Scientology... with your host, Tom Cruise

[quote name='chunk']Please. Engineers are as much scientists as anyone else, especially research engineers. I'm sorry you don't think applied scientists are real scientists. I think they are more scientists than those involved in theoretical bullshit and they certainly qualify as scientists more than someone like yourself.

We were talking about science, not engineering, so I cited my experience as a scientist. If you want to know my opinion on engineering I can give you that too, but I assure you that at the research level the distinction between a "natural scientist" and an "applied scientist" is negligible.

I fail to see how this is deception. I wholeheartedly consider myself a scientist and every natural scientist I've ever met considered both natural and applied scientists as well as engineers to be scientists. Furthermore, I think the general populace certainly considers engineers scientists because they think of things like space ships and computers as being created by scientists. Perhaps you disagree, but a disagreement does not constitute deception.

No, deception is deliberate and malicious, like the way you deliberately misquote my satirical statements out of context in order to mar my reputation in this forum.

I'm sick of you making personal attacks because you can't defend your point of view. I come to this forum to argue the facts, not to trade personal insults. If this stuff continues then I don't think I'll be coming back to this subforum (and, unless you're a scumbag, that was not an invitation to malign me further).[/QUOTE]


Right... what were we thinking... The opinion of someone who makes sure toasters work properly is of the same value as a person who has made it their lifes work to understand the biological processes of living beings.

I'm sorry we were all so blind to the truth.


Jesus Christ you smacktard. Scotty might have had a doctorate in engineering, but that doesn't mean hes a doctor I would want operating on me.
 
[quote name='chunk']Please. Engineers are as much scientists as anyone else, especially research engineers. I'm sorry you don't think applied scientists are real scientists. I think they are more scientists than those involved in theoretical bullshit and they certainly qualify as scientists more than someone like yourself.

We were talking about science, not engineering, so I cited my experience as a scientist. If you want to know my opinion on engineering I can give you that too, but I assure you that at the research level the distinction between a "natural scientist" and an "applied scientist" is negligible.

I fail to see how this is deception. I wholeheartedly consider myself a scientist and every natural scientist I've ever met considered both natural and applied scientists as well as engineers to be scientists. Furthermore, I think the general populace certainly considers engineers scientists because they think of things like space ships and computers as being created by scientists. Perhaps you disagree, but a disagreement does not constitute deception.

No, deception is deliberate and malicious, like the way you deliberately misquote my satirical statements out of context in order to mar my reputation in this forum.

I'm sick of you making personal attacks because you can't defend your point of view. I come to this forum to argue the facts, not to trade personal insults. If this stuff continues then I don't think I'll be coming back to this subforum (and, unless you're a scumbag, that was not an invitation to malign me further).[/QUOTE]

Wow glossing over your lies with paragraphs full of crap, how typical.:roll:

The general public does not consider electrical and computer engineers to be scientists, it considers you to be engineers. You lied deliberatley to increase your credibility in this topic. The greatest proof of this is your own omittance of what field of science you were in, you know very well that had you said I'm an electrical engineer and I'm an expert in science you would have been laughed out of the thread.

Calling yourself a scientist in the scientific community is nearly as great a farce. One expects scientist to have background knowledge in the three primary fields of biology, chemistry and physics. While you certainly have physics down pat your biology knowledge and experince is nothing short of a joke.

If you'd like to stay out of this and all the rest of the evolution topics now and in the future I'm sure a great many people would be quite happy, in fact I'd greatly encourage it.

Also I would have quoted your enitre lawn mowing statement but this site limits quotes to 500 characters. For this reason I chose the funniest part, you've got to admit that your example was so bad it was hilarious. If I had wanted to ruin your reputation I would have used quotes from the sperm donation thread.
 
Using chunk's thought process... can I say I'm a Gynocologist because I've had my fingers in a girl's vagina?
 
[quote name='Kayden']Using chunk's thought process... can I say I'm a Gynocologist because I've had my fingers in a girl's vagina?[/QUOTE]

Now I know you're lying - you've never touched a vagina! :D
 
[quote name='camoor']Now I know you're lying - you've never touched a vagina! :D[/QUOTE]

Careful, by saying I'm wrong, you're coming close to saying that chunk is right...
 
