are similar, except that the kink is modification and control, usually involving sex.

#21388

AndrewV69 wrote: Anyway, without delving deeper into her history (sorry but I really have not been paying attention to Popper) I really do not know where she is going with the Journalism Town reference. Is she saying that there is some sort of conspiracy?

Seems she wants journalism to be more...ethical.

In any event she does appear somewhat alarmed that men could be represented as victims. You could infer all kinds of things from that I suppose.

Namely, that Carrie Ploppy is as dumb as a box of turds. But that's already well known.

#21389

Really? wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: And Carrie Poppy drops in with a new essay at CSI to remind us all that any statistics that make men look like victims are fallacious and must be debunked, but any that make women look like victims are totally accurate and require zero scrutiny.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s ... ion_needed

That's right. Look what she's able to say about statistics related to online harassment of men:

In the last couple of years, we’ve seen articles claiming that men are harassed more than women online, that abuse of men and women can’t be compared because they are contextually distinct, that abuse of men is categorically underreported, or that men are more likely to be verbally abused, but women are more likely to be the victims of serious threats of violence and stalking. Some of these articles are well-written and clearly researched, so I mean no indictment of them as a whole, but with such drastically different conclusions based on a small handful of the same studies, something is up in Journalism Town.
Could she imagine saying the same about the ridiculous 2-7% false rape accusation statistics?

No comments accepted, so no way for me to point out to that stupid fucking retarded cunt what a stupid fucking retarded cunt she is. Guess I'll have to write my own blog post.

Seriously, what is fucking CfI doing still giving Carry Poppie column inches? She's like that one little, last turd that never flushes down.

#21390

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Snip
Seriously, what is fucking CfI doing still giving Carry Poppie column inches? She's like that one little, last turd that never flushes down.

Was she not in a relationship with somebody that works for that esteemed organization?

#21391

Shatterface wrote: Darwin noticed there was something odd about finches' beaks, he had no knowledge of evolution at the time, and he was the ship's doctor, not an academic.

Actually, Darwin dropped out of medical school and was officially aboard the Beagle as the ship's naturalist but was really there to keep the Captain company. I think he'd qualify as an academic.

#21392

Brive1987 wrote:[youtube]LIfxV7uNZXQ[/youtube]

He was lost to me when sold out for chocolate. "It has substantial nourishment and enjoyment..."

#21393

blitzem wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:Science is oddly elitist in comparison to other fields. Anyone who gets a degree related to civil engineering gets to call themselves an engineer. The only change comes with years of service, you might get to add principal in front of engineer, or move up and be Associate Engineer grade. My husband has a PhD. He occasionally publishes papers, but his peers with only a BSc are not lesser Engineers as a result. Although it may be true that fewer BScs make it to the top of the profession, but this is more a mark of the quality of the person, not their degree. Perhaps science could do with extracting its head from its arse a tad.
In Canada you aren't allowed to call yourself an engineer on any sort of documentation until you write your ethics exams and get your P. Eng, and that's only after 4 years of logged work under a qualified P. Eng from a recognized professional organization. The correct pre-P. Eng term is EIT...engineer in training.

(This may have changed in the years since I got my B. Eng. I don't really keep up on the regulations unless I have to.)

Sorry I guess I was taking for granted the professional organisation requirement. In the UK it is called Chartered Engineer (C.Eng), my husband is also C.Geol, the european I.Eng and the HK RPG. I assume because he likes collecting letters, because it doesn't seem to attract anything except an annual fee of £200 for each Chartering organisation, a crappy magazine, periodic reminders to do CPD, and a tick on the job requirements list when applying for a new job. It is pretty easy to attain when you're a junior engineer - write a paper, sit in front a board, answer a few questions and Robert's your Dad's brother.

I've helped a few of his baby engineers with their English writing for chartership. Frankly they would be better off making an exam on written English, because even the native speakers can't put a sentence together. How they manage to write a contractual engineering report is beyond me.

Regardless, when you graduate, and you get a job (in civils at least) you won't yet have chartership, but the job title (in British style countries/companies) is Graduate Engineer - so the engineer bit is already there, albeit with a qualifer.

fuck it, I'm sounding like steers. lets leave it as engineers aren't as pretentious as sciencey people.

