• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "It really is Kung flu"

Collapse

  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    It's not. And don't you see the contradiction talking about "proving facts" and "an opinion"?
    No an opinion is not a fact a 'fact' is not a fact until proven. In my heart I know there is no God, I can also say there are no absolute facts to prove his existence. Do you have any? Some of the many clergy I have met I would consider underqualified for life yet I respect their belief & opinion.

    Your opinion is that this lady who is more highly qualified in this specialist subject than probably anyone on here and has international renown is wrong because in your OPINION she is underqualified. To prove she is wrong why not try to float some credible ideas or explanation as to why you think she is wrong. I suggested a few that challenge the WHO view. Even a CUK poster can be right occasionally.

    The very fact (yes your posts prove them) you are dismissive but unable to counter her ideas does not boost your credibility as an 'expert'.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post

    possibly you are confusing academia with science. Academia is about stature and science in my opinion is about proving facts.
    It's not. And don't you see the contradiction talking about "proving facts" and "an opinion"?

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post

    You know what they say - you can't argue with a fool.
    That's an interesting hypothesis but there is a lot of empirical data suggesting people not only can, but do - very often.
    I've compiled it into a nice dataset: https://forums.contractoruk.com/general/

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post

    You know what they say - you can't argue with a fool.
    Calling people cretin or fool is not normally considered argument more an ad hominin attack which suggests the attacker is far from competent in discussion or even anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post

    You should have a good read on why Andrew Wakefield is no longer a doctor and what he did wrong with his research.
    Why do you need me to explain it to you? I have crayons.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post

    Doesn't say anywhere that the person doing it has to be qualified to any level. That would be Academia's position.

    You mean you accept something as a fact without proof?



    Noddy Holder or Big Ears friend? do please try to be specific.
    You should have a good read on why Andrew Wakefield is no longer a doctor and what he did wrong with his research.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

    Oh, right, the ex-academic scientist who now does science outside of academia is confusing science and academia. Cretin.

    "Proving facts".

    You have a Noddy understanding of science.
    You know what they say - you can't argue with a fool.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Uncle Albert View Post
    I agree with this. But only as long as we can also state that anybody with more than 50K posts of CUK is equally a cretin.
    A sockie with less than 2k posts is hardly in a position to make such demands

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle Albert
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post

    ^^^^

    This.

    Anybody will less than 50k posts on CUK can't possibly be a genuine expert on anything.
    I agree with this. But only as long as we can also state that anybody with more than 50K posts of CUK is equally a cretin.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

    Oh, right, the ex-academic scientist who now does science outside of academia is confusing science and academia. Cretin.

    "Proving facts".

    You have a Noddy understanding of science.
    Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
    science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.
    Science consists of observing the world by watching, listening, observing, and recording. Science is curiosity in thoughtful action about the world and how it behaves.


    Doesn't say anywhere that the person doing it has to be qualified to any level. That would be Academia's position.

    You mean you accept something as a fact without proof?



    Noddy Holder or Big Ears friend? do please try to be specific.

    Leave a comment:


  • BR14
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

    Oh, right, the ex-academic scientist who now does science outside of academia is confusing science and academia. Cretin.

    "Proving facts".

    You have a Noddy understanding of science.
    more like bigears IMO

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post

    possibly you are confusing academia with science. Academia is about stature and science in my opinion is about proving facts.

    Stories are not facts, provable facts are not stories.
    Oh, right, the ex-academic scientist who now does science outside of academia is confusing science and academia. Cretin.

    "Proving facts".

    You have a Noddy understanding of science.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post

    FTFY
    Cretin.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
    I'm aware of the stories, vetran, thanks. I'm merely saying that you don't have a scooby-doo about how science works, that's all, so it means you can't easily distinguish between solid opinions and battwuntish opinions, it's mostly all the same to you - "some scientist said XYZ and I like the idea that they're right".
    possibly you are confusing academia with science. Academia is about stature and science in my opinion is about proving facts.

    Stories are not facts, provable facts are not stories.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by BR14 View Post

    no you didn't
    oh yes I did

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X