[quote name='Kayden']Careful, by saying I'm wrong, you're coming close to saying that chunk is right...[/QUOTE]

No, I'm pretty sure you can both be wrong.:D

And I've decided according to chunk's logic mechanics are sceintists also.
 
Chunk's using eggageration and hyperbole to get across a point? Well, I'll give him the credit of never resorting to more childish arguments; I respect his persistence.

That having been said, what little of this thread I've read reminds me of the euphemism "sanitation engineers," or something similar, which has (in some circles) become the official job designation for janitors.

myke.
...sanitation engineers indeed.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Right... what were we thinking... The opinion of someone who makes sure toasters work properly is of the same value as a person who has made it their lifes work to understand the biological processes of living beings.

I'm sorry we were all so blind to the truth.

Jesus Christ you smacktard. Scotty might have had a doctorate in engineering, but that doesn't mean hes a doctor I would want operating on me.[/QUOTE]

Your confusing subject matter with professions. You should be comparing a biologist (who's life work is to understand the biological processes of living beings) with a biological engineer (who's life work is to put that understanding to use). The former can say whatever he wants and claim "understanding", while the latter doesn't have such a luxury because he has to actually make it work in the real world. The understanding of the former has to pass only the criticism of others, but the understanding of the latter has to pass the criticism of mother nature. I would say that the biological engineer's opinion is definitely more valuable, but they are both certainly scientists.

Anyway, I really don't see what medical doctors have to do with any of this. They are another beast entirely, unlike natural scientists and unlike applied scientists.

[quote name='zionoverfire']Wow glossing over your lies with paragraphs full of crap, how typical.:roll:

The general public does not consider electrical and computer engineers to be scientists, it considers you to be engineers. You lied deliberatley to increase your credibility in this topic. The greatest proof of this is your own omittance of what field of science you were in, you know very well that had you said I'm an electrical engineer and I'm an expert in science you would have been laughed out of the thread.

Calling yourself a scientist in the scientific community is nearly as great a farce. One expects scientist to have background knowledge in the three primary fields of biology, chemistry and physics. While you certainly have physics down pat your biology knowledge and experince is nothing short of a joke.

If you'd like to stay out of this and all the rest of the evolution topics now and in the future I'm sure a great many people would be quite happy, in fact I'd greatly encourage it.

Also I would have quoted your enitre lawn mowing statement but this site limits quotes to 500 characters. For this reason I chose the funniest part, you've got to admit that your example was so bad it was hilarious. If I had wanted to ruin your reputation I would have used quotes from the sperm donation thread.[/QUOTE]

You claiming that I lie does not make it so. Stop trying to trick everybody. If want to convince anyone that I am lying then quote my lies right here and prove that I was intentionally deceiving. Of course, you can't do that because I didn't lie.

Anyway, if the general public doesn't consider electrical engineers scientists then they are sorely mistaken. I did not deliberately omit anything. I could have included a long discourse on my area of specialization, but I didn't because:
1. My posts were long enough already. So much so that peabrains like yourself couldn't stand reading them (and put me on ignore).
2. Credentials don't mean anything. My ideas stand on their own merits. I would hate for anyone to believe me because of my credentials rather than the validity of the ideas themselves.

Regarding what you think scientists should know (chemistry, biology, physics). I wouldn't necessarily say that every scientist should have a great deal of expertise in all three. I mean, I guess it is nice for you to think that, but I've never heard any scientist say that (although I have heard that every scientist should know, "the periodic table, thermodynamics, and differential equations"). Anyway, I haven't really discussed my understanding of biology at all. You are mistaking my gripes with some of the theories for a lack of understanding. Although, my level of understanding in biology isn't near my understanding of physics, I think I understand the basic theories just fine. I just don't agree with some of the methods and I'm certainly not alone in the scientific community (see the recent push towards "computational biology").

