SIMPLE QUESTION: When does a scientist cease being a scientist?

in Informationwarlast year

I don't have much more to ask than that. I have my own opinion. I want to know yours...

When does someone we label a scientist cease to be a scientist?


Bonus question: What do we call them then?


When they stop asking questions and say 'the science is settled' and plant themselves in the 'God' position. Science is about questioning everything.


I am watching the following video right now:

As I watch it I see it as a battle of absolutists. :) Many different battles and a cool video as far as I am concerned. It doesn't touch upon bacteria, etc. It is a lot of examples of people becoming too dogmatic about their stance. Though I don't see that as the goal of the video. It is a personal observation of my own. This type of conflict seems to happen in most things. I personally think it is from our nature to want to simplify things down into something easy to think about. We do this because then we can act upon it and have free time for other things. If we couldn't simplify like this we'd likely be paralyzed in thought and unable to accomplish much. This ability has advantages, but it also has weaknesses in that we tend to become dogmatic about things. I can't stop other people from doing it. I can be aware of it and try to limit in myself. I know I will fail, but my hope is by being aware it won't happen as often.

Yes I see dogma all around, even the terrain theory people have become dogmatic and flat out refuse to look at the findings of German new Medicine. It's sad because they've jumped from one dogma into another. We need to look at ALL the theories and science and really take out what is good and bad from all of them. I am constantly finding new stuff which changes everything.

The problem is when you say EVERYTHING, ALL, NOTHING, etc. Those are the language of dogma. Are you not casting aside their dogma and replacing it with your own?

I take from many places and cobble what makes sense to me into my own view. I take some of what you are often talking about and think "Yeah that makes sense." Then I see other things like "not one" bacteria has been proven to be parasitic. You also seem to be ready to cast aside ALL of what has come from one view, and replace it with ALL of another view.

I refuse to do that. I will not be dogmatic. I don't care who says it. I don't hold any person as an unchallengeable authority. To me they are all humans like you and I looking for more answers which usually opens the door for even more questions.

They are not without fault. They have successes, and they have failures. I try to learn from each. My choices will often be wrong, yet they are my choices to make.

I certainly will listen to what ANYONE has to say. I may take parts of what they share, I may not. I may disagree with 90% and still find value in 10%. I may agree with 90% and find disagreement with 10%.

Yet using phrases ALWAYS, NEVER, NOT ONE, EVERYTIME, NO CHANCE, etc. Those things are a pet peeve for me. I don't particularly like absolutes. While they can be true in extremely rare cases in relation to the number of times people use them... they usually are not. It only takes one exception to disprove them.

I do know a lot of people use them in an exaggerated fashion and don't actually intend them as an absolute. You may be doing this. I don't know.

Right now I find value in the information you share. I do not agree with you on all things. I don't agree with anyone all things (rare case of an absolute for me) as anyone includes myself. I argue with myself internally and change my mind simply from inner reflection on information. Sometimes it takes awhile to click, or the seed of a new idea to grow. These things change me. I thus do not agree with myself 100%. At a specific moment in time and for a very specific topic I of course agree with myself yet that is a very fleeting thing that after some time changes.

I know I am flawed. I know I make mistakes. Hopefully I learn from them. Hopefully I interpreted the learning properly and don't make bigger mistakes. I very well could. That is the adventure in life.

I can tell you that absolutes are a red flag for me. To me they smack of authoritarianism and dogma. It leaves no room for questioning. It leaves no room that perhaps the person you are talking to might have some information that you do not.

Yes and it's all good (oops I said all again) it shows you are a critical thinker. I'm not asking anyone to believe what I say, I like to ask questions myself to hopefully get people to work things out for themselves BUT the reason I did my 3 podcasts was because so many people were asking me to explain everything as simply as possible so they could actually grasp what I was saying. I don't expect everyone to agree and have always had the haters for my views. I used to try and turn them around but have learned that is counterproductive too. I just put the stuff out there now and leave it up to you to decide. There are absolutes in life tho, black and white, truth and lies, good and evil. I am always learning so please don't think I am dogmatic. THAT is one of my absolute red flags personally.

I am not one of your haters. I just don't trust ANYONE completely. Not even myself at times. (Notice that absolute in caps) :)

I don't trust any particular idea completely. Because I see flaws in an idea doesn't mean I also don't see that there could be parts of it that have value.

I think I may have explained it better in my post about Dogma today.

I didn't mention you. I just explained a little (or a lot) more what thoughts were going through my head.

My exchanges with you did definitely impact the thoughts, but not in a negative way. Consider it more inspirational.

oh I KNOW you are not one of my haters. I hope I didn't give the impression I thought you were!! No way. Keep on doing what ur doing, ur doing it right ;-)

You can tell I think a lot. Introspection is a big thing for me.

