The Myth of Critical Thinking

Wow James. You must have a raging hate-on for me today.
You overestimate your own importance to me. I don't hate you, Magical Realist. In many ways, you're like a child. I don't claim to know what led you into the wholehearted embrace of everything woo, but I understand that it means the world to you now and that you feel angry towards me because you perceive me as an enemy trying to tear down your cherished beliefs. Putting all that aside, my concern as a moderator here is to promote discussion, as opposed to the mindless reproduction of other people's work.

First you close my thread on Bigfoot for the made up excuse of "trolling".
Consider yourself lucky I didn't hand you more warning points. The opening post to that thread was just one more mindless cut-and-paste of text from elsewhere, with no discussion or analysis from you (as usual). Then, a bit later in the thread, came three or four spammed youtube videos from you about Bigfoot.

You have nothing new to say about Bigfoot, quite obviously. That thread could only be you giving the pot a stir to amuse yourself. Well, you had your fun. Enough is enough.

And now you dig up old posts in old threads and nitpick what I was saying to an entirely different poster.
I have been a participant in this thread since near the start. I had not looked at the lastest posts to it for about 2 weeks, and I was simply catching up some old threads today.

If you regard my honest enquiries as "nickpicks", that is your prerogative. I note that you have no substantive response, as usual, and so we move on. I really expected no better from you. I'm not surprised.

Did ya have a bad day today James?
No. It's been quite relaxed, and I've been chilling out after a busy time. Thank you for your concern, however.

Am I to play your therapeutic whipping boy? I think not. How bout I just ignore your belligerent ass?
You already decided not to do that when you posted your reply, didn't you?

Funny. Yours is the second post I've seen today from a person who has taken the time specifically to write that they don't want to write anything. Maybe you'd all be more convincing if you started practising what you preach.
 
And whether you want to really find out , " Is it true ? " .

There is only a myth to critical thinking , if the thinking of the critical , is not sound , critically speaking .
Well, that's why we have rigorous scientific verification processes. Proofs and falsifications.
 
Well, that's why we have rigorous scientific verification processes. Proofs and falsifications.

which are proved to be false and therefore corrupt .

Ideally the verification would be truth , but it is not .

Peer review papers are corrupt , subjective , and the papers are vague and reviews of the papers can be falsified .

quote from Nexus( July-August 2018 ) , page 19 , Dr. Marcia Angell , Harvard Medical School , former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine ,

" It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published ......I take no pleasure in this conclusion .....reached slowly and reluctantly ...."
 
which are proved to be false and therefore corrupt .

Ideally the verification would be truth , but it is not .

Peer review papers are corrupt , subjective , and the papers are vague and reviews of the papers can be falsified .

quote from Nexus( July-August 2018 ) , page 19 , Dr. Marcia Angell , Harvard Medical School , former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine ,

" It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published ......I take no pleasure in this conclusion .....reached slowly and reluctantly ...."
First, due to the curtailing of government grant money for objective research, most scientific papers, especially in medicine, are published by the scientists employed by the company sponsoring the research for commercial purposes.

But that critical analysis by a scientist is already part of the self-regulatory system of science.

Can't say those things against religion, which is obviously and demonstrably corrupted.
You get excommunicated by the Inquisition (catholic)
an ecclesiastical tribunal established by Pope Gregory IX c. 1232 for the suppression of heresy. It was active chiefly in northern Italy and southern France, becoming notorious for the use of torture. In 1542 the papal Inquisition was re-established to combat Protestantism, eventually becoming an organ of papal government.
or killed by Fatwah (Islam).
fatwah - (Islam) a legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar; "bin Laden issued three fatwahs calling upon Muslims to take up arms against the United States"
 
Last edited:
how so ?

and how has it lead to to a more open and objective peer review process ? to your mind ?
Hopefully, other scientists will listen to this "peer" review and try to be more diligent and objective when writing specific "peer" reviews.
The penalty for misrepresentation in the commercial world affords law-suits for malpractice.

And in the case of public funding of science, this may show a need to reinstate several grants for important but non-commercial science.
 
Hopefully, other scientists will listen to this "peer" review and try to be more diligent and objective when writing specific "peer" reviews.
The penalty for misrepresentation in the commercial world affords law-suits for malpractice.

And in the case of public funding of science, this may show a need to reinstate several grants for important but non-commercial science.

the Journals in any part of this planet don't give a shit . they clearly don't have any idea what is going on .

For example ; an e-mail address to confirm the papers authenticity is reverted to the author , himself . That is shocking , and the worst part is that the , Journals don't verify the author , nor the peers .

It's about the dough joe . It is about funding , careers towing the line
 
Back
Top