#21394

John D wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:
H. Korban wrote:
Perhaps you are looking for an infallible way to correctly answer all the questions every facing mankind. Maybe you should look into religion.
You're arguing with an engineer here not a scientist.
It was engineers that told us we would all have hover cars by 1983, engineers told us that burning jet fuel couldn't bring down the Twin Towers...
No... it was not engineers who said we would have fucking fusion power.... that was the fucking scientists. No one ever listens to the engineers. We never get in the paper and we are never on the news. Of course, you will find some crank who says the twin towers will not go down from jet fuel.... but.... it is the rest of the real engineers who actually know you can.

I am not saying engineers can't sometimes be media whores... but... I am saying that scientists, as a group, chase funding and they whore themselves for it. Engineers tend to get a job at a company and make shit work. Big difference.

They don't have a choice other than chasing funding. It's the only way they can get money. That's fucked up, but that's the current system, and it sucks for the reasons you list and quite a few more. I don't blame them for playing the only game they have available.

#21395

John D wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Engineers eliminated the carburetor and made certain we couldn't fix our own cars anymore. In fact, they made sure authorized mechanics would take three tries to get it right. In FACT, if you work for Chrysler, JohnD, I may have to fly to Detroit and defecate on your lawn. Not really, but what the hell? Why? Why? *sob*
Oh my god.... carburetors were complete shit. I mean, they worked... once in a while. Cars are an order of magnitude more reliable than they where a few decades ago. There was a period where computer controlled combustion was fussy, but this shit works great now. When was the last time you "tuned" a car? Fuel use versus horsepower is significantly improved. Repair rates for almost ever vehicle system is a fraction of what it used to be.

I do not try to fix my car when a control module breaks. No sense in this. I do my brakes... and stuff like that.... when I have the time.

I never worked for Chrysler. They do have a poor quality record. You should buy a more reliable car man.

Absolutely. Love me some modern cars. I don't do shit on mine anymore. I lease them, because owning is overrated and more expensive. Every 5K, I take it to the dealer, throw them a C-note, they do stuff to it and bring it back.

I wash them. that's about it.

#21396

Really? wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:[youtube]XVX7wMyhGhY[/youtube]
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/56391601.jpg

But do they have potted flowers by the door?

http://i.imgur.com/z1FDjDA.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/T0PWiQU.jpg

#21397

Brive1987 wrote:Probably shaped like a potato.

Aren't most asteroids potato-shaped?

#21398

So when did D&D become a table top video game?

#21399

Brive1987 wrote: It's always amusing/disconcerting watching the Pit rage. Clearly :mrgreen: there are different definitions at work in society and it's overlapping use that is causing the shakes.

...

Ok. Now rage on the machine. Find that elusive objective meaning. :popcorn:

I'm not sure what I think about all the details of what you said, but pretty much "Yes!" to the general idea.
Is this seat taken?
:popcorn:

#21400

Brive1987 wrote:[youtube]LIfxV7uNZXQ[/youtube]

This chap has that certain impatient eagerness, a bit like Richard Feynman. It's exhilarant to watch, but I probably wouldn't want to be their pupil.

#21401

Shatterface wrote:
dogen wrote:But the point is, Darwin tried to figure out why the beaks were different. *That* was the science. Merely observing the difference, while a first step along the science pathway, doesn't constitute a full cycle of the scientific method (observe-hypothesize-predict-reobserve).
Which is a completely different argument from all the bullshit about academic qualifications, grant applications, students, etc. and entirely consistent with what I wrote earlier:

I'm not arguing that she is a scientist, I'm arguing that being a scientist is about practicing science, not the qualifications you have, the research grants, or the number of students, or any of the other shit the Steersbots have got hung up on.
Darwin was a scientist because he practiced science. Einstein was practicing science in his spare time at the patents office.

Practicing science made them scientists, not formal positions in academia.

I agree with you completely. So, did you need to be such a cantankerous cunt about this?

#21402

comhcinc wrote:So when did D&D become a table top video game?