I've thought about hate. There is really only one group of people I truly hate.

The willfully ignorant...

Those that realize they are wrong about something, they admit it... then not long after that you see them still pushing the same thing they admitted to being wrong about.

By the way that article on "The Tunneler Hypothesis" was about tunnel vision, but it was also in a sense me thinking about how all of us can head down a path with a narrow focus and in the process construct a dogma without intending to. We can then miss what is outside of that focus. The longer we are in it we may even feel the need to vigorously defend that dogma.

When I wrote that it was something I thought of with self reflection.

I was concerned that I could start heading one way and be at risk of ignoring information that did not seem like part of that path.

I'd think I was freeing myself from dogma only to be constructing a replacement.

You seem to be fixated on this dogma thing but isn't it exactly that to keep going back to your 'good and bad bacteria' theory which is only an attempt to break out of the dogma of germ theory but with one leg in and one leg out of it.

I'm not convinced the germ theory is incorrect COMPLETELY. Just like I am also not convinced that what the people said that you have been sharing are incorrect COMPLETELY either.

I don't trust anyone absolutely.

and neither should you.

Oh and just to be clear. I mostly agree with you on vaccines. I only disagree with you if you think antibiotics do not work and should not be used. You haven't been clear on that but I kind of thought you were indicating that. If you were not let me know.

Do I think antibiotics are a cure all? Hell no. I actually think they should only be used in very specific cases and that they are way too quick to hand them out for all kinds of things they should not.

If you have a raging infection that has a good chance of killing you if you don't do something rather quickly then I think that is a good reason to use an anti-biotic.

A particularly bad abscessed tooth for example that is infected can kill you. Yet if you take antibiotics in time it will not.

We also have been able to save people with it that would have lead to amputation and other extreme measures in the past.

Those are places where if you are against such things then I haven't seen anything compelling to convince me. I've seen and experienced the antibiotics working.

I also know of problems for people due to antibiotics.

Vaccines on the other hand. The data against them is there. People need to look, and they need to ignore the TV.

I found it interesting how many illnesses were virtually gone already before the vaccine for them was introduced. In almost all cases there was a spike in incidents of that illness AFTER the vaccine.

Hygiene, clean water, etc. had already come close to eradicating many of the things they developed vaccines for.

They also love to vaccinate for things that are not even remotely as dangerous as the potential side effects to their vaccine.

No I never said antibiotics don't 'work' they clearly do just not in the way people think. Yes they have a place but only in the most dire circumstances. Your tooth analogy is wrong too, I had an absessed tooth when I was a child. I had that absess for years and eventually the tooth was just a shell. Weirdly I had no pain from it either until the tooth was almost gone and my mum took me to the dentist to have it pulled. No antibiotics and didn't die. You keep saying you might die without the antibiotics but where is the proof of that, it's only the doctors word. They also say we might die from flu or measles (or covid) but you know all those things are actually only caused by mismanagement. Iatrogenesis is the leading cause of death not 'infections'. In other words doctors kill, germs don't ;-)

Posted via

The abscesses that kill typically have pain, high fevers, and other symptoms.

I had one that actually was in my gums not me teeth. My teeth were hurting really badly but it ended up being in my gums. The pain was just radiating. My teeth were actually fine.

I went for about two weeks of pain on that before I took some antibiotics and it went away. After that they of course wanted more appointments. I hadn't been to a dentist in over a decade. I generally don't need to.

I also already decided I'll have a tooth pulled before I get a root canal. That ends up being not particularly healthy to do (root canal) from what I've researched. I had one tooth pulled. Strangely the empty socket that needed to heal and have my gums heal over hurt less than the tooth did before it was pulled.

That's my teeth woes... one pulled tooth, and one abscessed gum and I am 50.

Though I don't eat a lot of sugary things, and I haven't touched alcohol or drugs and such since I was 16 and at that time I'd done so little that I'd been stoned from marijuana maybe 6 times, and I'd never been drunk or had a hangover.

Why mention that? I know many of those things can contribute to teeth problems. Perhaps that is why I haven't had many. I don't know.

Some of my children who haven't done those things either have had far more problems with teeth than I ever have.

It is possible the abscessed gum would have healed itself. After two weeks of pain and a slight fever all I know is after the antibiotics it went away almost immediately.

Anecdotal yes. Yet I also think people are quick to brush aside anecdotal evidence when it can still have relevance. It should not be taken as proof. Yet it can still be considered as potentially relevant.


When they say the science is settled.

When a Scientist choses to have his science watered down for the sake of politics or money.

Congratulations @dwinblood! You received a personal badge!

You made another user happy by powering him up some HIVE on Hive Power Up Day and got awarded this Power Up Helper badge.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking

Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:

Hive Power Up Day - June 1st 2021 - Hive Power Delegation
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!