p-u-b-l-i-u-s.bsky.social
Keep a clean nose.
Watch the plainclothes.
You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
Godbless New Orleans
33 posts
41 followers
206 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
You never asked if I've been to protests this year nor did you ask about whether or not I was out there waving a red white and blue flag of stars and stripes.
Truly, I don't care to argue against you in this thread any longer. We need unity in America against these nazis. We are losing this fight.
comment in response to
post
you dont know shit, john shit
comment in response to
post
American flags look good on television. Think strategy, numbnuts
comment in response to
post
and yet, Dems are cowering conservatively while the GOP is out liberally flooding the zone with bullshit
comment in response to
post
"to rally the troops"
comment in response to
post
the next line of the post is literally "To rally the troops." ;)
comment in response to
post
how about you take your superiority complex somewhere it redeems value
comment in response to
post
but the Harris administration wouldn't be kidnapping folks, so those who campaigned against Harris are responsible for this
comment in response to
post
its a dumb emotional reaction
comment in response to
post
bc unfortunately my empathy is inversely proportional
comment in response to
post
i wonder if he campaigned against Harris last year..
comment in response to
post
If calling Cons "weird" is the best example of Dems trying to talk "plain and clear", I can say confidently this is a strategy doomed to fail. Its not that hard to talk without a filter, have y'all all forgotten how to do it?
comment in response to
post
Why are Cons more convincingly "authentic" to voters when speaking "real and clear" then when Dems try do the same damn thing?
comment in response to
post
Why are you acting like no Dems have ever tried that? Have you asked the next question, like, ever? Do you even know the next (better) question?
comment in response to
post
i almost fell for this parody account
comment in response to
post
I dont think my opinion is to require replication of results of a study. I'm suggesting this is merely a requirement for a study to be considered science. I'm not sure of the benefit to society in considering unverified studies "science". Why call an untested observation science?
comment in response to
post
Seems that I've had a purists notion that skipping any of these parts results in the process not being "science". I'd argue there's real value in making this distinction but I accept that those closer to this world have more realistic and grounded opinions on this.
comment in response to
post
I don't mean to say that the only things we are certain of are science. Rather, I understood science to refer to the methodical process of discovery which has several essential components: hypothesis, verifiable testing with controls, summary of results and hypothesis, independent verification.
comment in response to
post
My argument in a nutshell: "Can these results be replicated?" is not just an excellent question but a required question for science.
Otherwise, it's just a study or an exploration or a musing on a neat observation or something else. Is there no value in being strict with the semantics of "science"?
comment in response to
post
I am the layman so please be constructive but what is the point in calling an unverified study "science"? I can imagine results from unverified studies are essential in many/most fields/solutions but are the semantics here not important?
comment in response to
post
I have to assume there has been plenty of "real science" over all of human history. My criticism is that there is a lot of "nearly science" being thrown around as "science" and I'll go further to claim not recognizing this distinction damages the legitimacy of science in general.
comment in response to
post
Yes, I am the layman without real world experience. Yes, it follows that I am naive about the economic incentives in the world of scientific paper publication. You agree that "the whole setup" is bad, but you arent willing to go as far as to claim the whole setup is something other than science?
comment in response to
post
I'm stating an opinion that should not be controversial. Unverified test results getting published is not science. Why come in with a personal attack?
comment in response to
post
Sure, but this is still not the scientific method. It's absolutely essential to have tests be independently verified. Otherwise, it's not science that is being done. It's interesting and possibly useful, but it's not science.
comment in response to
post
Findings that have not been independently verified are interesting but have not really completed the scientific process.
comment in response to
post
That's an important and interesting question but separate and not directly speaking to my comment. Publishing papers that haven't been independently verified seems to be the scientific equivalent of news from a tabloid.
comment in response to
post
Influential work that has never been independently verified? Can a scientist please explain this insanity?
comment in response to
post
How does science lose legitimacy in the modern world?
comment in response to
post
How does this happen? Seriously, this seems like the most basic test that the modern scientific community has failed. Independent verification of a study's findings should be a minimum requirement for publication. What happened to the scientific method?
comment in response to
post
Agreed. This is Hillary's emails v2.0
comment in response to
post
legends of the hidden brainworm™️
comment in response to
post
this is the way
comment in response to
post