| >> 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. |