Science is a popularity contest

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I just might genuinely find it interesting. Sadly, not everyone that comes to this science forum come's here because of a genuine curiosity let alone one in science.

I have just read your link. What a sad sorry! Poor Chandra! I feel sorry for him, and I mean that.
I don't like the sound of this Eddington character. What the hell was his problem?

Originally posted by humy
I just might genuinely find it interesting. Sadly, not everyone that comes to this science forum come's here because of a genuine curiosity let alone one in science.

I have just read your link. What a sad sorry! Poor Chandra! I feel sorry for him, and I mean that.
I don't like the sound of this Eddington character. What the hell was his problem?

He may have been put off by Chandra not having a formal education. How dare a genius come up with anything new and not have a Phd🙂

Originally posted by humy
nope; I called you stupid for condescendingly making out you know better than us scientists when you don't; you merely disagreeing with me being irrelevant.
Many scientists have disagreed with me on this forum and I didn't call them stupid. Why? because, being experts in science, I know they know and understand things about it I don't and thus I know they know ...[text shortened]... nce.
What are your science credentials? -please list them to us so we can take you seriously...

You have no credentials regarding climate change. You are not a climate scientist and despite that you pretend you know more about it than me when you don't. You are being a huge hypocrite!

You called me stupid because you had delusions that fooled yourself into thinking the majority of climate scientists supported your ridiculous assertions of alarmist rhetoric. Now that it is apparent that you are in reality within a fringe minority of wacky people that believe myths without evidence. Nothing is more contrary to the scientific process than that.
You also disputed the fact that climate models are not reliable despite your repeated failure to present a valid rebuttal and refusal to show a source of information after making false assertions. You know you were wrong, but being proven wrong is not something you handle well, so you insult.

You are the type of person that can dish it out but cannot take it. You have a double standard in that way. You think you can force others to accept your opinions without evidence your opinions are valid. Having others that believe the same myths as you gave you a sense of false confidence. That is your own fault. You assumed and that is why you will never be a successful physicist. A good physicist questions everything and everyone. You can't just go though life thinking another physicist would not overlook certain things. If you keep doing that you are insuring your own failure to make a difference.

Don't blame others for your own failures. You will always come across as vindictive. Don't call someone stupid unless they really are being stupid. If you do the same thing will happen to you again, you will be called stupid when you are actually being stupid unlike when you did it to me. That is why you hate me so much. You really were being stupid and it hurt you more than you will ever admit. More importantly, you deserved it. Lick your wounds and get over it.

Originally posted by humy
I just might genuinely find it interesting. Sadly, not everyone that comes to this science forum come's here because of a genuine curiosity let alone one in science.

I have just read your link. What a sad sorry! Poor Chandra! I feel sorry for him, and I mean that.
I don't like the sound of this Eddington character. What the hell was his problem?

Now you finally read her link? What took you so long? Why did you see fit to comment on her link without reading it?

STOP ASSUMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by humy
it suggests he vindictively hates women as well as us scientists.

There you go assuming again.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/single-women-more-vindictive-toward-ugly-suitors-after-being-turned-down-attractive-333102

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There you go assuming again.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/single-women-more-vindictive-toward-ugly-suitors-after-being-turned-down-attractive-333102

do you hate woman because they reject you for being ugly? Or because they too reject your opinions?

Originally posted by humy
do you hate woman because they reject you for being ugly? Or because they too reject your opinions?

I don't hate women. You are assuming again. Men and women are both flawed in different ways. Women are generally more vindictive than men. Even women have told me that. Nobody knows how women think more than women and that just might explain why women distrust other women more often than not.

Are you male or female?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I Women are generally more vindictive than men.

I really honestly don't know where you keep getting your odd ideas from, and I honestly literally mean that. Do you just make it all up as you go along or what? The amount of 'vindictiveness' is not a kind of quantity, like mass or speed, that can readily scientifically and unambiguously be defined and measured. Thus real and good unbiased science is unlikely to ever tell us which of the two human sexes is "generally more vindictive"; not that there is obvious motive or need to find out that in particular; it would be strange to want to know that in particular.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

he doesn't seem to understand that headlines are written by journalist, not scientists, and, partly because journalists being usually fairly ignorant of science, often misunderstand science, and partly because journalists often want to deliberately and dishonestly sensationalize, the headlines are often massively misleading or simply plain wrong.

