JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
Learn the rules of logic, Ocham's Razor, and the axiom "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you learn these fundamental tools you will go far in honing your critical thinking skills. Then you can progress to learning and understanding the scientific method. Once you learn what the scientific method is and how it works, you might be qualified to have an opinion about it.
Gee rem and AlanF, thanks for showing Ed the error of his ways. How silly for a non-scientist to express an opinion on a science-related subject. I'm sure your elitist condescending tone will serve as a warning to others.
Anyone can express an opinion. There is a difference between an uninformed opinion and an informed one.
Those damn JW scientists! I wonder if he's an elder?
No Apologies said:
: Gee rem and AlanF, thanks for showing Ed the error of his ways. How silly for a non-scientist to express an opinion on a science-related subject. I'm sure your elitist condescending tone will serve as a warning to others.
Geez, we have morons coming out of the wordwork today.If you have something other than a moronic comment to make, then make it. Otherwise, stuff it. AlanF
How silly for a non-scientist to express an opinion on a science-related subject.
How silly for a non-driver to express an opinion on a driving-related subject.
How silly for a non-trapeze artist to express an opinion on a trapeze artist-related subject.
How silly for a non-doctor to express an opinion on a medical-related subject.
Well, as the above examples show, the quoted opinion is pretty silly, which is the whole point.
In all of the above examples, people are perfectly free to express an opinion about a subject they have no real knowledge of, but just have to put up with the fact that their un-informed opinion might be silly to anyone who knows what they are talking about.
The democratic fallacy at work again; the screwed-up idea that everyone's opinion is as valuable as anyone elses'. A demonstrably false idea. And somehow, those who foist their ignorance on others with the democratic fallacy always try to make it the informed parties fault that they often don't know enough to have an informed opinion.
Like it's McDonald's fault you scorch your legs with coffee that is (amazingly enough) hot if you drive off from the drive-thru with it clasped between them, or it's McDonald's fault you get fat.
Yes, I mixed up "Head of Department" and "Group Leader". I apologize for that.
I think my point is clear. You came off in your reply as elitist and condescending in your reply to Ed. The scientific method works well, but it is totally dependant on the people using it. Get a clue, scientists are human, they are not gods, and they do not have all the answers. I have no more time for their arrogance than I do for religous types who also claim to have some type of superiority.
Feel free to respond with more name-calling.
No aps...you are right, scientists are not gods, but you can give the majority of them credit for not infusing/confusing religion with real sceintific facts. You assume everyone should be handled with kid gloves because they may not be scientists, or that AlanF perhaps was being condescending...did you see how Ed started in? Did he not need a bit of tap on the head? And what is it that you think is condescending?
did you see how Ed started in? Did he not need a bit of tap on the head?