You haven't mentioned your credentials at all. Does that omission make you a liar as you are accusing me? Stop making a fool of yourself. You should have left it at a disagreement over evolution instead of trying to make outlandish statements about my personal character. I think it really shows that your whole motivation in all this is to simply make me look bad and that discredits your opinion.

Stop trying to take this whole thing out of context. My credentials were mentioned regarding the rigor of scientific standards, not regarding technical details of chemistry or biology. Even then, the only reason credentials were mentioned at all is because some of you foolishly hold on to credentials more than reason. So I gave you both credentials and reason, but still you refuse to even consider anything but your own ignorance.

Anyway, if you have anything to quote to show that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm lying then go ahead and quote it because so far you've pretty much fallen flat on your face.

[quote name='Kayden']Using chunk's thought process... can I say I'm a Gynocologist because I've had my fingers in a girl's vagina?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='zionoverfire']And I've decided according to chunk's logic mechanics are sceintists also.[/QUOTE]

It's obvious that neither of you idiots know what engineers are or what they do. Why don't you go read the Journal of Plasma Physics or any other scientific journal and see how many of the scientists that publish are engineers? It will be educational for you.

[quote name='mykevermin']That having been said, what little of this thread I've read reminds me of the euphemism "sanitation engineers," or something similar, which has (in some circles) become the official job designation for janitors.[/QUOTE]

Since so many here don't seem to have any understanding of what an engineer is (not you mykevermin), I'd just like to point out that the reason that "euphemism" is funny is because engineers are generally scientists and janitors are not.

[quote name='mykevermin']Chunk's using eggageration and hyperbole to get across a point? Well, I'll give him the credit of never resorting to more childish arguments; I respect his persistence.[/quote]

I don't think there is anything wrong with using exaggeration to get a point across. I find that it helps separate things into independent elements (like a painter using primary colors to paint a picture), but I can see that exaggerated examples haven't gone over well here. I'm not really sure why, since they seem to work very well when trying to understand things during scientific research and when discussing things with colleagues.

Anyway, I think I've gained all I'm going to gain from this experience (since now every discussion seems to burst into flames), but I will keep thinking about it and hopfully learn more from it. I won't let this experience go to waste. I'll continue thinking about the best ways to communicate ideas to people (even ornery or obstinate people) and I'll keep trying to understand conflicting perspectives. This will be my last post in "CAG politics". I'm sorry for losing my temper at times and thank you to those who have contributed to thoughtful discussion.
 
Let's see:
1. All that crap doesn't make you any less of a fraud.
2. You are on ignore but watching you try to dig yourself out of your own filth is as always to enjoyable to pass up.
3. Your posts are to damn long because you try to cover every part of an argument rather than focus on a main point. Write less and people might understand/ bother to read more of what you write.
 
en·gi·neer·ing Listen: [ nj-nîrng ]
n.


a. The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems. b. The profession of or the work performed by an engineer.

Skillful maneuvering or direction: geopolitical engineering; social engineering.
Click to expand...

Engineering is a science. Funny how the term "science and engineering" seems to roll off the tongue and go hand-in-hand with each other, isn't it? It's almost like they were meant to be together.

To engineer is to create, whether it be a creation of thought or of substance, the process is the same regardless of your overly narrow, personal definitions of "scientist" and "engineer".

Don't sweat it, chunk, some people are just jealous of others' achievements and can only retain self esteem by denigrating their superiors.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Engineering is a science. Funny how the term "science and engineering" seems to roll off the tongue and go hand-in-hand with each other, isn't it? It's almost like they were meant to be together.

To engineer is to create, whether it be a creation of thought or of substance, the process is the same regardless of your overly narrow, personal definitions of "scientist" and "engineer".

Don't sweat it, chunk, some people are just jealous of others' achievements and can only retain self esteem by denigrating their superiors.[/QUOTE]

Way to provide a quote that disproves your entire point.:applause:

The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Way to provide a quote that disproves your entire point.:applause:[/QUOTE]

:lol:

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Dear god, let this thread die a natural death, Chunk!!![/QUOTE]

Indeed.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Way to provide a quote that disproves your entire point.:applause:[/QUOTE]

You didn't bother to read or understand the 'entire point'.

Engineering is a science in and of itself of using scientific principles for practical ends.

To dismiss his claim as being a scientist out of hand shows your lack of grasp of the entire concept of science, the scientific method, and engineering sciences.

I guess you think only 'true' scientists just sit around and think up ideas all day that have no basis in reality. Then the engineer just copies the scientists mental blueprints to create something, never having applied any of his own thought in the process. The point is that 'science' and 'engineering' are not seperate and black and white as you are trying to define.

My father is an automotive engineer. I would argure he is also a scientist. He addresses a problem, creates a hypothesis, makes careful observations based on controlled experiments, then solves a problem by theorizing a solution. How is this not science ?
 
I thought we dealt with this issue. An engineer may be a type of scientist, but its not neccisarily the same type of scientist that deals with biology.

chuck was trying to pass of his degree in "thoughtless application of others work" as a degree that would certify him as an authority on evolution.

No one said engineering isn't a scientific persuit. We just said chunk was an ass for trying to push an electric engineering degree as a reason for us to read his long-winded babble about evolution.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
Engineering is a science in and of itself of using scientific principles for practical ends.
[/QUOTE]

Again you said it, why add all the extra paragraphs?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']My father is an automotive engineer. I would argure he is also a scientist. He addresses a problem, creates a hypothesis, makes careful observations based on controlled experiments, then solves a problem by theorizing a solution. How is this not science ?[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't trust your father to perform surgery on the human/animal body.

Likewise, I fail to see how the value of being an ee major contributes to one's scientific authority on the theory of evolution beyond having a basic understanding of the scientific method.
 
[quote name='camoor']I wouldn't trust your father to perform surgery on the human/animal body.

Likewise, I fail to see how the value of being an ee major contributes to one's scientific authority on the theory of evolution beyond having a basic understanding of the scientific method.[/QUOTE]

Then again, even chunks grasp on the scientific method is in question.
 
[quote name='camoor']I wouldn't trust your father to perform surgery on the human/animal body.

Likewise, I fail to see how the value of being an ee major contributes to one's scientific authority on the theory of evolution beyond having a basic understanding of the scientific method.[/QUOTE]

My father could also be a medical doctor, or perhaps have a PhD in geology. Would he then be considered a 'scientist' ?

I really don't understand the hate here. If chunk has delusions of grandeur, why make such a fuss about it ? I have more of a problem of his elitist attitude toward the janitorial sciences.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']My father could also be a medical doctor, or perhaps have a PhD in geology. Would he then be considered a 'scientist' ?

I really don't understand the hate here. If chunk has delusions of grandeur, why make such a fuss about it ? I have more of a problem of his elitist attitude toward the janitorial sciences.[/QUOTE]

Not to get off the train with your arguement but:

Yes, he would be a scientist if he was a doctor or geologist. However he would not have an authoritative view of evolution unless he was a biologist or cross-disiplinary scientist who specialized in understanding what caused plants and animals to appear and act the way that they do today.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Dear god, let this thread die a natural death, Chunk!!![/QUOTE]

Sorry. I said that would be my last post, but I feel compelled to defend myself from slander and misinformation. Especially since some of these jackasses feel the need to bring their trolling into other forums. I'd like to continue trading on CAG and I can't let false accusations of fraud continue because nobody wants to trade with a fraud. You can call me a lot of things, but a fraud is definitely not one of them. Hopefully, the lies will stop so that this can be my last post in "CAG Politics".

[quote name='zionoverfire']Let's see:
1. All that crap doesn't make you any less of a fraud.
2. You are on ignore but watching you try to dig yourself out of your own filth is as always to enjoyable to pass up.
3. Your posts are to damn long because you try to cover every part of an argument rather than focus on a main point. Write less and people might understand/ bother to read more of what you write.[/QUOTE]

1. No, all that crap means precisely that I am not a fraud. Everyone in this forum except you recognizes that engineers are scientists. I am an engineer. Therefore I am a scientist and there is nothing fraudulent about me claiming to be a scientist. Even if you disagree you can't justify calling me a fraud because I earnestly believe that engineers are scientists as does anyone else that knows what science and engineering are.

2. I won't address #2 because I don't even understand what you are saying there. It just looks like mindless flames to me, but if there is something meaningful that you are trying to say there then please clarify.

3. [sarcasm]Oh yeah, I'm sure if I were to just focus on the main parts then you wouldn't completely ignore them and attack the lesser points which I didn't mention such as my area of specialization as a scientist.[/sarcasm]

Why don't you just say what you mean more plainly, which is, "Stop making your arguments so thorough. It would be much easier for me to deny that you are right if you didn't cover every part of the argument. As it is I have to resort to name calling (fraud, fraud, fraud!) because you've already addressed all valid criticisms."

Oh wait, I shouldn't have said that because you will edit out the quotes and put it in your sig in an attempt to deceive everyone and make me look bad.

[quote name='Kayden']I thought we dealt with this issue. An engineer may be a type of scientist, but its not neccisarily the same type of scientist that deals with biology.[/quote]

What? Are you even reading this thread? I thought we established that a biological engineer and a biologists are both scientists that deal with biology. One just has an emphasis on making things work in the real world while the other has an emphasis on fundamentals.

[quote name='Kayden']chuck was trying to pass of his degree in "thoughtless application of others work" as a degree that would certify him as an authority on evolution.[/quote]

No, no I wasn't. See my response to camoor below.

[quote name='Kayden']No one said engineering isn't a scientific persuit.[/quote]
What do you call this?:
[quote name='zionoverfire']You (an engineer) are not a practicing scientist you are a practicing electrical engineer.
...
The general public does not consider...engineers to be scientists, it considers you to be engineers.
...
Calling yourself (an engineer) a scientist in the scientific community is nearly as great a farce.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Kayden']We just said chunk was an ass for trying to push an electric engineering degree as a reason for us to read his long-winded babble about evolution.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't pushing anything like that at all. Some people were trying to say that my understanding of the scientific method is not in agreement with the scientific community and I was simply pointing out that that is impossible because I am part of the scientific community. Your choice to keep yourself ignorant and in the dark by refusing to read anything longer than a paragraph has nothing to do with the mention of my scientific background.

[quote name='camoor']I wouldn't trust your father to perform surgery on the human/animal body.[/QUOTE]

Neither would I, just like I wouldn't trust my surgeon to design an airplane. What does that have to do with anything?

[quote name='camoor']Likewise, I fail to see how the value of being an ee major contributes to one's scientific authority on the theory of evolution beyond having a basic understanding of the scientific method.[/QUOTE]

I agree completely, which is why all my arguments regarding evolution depend wholly on its fulfillment of the scientific method.

[quote name='Kayden']Then again, even chunks grasp on the scientific method is in question.[/QUOTE]

Your lack of understanding of the scientific method does not call my understanding into question. You have demonstrated neither the qualifications to refute my understanding nor any alternative understanding, probably because you realize that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and that I would tear your "understanding" of the scientific method to shreds.

This is why I might appear to have delusions of grandeur. Because people like you that don't know what the hell you are talking about throw out barbarous comments. I know you are a quack. I know you haven't backed up anything you say with an argument. I know you don't have any qualifications (not that this means anything, but I suppose some others in this forum would let you coast along on qualifications without having an argument). So why do I respond? Because it pisses me off! I'm sorry. I can't help insulting you with belittling comments when you insult me without even making an attempt to back up what you have to say.

I don't believe that you are less intelligent or a lesser person than me in any way, but you sure are acting like it and I don't know how else to handle it other than to show everyone that you are making comments that are not only childish and insulting, but completely devoid of intelligent thought. If you said that my grasp of the scientific method is in question and backed it up with an argument then I would not call you an idiot, but you can't expect to insult someone like a child and not get a belittling backlash. The same goes for all the others that I have belittled.
 
[quote name='chunk']
1. No, all that crap means precisely that I am not a fraud. Everyone in this forum except you recognizes that engineers are scientists. [/QUOTE]

No they don't, but hey at least this argument was new.:applause:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top