I have seen many example of that in the past. Just one example that a saw many years ago was the headline that read "The man that proved Einstein wrong!". But when I read the article and understood what the 'man' scientist in question actually discovered, it became very clear that, not only did he NOT prove Einstein "wrong", he never claimed that he ever did!
And this is only one example of countless thousands of headlines made by journalists that give misinformation about science research results.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Men are physically stronger than women. If the opposite were true women would kill more men.

Women hold a grudge longer than men after a divorce and they may not want to be with the man anymore, but they don't want the man to be with any other woman either. They hate and keep on hating and will make false accusations and even report those false allegations to the police in some cases, just for moving on like the woman did. They are more likely to manupulate their children to fight their battles for them with disregard for the psychological well being of their children.

I have talked to many women about this and they usually agree that women are generally more vindictive. Many women prefer men as friends rather than women because women are the "nice to your face, but stab you in the back" type. They tell me this after they bring it up, not me. I have heard this many times from many different women.

There are even popular sayings that imply a woman's vindictiveness. Have you heard this one? "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".
All you have to do is break up with them and the hate has just begun. It doesn't have to be the man's fault either. It is the man's fault in their minds just because the man didn't endure their crap. It can last for years too.

Men generally do not use their children to get even with an ex-wife or girlfriend as often as a woman does with an ex. It takes a special kind of vindictiveness to hurt their own children in this way.

Originally posted by humy
he doesn't seem to understand that headlines are written by journalist, not scientists, and, partly because journalists being usually fairly ignorant of science, often misunderstand science, and partly because journalists often want to deliberately and dishonestly sensationalize, the headlines are often massively misleading or simply plain wrong.

I have seen ...[text shortened]... usands of headlines made by journalists that give misinformation about science research results.

You are being ridiculous. The study shows that women kick down at men simply for being less attractive than the other man that rejected her. That is not only vindictive, it is misplaced vindictiveness that is completely irrational.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The study shows that women kick down at men simply for being less attractive than the other man that rejected her. That is not only vindictive, it is misplaced vindictiveness that is completely irrational.

That is just about as an unscientific inference you can possibly make. You obviously have absolutely no concept of real science.
Just for starters, why would be "vindictiveness", which remember, is something you cannot scientifically readily quantify or measure or unambiguously define, "completely irrational"? Yes, although not exactly scientifically, you can say "vindictiveness" is "bad", but being "rational" is not about being good.

In science, specifically the science of epistemology which I just happen to have some expertise on and is currently the topic of my current research (which promises to revolutionize not only the world of philosophy but, much more importantly I personally think, AI science ), being "rational" is about two things: Epistemic rationality and Instrumental rationality;

(see, for example;
http://lesswrong.com/lw/31/what_do_we_mean_by_rationality/
-although that isn't a particularly good link, that one will do for now )

If you Google those two concepts and read through thier definitions, you will see being rational is not and cannot ever be to do with lack of "vindictiveness".
Morally good and bad behavior is not to be confused with rational behavior; one can be perfectly rational and yet, without contradiction, be totally evil.

Originally posted by humy
That is just about as an unscientific inference you can possibly make. You obviously have absolutely no concept of real science.
Just for starters, why would be "vindictiveness", which remember, is something you cannot scientifically readily quantify or measure or unambiguously define, "completely irrational"? Yes, although not exactly scientifically, you can ...[text shortened]... ational behavior; one can be perfectly rational and yet, without contradiction, be totally evil.

I should also have pointed out the more generic fact that no real valid science can be about determining or defining what is morally good or bad, let alone quantify or measure how good or bad. All moral judgements are value judgments that real science has no say in and cannot ever have any say in. Any said science that claims to determine or define morally good or bad, let alone one that claims to quantify and measure such a thing, is a misnomer and is just pure pseudoscience -THAT is what you fail to grasp here.

Obviously, the relevance here of that to your false inference is that what is 'vindictive' and the amount of 'vindictiveness' is a moral judgement that therefore cannot be rationally scientifically defined or quantified or measured by any science.