[adam_smith123]

Science is a set of methods. If you abandon those methods and fake data to fit your needs you aren't doing science you are committing various kinds of fraud. Maybe ChatGPT can explain that to you instead of listening to Alex Jones.

[mistermann]

> Science is a set of methods. If you abandon those methods and fake data to fit your needs you aren't doing science you are committing various kinds of fraud.

You still have the title "scientist", and still get your paycheque. Like baking, there is the recipe one is supposed to follow, but there is also the how the baking is actually done. If a baker failed to follow the recipe in an instance of baking, would you also believe that they are not a baker, or are not baking?

I think it's interesting how people intuitively frame (construct a virtual model of reality, and perceive/present it as reality itself) the practice of science such that it "is"[1] literally impossible for scientists to do wrong, and with such a simplistic method: if it isn't perfect, it isn't science (which opens up a serious ontological problem: because it cannot be known to what degree each potential scientist executes the method with perfection, it is not possible to know how many scientists exist, or if a given candidate actually is a scientist...an individual could be one for decades, and then one off day and Shazam: you "are" no longer a scientist, despite having the title, the income, and the respect and admiration, despite not actually being the thing itself).

>Maybe ChatGPT can explain that to you instead of listening to Alex Jones.

What's the current scientific consensus on mind reading? Maybe it's not me who has to brush up on my scientific scriptures.

And since we're on the topic of who to take advice from: perhaps you should reevaluate the trustworthiness of that Oracle inside your mind, because it's "fact" here is way off: I do not listen to Alex Jones. Do you now wonder how many other facts your Oracle got wrong? My Oracle suspects not, but cannot be sure.

[1] here I am using the colloquial, normative meaning of the word "is": how humans believe "reality" "is".

[adam_smith123]

>You still have the title "scientist"

You seem to be completely obsessed by titles for no apparent reason. I don't care what your title is, if you fake data to validate false hypotheses you aren't doing science. It's very simple.

>You still have the title "scientist", and still get your paycheque. Like baking, there is the recipe one is supposed to follow, but there is also the how the baking is actually done. If a baker failed to follow the recipe in an instance of baking, would you also believe that they are not a baker, or are not baking?

If you purchase a cake from Walmart and tell people you baked it from scratch you are not a baker. If you 3d print a cake look alike made of plastic and tell people it is a cake you are not a baker.

You seem to be in the midst of a mental break so good luck to you.

[mistermann]

>> You still have the title "scientist"

> You seem to be completely obsessed by titles for no apparent reason.

You seem to be an overconfident Naive Realist.

> I don't care what your title is, if you fake data to validate false hypotheses you aren't doing science. It's very simple.

I doubt it. You don't take the opinions of scientists more seriously than non-scientists? Shall I go through your comment history to find instances?

And this is the problem: "science" (which is copposed at least in part by scientists) CANNOT make an error according to this reasoning.

>>You still have the title "scientist", and still get your paycheque. Like baking, there is the recipe one is supposed to follow, but there is also the how the baking is actually done. If a baker failed to follow the recipe in an instance of baking, would you also believe that they are not a baker, or are not baking?

> If you purchase a cake from Walmart and tell people you baked it from scratch you are not a baker. If you 3d print a cake look alike made of plastic and tell people it is a cake you are not a baker.

As the saying goes: Reality is perception (as demonstrated by your very comment!).

> You seem to be in the midst of a mental break so good luck to you.

Do you have any interest in whether the reality your mind generates and projects into the "you" service's experience (as "reality") is actually correct?

For example, take your prior comment:

>> Maybe ChatGPT can explain that to you instead of listening to Alex Jones.

By what means could you acquire knowledge of my interests? Feel free to peruse my comment history, you'll find no praise or likely even mention of Alex Jones (I think he's a dummy, though I do like him). And if you're going to suggest you have mind reading capabilities, I am happy to have that argument.

Could it be, perhaps, that an idea popped into your mind, and you accidentally forgot to apply any(!) epistemological rigour to it before streaming it out onto the page, like an LLM? I mean, come on man.