Originally posted by @freakykbhNo explanations, just assertions. Why does that work for you?
...
If that's the standard for science, you win.
Such a corollary isn't supported by history--- or even reason.
...
Originally posted by @freakykbhYou really think we can't suss out what you are about? You will just try (thinking maybe we will by your BS) pulling yet more non-answers in hopes the thread goes on yet another day while you laugh your ass off.
It doesn't.
What would you like to see me support, and I'll try.
2 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhNo. And the reason why you refuse to show your list (for that matter, a single example) is because you don't have one; just talking made up bull. I showed a list of 3 and can do many more. Now it is your turn...
If you're going to begin dispensing medications,.
Originally posted by @freakykbhI said the Nobel Prize in physics. You know, the most prestigious award you can win for physics.
Whoa.
The Noble Peace Prize is the bar?
If that's the standard for science, you win.
Such a corollary isn't supported by history--- or even reason.
But again, find the fathers of science.
Vet them with your accreditations.
If you can.
The "fathers of science," whoever you have in mind, were almost all highly educated relative to their time.
Originally posted by @humyYour lack of knowledge regarding the history of science is noted.
No. And the reason why you refuse to show your list (for that matter, a single example) is because you don't have one; just talking made up bull. I showed a list of 3 and can do many more. Now it is your turn...
Plato.
Pythagoras.
Euclid.
Any of those guys important to science?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYour scale of determination is suspect, at best.
I said the Nobel Prize in physics. You know, the most prestigious award you can win for physics.
The "fathers of science," whoever you have in mind, were almost all highly educated relative to their time.
The fathers of science hunted and gathered, which is in stark contrast to the process of "higher education" cranked out today.
What theses did you nail to which door?
Originally posted by @freakykbhI obviously wasn't talking about ancient scientists but relatively modern ones and you know it. But lets examine your list shall we?
Your lack of knowledge regarding the history of science is noted.
Plato.
Pythagoras.
Euclid.
Any of those guys important to science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Education
"...Education
Bust excavated at the Villa of the Papyri, possibly of Dionysus, Plato or Poseidon.
Apuleius informs us that Speusippus praised Plato's quickness of mind and modesty as a boy, and the "first fruits of his youth infused with hard work and love of study".[32] Plato must have been instructed in grammar, music, and gymnastics by the most distinguished teachers of his time.
..."
So Plato was educated.
Both Euclid’s and Pythagoras's education or lack of is entirely unknown so you cannot assert they had none. But Pythagoras is assumed to be the son of Mnesarchus who may well have helped educate him;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras
"...
Knowledge of Pythagoras's life is largely clouded by legend and obfuscation, but he appears to have been the son of Mnesarchus, ...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid
"...Very few original references to Euclid survive, so little is known about his life.
http://famous-mathematicians.org/euclid/
"...There are few references to Euclid’s life. His education and even birthplace are still in dispute. ..."
So your lack of knowledge regarding science including the history of science is noted.
To have any credible chance of contributing to modern science you really must first know something about it; you apparently don't.
Originally posted by @humyYou obviously weren't talking about those upon whose work science was based.
I obviously wasn't talking about ancient scientists but relatively modern ones and you know it. But lets examine your list shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Education
"...Education
Bust excavated at the Villa of the Papyri, possibly of Dionysus, Plato or Poseidon.
Apuleius informs us that Speusippus praised Plato's quickness of mind and mod ...[text shortened]... tributing to modern science you really must first know something about it; you apparently don't.
Something as seemingly critical as education (as portrayed herein) surely would be noted.
Everywhere.
But, as is commonly known by historians, the giants of our knowledge base were autodidacts in comparison to anything produced by the diploma factories of today.
2 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhClearly false;
You obviously weren't talking about those upon whose work science was based.
Modern relativity is based on Einstein's work and modern quantum mechanics is based on Boor's work. In what sense are they not?
And I have just shown your earlier assertions baseless and, in the case of Plato, wrong. Plato was educated as explained in my link. Can you show us any link that says he was uneducated? Answer; no.
You do talk a load of rubbish.
Originally posted by @humyInstead of getting your panties unnecessarily in a tighter bunch than normal, go back and read what I said in the first place.
Clearly false;
Modern relativity is based on Einstein's work and modern quantum mechanics is based on Boor's work. In what sense are they not?
And I have just shown your earlier assertions baseless and, in the case of Plato, wrong. Plato was educated as explained in my link. Can you show us any link that says he was uneducated? Answer; no.
You do talk a load of rubbish.
More importantly, understand what was said in the first place.
I'm not going to argue against a counter which doesn't address my point in the first place.
Namely, those upon whom science itself has been based were overwhelmingly uneducated by today's standards.
Period.
You can claim any amount of vagueness or ambiguity as though it is in your favor of the argument, but you are simply and demonstrably wrong.
Originally posted by @freakykbhYou are demonstrably NOT demonstrating it.
Instead of getting your panties unnecessarily in a tighter bunch than normal, go back and read what I said in the first place.
More importantly, understand what was said in the first place.
I'm not going to argue against a counter which doesn't address my point in the first place.
Namely, those upon whom science itself has been based were overwhelmingl ...[text shortened]... iguity as though it is in your favor of the argument, but you are simply and demonstrably wrong.
Originally posted by @freakykbhWhy do you think those "diploma factories" are more successful at producing productive scientists than autodidacts?
You obviously weren't talking about those upon whose work science was based.
Something as seemingly critical as education (as portrayed herein) surely would be noted.
Everywhere.
But, as is commonly known by historians, the giants of our knowledge base were autodidacts in comparison to anything produced by the diploma factories of today.
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThree words:
Why do you think those "diploma factories" are more successful at producing productive scientists than autodidacts?
Specialization
Juice box
See if you can theorize what is meant by those clues.
EDIT: You failed to mention the theses you nailed...