[youtube]daksqex8zUE[/youtube]

Huzzah!

#21403

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Snip
Seriously, what is fucking CfI doing still giving Carry Poppie column inches? She's like that one little, last turd that never flushes down.
Was she not in a relationship with somebody that works for that esteemed organization?

Well then, it's a case of trading inches for inches.

#21404

Spike13 wrote:
welch wrote:
ERV wrote:Dude she was bitching about being addressed as 'SciBabe' instead of 'scientist', and suggested sexism was the reason for that.

No problem with SciBabe. She do wat she do. But she is SciBabe, not a scientist.
Y'all have a really funny way of not having a problem with what she does.

But let me get this straight, because it is often confusing to me:

Who can be a scientist: Only people with Ph.Ds who publish in approved journals

Who cannot ever be a scientist: everyone else

that's the basic point here?

Because if so, what do you call people who do scientific work every day but don't publish? People who do research kinds of stuff, but never get their name on a "real" paper? Should they just bung it all in and go dig ditches?
Welch, we were bitching that she was bitching about the con. She was speaking at billed her as scibabe(her chosen stage name) and had her real name second. She then accused the con of sexism by her being the only one so listed.( when in reality Mr. Deity was list by his stage name first as well)

She and folks like her are and acting as science communicators, not scientists.

That's no insult. Carl Sagan was a science communicator first. It s a job not to be taken lightly, we can use as many as possible.

Dude, she said something on twitter that was really stupid. Which EVERYONE on twitter has done.

The response to that is "well, that was kind of fucking stupid" not, "I'll be keeping an eye on her from now on" or "she's a borderline SJW" or the rest.

Jesus, that's literally some PZ shit there. Wait for someone (in PZ's case, Dawkins, in the 'pit's case, Scibabe), to say something stupid on twitter, and BANG! Into the shitlord bin she goes, weld the lid shut. Look, if she's constantly pulling that, and mouthing the watson/elyse line, sure, that's bad, she's an asshole, ignore her and move on.

But for fuck's sake, she's said, that I've seen, and I actually follow her on Facebook because she's quite entertaining, nothing close to what people are implying, and she's stuck her foot in it a damned site less than Dawkins, who, according to his own website hasn't published dick in a peer-reviewed journal/had a "scholarly" publication since 2004.

So if we want to be narrow about it, *Dawkins* isn't a "real" scientist, hasn't been for like a decade. (no one's come up with a time limit on how often you have to publish to be a "real" scientist, but I think once you hit ten years, you have probably made the decision that you're kind of done doing that shit.)

Christ, if you're going to roast someone over an occasional stupid comment on twitter, then apply that fire to everyone equally.

#21405

AndrewV69 wrote: *shrug*

If what she says about Demos is true she might have a point.

Her main beef with Pew/Demos apparently is related to how some news outfits presented the study(s) hence I suppose her reference to "something is up in Journalism Town"?

Anyway, without delving deeper into her history (sorry but I really have not been paying attention to Popper) I really do not know where she is going with the Journalism Town reference. Is she saying that there is some sort of conspiracy?

In any event she does appear somewhat alarmed that men could be represented as victims. You could infer all kinds of things from that I suppose.

She's a shit-for-brains, mentally unstable, annoying little cunt, who reads every single thing through the lens of Patriarchal Oppression, cuz she has to blame being equipped with a na-na for her failure at life, instead of the real reason: her utter, across-the-board worthlessness as a human being.

#21406

dogen wrote:
Shatterface wrote:
dogen wrote:Discovering supernovae does not require any detailed knowledge of stellar structure & evolution. Rather, it needs a completely different toolset (including an understanding of instrumentation, and access to the same) plus a good familiarity with the sky. This toolset is often posessed by 'amateur' astronomers (quotes added to indicate that these people often really know their shit), and often *not* posessed by professional astronomers. But very few amateur astronomers are actively engaged in doing science, and so aren't scientists.

Put simply, You've confused 'astronomy/astrophysics' with 'things that can be seen through a telescope'.
I was talking about astronomy, which is a science, in the context of amateur science and amateur scientists.

A knowledge of stellar evolution isn't necessary for astronomy unless you think there were no astronomers prior to Fred Hoyle, or that the study of celestial bodies other than stars do not qualify as science either.

You might as well say there was no biology prior to Watson and Crick.
You're arguing that a tourist to the galapagos, who notices something about finch beaks but has no understanding of biological evolution, is therefore a scientist. Bravo.

Well, if you're going by "must have a Ph.D. to understand science", congrats, you just described Charles Darwin. (Who only had, from what I've found, a Bachelor's, which we all know doesn't mean dick in the sciences)

#21407

Whatever, we all know science is bullshit.

#21408

HunnyBunny wrote:Science is oddly elitist in comparison to other fields. Anyone who gets a degree related to civil engineering gets to call themselves an engineer. The only change comes with years of service, you might get to add principal in front of engineer, or move up and be Associate Engineer grade. My husband has a PhD. He occasionally publishes papers, but his peers with only a BSc are not lesser Engineers as a result. Although it may be true that fewer BScs make it to the top of the profession, but this is more a mark of the quality of the person, not their degree. Perhaps science could do with extracting its head from its arse a tad.

Engineering is an odd field in the US. Some disciplines require certification (Civil Engineering is quite big on this, IIRC), because the penalties for fucking it all up are quite high. Other disciplines, such as Software Engineer, do not (and there is still a great deal of argument about whether or not Software Engineers should be considered Engineers at all. both sides make interesting points.)

Part of the "you must publish" issue is that Science does have a great deal of snobbery towards those who do science outside of academia. It's not even slightly subtle.

#21409

Aneris wrote:
comhcinc wrote:So when did D&D become a table top video game?
[youtube]daksqex8zUE[/youtube]

Huzzah!

I will have to check that out tonight.

I was still actively playing with 3 and then quickly 3.5 came out but being poor and having poor friends and we all having lots of 2nd edition books (between between about 10 of us I think we had everything) so no one saw the point in getting new stuff. After that never really looked at it. Now I am wanting to get back and I am questioning what all the extra things bring.

#21410

Gumby wrote:
d4m10n wrote: That's just how Ohio looks, alas.

I've never lived with chronic depression, but Ohio was the next best thing
I suffer from lifelong depression and I've lived in Ohio my whole life. Pity me.

It really is an armpit of a state. The sooner I win the Powerball and move to Maui the better.

My wife's family is from Ohio, (literally, Findlay Ohio. The only reason her last name is Findley instead of Findlay is the Army spelled her dad's last name wrong, and he didn't see the point in doing the work to correct them) and every time her parents try to get her to go back for any reason, no matter how short the visit, she instantly works overtime to find a reason to not go back.

When the High School Football Rape thing broke, she explained to me, without condoning it, why, and how it happens and why the towns reacted as it did. Ohio is so fucked up, it's not even funny.

#21411

Re: Carry Poppy

She is a known liar, with a history of lying. She is playing simple SJW/regressive left rules - i.e. twists the data/statistics/facts to suit the narrative, and not the other way round.

I mean, no fucking wonder these SJWs and baboons hated movement scepticism. All that scepticism and logic were getting in the way of their narratives. Can't have that, can we!

#21412

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:FFS Abbie, did you have to invoke the SteersWonderistWelch. He is never wrong, even when some level of subjectivity is concerned. He argues like a sack of wet cats and is ALWAYS dogmatic about it.

Honkie Please, I never wall of text like those two. I am at least capable of brevity.

#21413

I see how key words in public debates, like "women," and "science" for example, have been corrupted and widely used in ways that make them worse than useless for communication purposes in public discussions, but my solution is not to try to police those words. My solution is to avoid using them, and discuss issues in other terms that haven't been corrupted so much.

It might be possible to reclaim those words for communication purposes, in some environments, but I don't see any hope for that in the near future, in public discussions.

#21414

In other news it appears the Zodiac Killer is on the loose again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/po ... .html?_r=0

#21415

comhcinc wrote:So when did D&D become a table top video game?

1987? Earlier? Which version are you talking about?

#21416

welch wrote:
comhcinc wrote:So when did D&D become a table top video game?
1987? Earlier? Which version are you talking about?

I am looking at the new one. 5th edition.

I remember reading through a copy of 3.5 and telling my friend that it seemed to be coping Vampire with it's powers but now it just seems over the top.

#21417

comhcinc wrote:
Aneris wrote:
comhcinc wrote:So when did D&D become a table top video game?
[youtube]daksqex8zUE[/youtube]

Huzzah!

I will have to check that out tonight.

I was still actively playing with 3 and then quickly 3.5 came out but being poor and having poor friends and we all having lots of 2nd edition books (between between about 10 of us I think we had everything) so no one saw the point in getting new stuff. After that never really looked at it. Now I am wanting to get back and I am questioning what all the extra things bring.

Oh...that. 3/3.5 was the first shot at re-wrapping D&D around the D20 rules (I think that's the original system.) 4 was...4. Bit of a mess. 5 seems much better, although i ignore pathfinder, because it's just too fucking complicated.

My son takes great delight in hosting 2nd Edition games. Because he's an asshole. Usually goes like this:

"You see a band of kobolds in the meadow ahead. Some have bows"
"Kobolds? Fuck that, CHARRGE"
"First kobold fires, gets two shots because it's a bow, your armor class sucks...you're dead"
"Da fuck?"
"You had FOUR HIT POINTS AND NO ARMOR. You're dead. roll a new character."

The feat/enhancement lot cry a lot when forced to play 2nd edition. It's fun to watch.

#21418

Aneris wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:[youtube]LIfxV7uNZXQ[/youtube]
This chap has that certain impatient eagerness, a bit like Richard Feynman. It's exhilarant to watch, but I probably wouldn't want to be their pupil.

My sister was on his show once. He was quite the celeb in his day and "why is it so" was a pre internet verbal meme.

#21419

HunnyBunny wrote:
blitzem wrote:
HunnyBunny wrote:Science is oddly elitist in comparison to other fields. Anyone who gets a degree related to civil engineering gets to call themselves an engineer. The only change comes with years of service, you might get to add principal in front of engineer, or move up and be Associate Engineer grade. My husband has a PhD. He occasionally publishes papers, but his peers with only a BSc are not lesser Engineers as a result. Although it may be true that fewer BScs make it to the top of the profession, but this is more a mark of the quality of the person, not their degree. Perhaps science could do with extracting its head from its arse a tad.
In Canada you aren't allowed to call yourself an engineer on any sort of documentation until you write your ethics exams and get your P. Eng, and that's only after 4 years of logged work under a qualified P. Eng from a recognized professional organization. The correct pre-P. Eng term is EIT...engineer in training.

(This may have changed in the years since I got my B. Eng. I don't really keep up on the regulations unless I have to.)
Sorry I guess I was taking for granted the professional organisation requirement. In the UK it is called Chartered Engineer (C.Eng), my husband is also C.Geol, the european I.Eng and the HK RPG. I assume because he likes collecting letters, because it doesn't seem to attract anything except an annual fee of £200 for each Chartering organisation, a crappy magazine, periodic reminders to do CPD, and a tick on the job requirements list when applying for a new job. It is pretty easy to attain when you're a junior engineer - write a paper, sit in front a board, answer a few questions and Robert's your Dad's brother.

I've helped a few of his baby engineers with their English writing for chartership. Frankly they would be better off making an exam on written English, because even the native speakers can't put a sentence together. How they manage to write a contractual engineering report is beyond me.

Regardless, when you graduate, and you get a job (in civils at least) you won't yet have chartership, but the job title (in British style countries/companies) is Graduate Engineer - so the engineer bit is already there, albeit with a qualifer.

fuck it, I'm sounding like steers. lets leave it as engineers aren't as pretentious as sciencey people.

No worries. I was just pointing out that in Canada we can be a bit silly and pedantic at times with our professional organizations.

And everybody knows that engineers are illeterate. :D

#21420

So, I fixed the fuel line on my lawnmower today, changed the air filter, and changed the spark plug. I am Engineer, Hear Me Roar (and AMA).