NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

That's too simplistic for me. In my world, that doesn't follow. It presupposes that science is an entity that makes decisions. In that view, science made evil decisions it then had to correct.

Science is not an entity. People make bad decisions that better people have to correct. These people make up various communities. In the science community, those corrections are public matter. The value of the better people outweighs the worthlessness of the bad decision makers. In the scientific arena, the value of what is being done carries exponential weight given that science deals in objective concepts.

That's a hefty assumption on your part. People like myself find it best not to do that. We just don't see it that way.

Why is it like that? How do you even know that everyone is doping? That's also a hefty assumption. What experience do you have in either the professional sports or science industries that would allow for that kind of critical analysis of the state of either?

I don't subscribe to that type of common sense reasoning. Again, we don't see it that way.

You've presupposed too many conditions and assumed for too many variables to see it any other way.

<blockquote data-quote="ProphetofOccam" data-source="post: 149051" data-attributes="member: 5272">&nbsp;That&#039;s too simplistic for me. In my world, that doesn&#039;t follow. It presupposes that science is an entity that makes decisions. In that view, science made evil decisions it then had to correct.&nbsp;Science is not an entity. People make bad decisions that better people have to correct. These people make up various communities. In the science community, those corrections are public matter. The value of the better people outweighs the worthlessness of the bad decision makers. In the scientific arena, the value of what is being done carries exponential weight given that science deals in objective concepts.&nbsp;&nbsp;That&#039;s a hefty assumption on your part. People like myself find it best not to do that. We just don&#039;t see it that way.&nbsp;&nbsp;Why is it like that? How do you even know that everyone is doping? That&#039;s also a hefty assumption. What experience do you have in either the professional sports or science industries that would allow for that kind of critical analysis of the state of either?&nbsp;I don&#039;t subscribe to that type of common sense reasoning. Again, we don&#039;t see it that way.&nbsp;&nbsp;You&#039;ve presupposed too many conditions and assumed for too many variables to see it any other way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProphetofOccam, post: 149051, member: 5272"] [FONT=arial][/FONT] That's too simplistic for me. In my world, that doesn't follow. It presupposes that science is an entity that makes decisions. In that view, science made evil decisions it then had to correct. Science is not an entity. People make bad decisions that better people have to correct. These people make up various communities. In the science community, those corrections are public matter. The value of the better people outweighs the worthlessness of the bad decision makers. In the scientific arena, the value of what is being done carries exponential weight given that science deals in objective concepts. [FONT=arial][/FONT] That's a hefty assumption on your part.[FONT=arial] People like myself find it best not to do that. We just don't see it that way.[/FONT] [FONT=arial][/FONT][FONT=arial][/FONT] Why is it like that? How do you even know that everyone is doping? That's also a hefty assumption. What experience do you have in either the professional sports or science industries that would allow for that kind of critical analysis of the state of either? I don't subscribe to that type of common sense reasoning. Again, we don't see it that way. [FONT=arial][/FONT] You've presupposed too many conditions and assumed for too many variables to see it any other way.[FONT=arial][/FONT] [SIZE=2][FONT=arial][/FONT][/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification