I want to hear peoples thoughts on this. But at the same time I am introducing a non-compromisible practice excluding emotion, rhetoric, sarcasm, and spite from scientific discussion.
Why do we argue with Comment and Reply papers full of provocation and packed with emotional content? As scientists, we are in effect mathematicians in the sense that we present arguments like proofs and lemmas are put forth, and experimental results like calculations.
If you do not keep your arguments clinical you are a nuisance to yourself and the progress of science. Hypocrites! Let each one consider himself the student of the other, then you will surely have a reward in "heaven" (i.e. those who are immortalized in history, being remembered for their contribution to science - though not necessarily in they're lifetime).
Coincidentally, I just blocked someone who had started to get abusive, and would have continued in an increasingly provocative way. It really is a problem.
I've had to abandon 4 questions as a result of this type.
A scientist said ones (analogous): A big ego is necessary to dare answering big scientific questions.
Largely because these days far too many people remain children forever!
It wasn't like that in my day. Then, some people tended to be a bit too self-assured, others a little too insecure, and some hid a lack of understanding behind their utter rudeness!
Don't you just love academia?
Christopher NOCK
Dr. Raschke, it is sad for me to admit that history confirms what you say. I do admit to being carried away in my own sentiment in this "question". BUT the kernel of my point, on which I would appreciate more views is: is it not more feasible for us to strip our arguments of emotion in order to make scientific reasoning logical and facilitate quick conclusions?
It does give me an idea, maybe building "castles in the air", but I think it might be a good idea. If one could create a journal in which previous articles are broken down into rigorous components that are used to construct semantical/qualitative proofs, which will distinguish "fact" from assumption.
Petrus
I'm a political philosopher, not a hard scientist. So I can't really help on your aims here. But I do know from experience that it takes a big ego to discover truth, and an even bigger one to defend nonsense! Depressingly,, far more careers are made from the latter.
In my business, and I'm sure it's the same in the sciences, there's good and bad journals and all types in between. The excellent ones should get us all closer to the truth, if they are doing their job properly. If they've got something wrong the truth seekers should be able to get them back on track. As for the others? Reader beware!
NOCK
On here, Christopher, such attitudes are due not to probing great questions but in having other agendas, such as a bad day in the office or desire to make trouble. Petty reasons, I'm afraid. Not great egos seeking meaning, but little ones seeking a response
Well Stanley, I would guess that would depend on who you're talking about. And that would depend on where you've been strutting your stuff.
Of course there's loads of idiot small minders out there. But a well functioning mind can spot them quite readily, and dismiss them for what they are. More difficult, and far more interesting, are the big minds and the big charletons. Sometimes it takes much work to separate them out. But that is the important job here.
NOCK
Apologies, but my spelling let's me down again! "Charlatans" of course.
NOCK
Christopher, don't concern yourself. Happens to me on RG. The site is jinxed.
Not sure I strut though, but there.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics