What values are important to scientists?

February 14, 2016
If you're not curious, you're probably not a real scientist, says an MSU study. Credit: Kurt Stepnitz

While many people are marking today scrutinizing the virtues of their Valentines, Michigan State University revealed a first-of-its-kind study on the virtues and values of scientists.

The study, presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., surveyed nearly 500 astronomers, biologists, chemists, physicists and earth to identify the core traits of exemplary scientists.

The subjects selected were scientists who had been honored by their respective national organization or society, and the results show that above all, these researchers hold honesty and curiosity in the highest regard, said Robert Pennock, a professor in MSU's Lyman Briggs College and leader of the study.

"If you're not curious, you're probably not a real scientist," he said. "The goal that you have is to find out something true about the world, regardless of what your preferred hypothesis might be. Your real drive is to find what is revealed by the data. This is absolutely essential in being a scientist."

If someone is dishonest and going to the extreme of faking data, that person is not really a scientist in the true sense, Pennock added.

Those surveyed, using a scale from zero to ten, were asked to rate attentiveness, collaborative, courage, curiosity, honesty, humility to evidence, meticulousness, objectivity, perseverance and skepticism with regard to their importance for scientific research.

Once they scored each trait, the scientists were asked how each characteristic is or isn't expressed in science. The subjects also were asked to identify the three most-important virtues.

The study revealed a tacit moral code in scientific culture - one that most researchers hope to be able to pass on to their students, Pennock said.

"The results will have some implications for teaching science," said Pennock, who conducted the study with Jon Miller of the University of Michigan. "Our teaching shouldn't stop with the content or science processes. Cultivating the values - like honesty and curiosity - that underlie science should be a part of education."

Underscoring the importance of instilling desirable traits in the next generation of scientists, the study tackled how exemplary scientists preserve and transmit these values to their students.

A whopping 94 percent of scientists believe scientific values and virtues can be learned. The number dropped a bit, though, when asked if these traits are actually being transmitted to current graduate students.

"It's encouraging that 4 out of 5 scientists believe that their values are being embraced by the next generation of students," Pennock said. "However, it's somewhat troubling that 22 percent of the scientists surveyed see these valued traits eroding a bit."

With stories of falsified results making headlines, it's known that some scientists not only fail to achieve these ideals but directly violate them.

Science is a truth-seeking enterprise. Based on this study, researchers violating this unwritten code of conduct may not be scientists in the truest sense, Pennock said.

"Researchers who commit such misconduct are not merely violating some regulatory requirements, but they also are violating - in a deep way - what it means to be a scientist," he said.

Explore further: Focus on exams 'hinders development of character' in British school children

Related Stories

Americans' support for science remains strong

February 13, 2016

A large majority of Americans have favorable views of science and scientists, believing that the benefits from science outweigh any negatives and agree that science and technology will create more opportunities for future ...

First nationwide survey of climate change education

February 11, 2016

How is climate change being taught in American schools? Is it being taught at all? And how are teachers addressing climate change denial in their classrooms, schools, and school districts?

US bringing up the middle on gender-science stereotyping

June 3, 2015

Gender stereotyping in which men are more strongly associated with science than women has been found in some unlikely countries, with the Netherlands leading the list and the United States in the middle at 38th, according ...

Recommended for you

Major Viking Age manor discovered at Birka, Sweden

January 19, 2017

During spring of 2016 a number of large presumed house terraces were identified by the authors at Korshamn. As a consequence high resolution geophysical surveys using ground-penetrating radar were carried out in September ...

176 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ogg_ogg
4.3 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2016
First, not to be cynical or anything, but Social Scientists, such as the authors of this research, are very likely to falsify or otherwise misrepresent or mis-analyze their research. 2 out of 3 papers evaluated aren't replicable. Second, you can not determine a person's values by asking him/her: the only way to do it is to observe them in contexts where they must choose between various alternatives, that is at crunch time. I note that these guys (research subjects) are at the "top" of their professions and yet report their students aren't being provided with the "right" training. If not them, who? If not now, when? There seems to be an obvious contradiction there.
promile
Feb 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PhysicsMatter
2 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2016
They do not teach courses like "Ethics and Methodology of Science" in colleges these days since that would clash with corporate nature of our University system.

So asking scientists to be ethical is a mute point. When corporate bosses are happy, money flowing and nobody dares to challenge anything even editors referees, everything goes.

The editorial process of any publication sadly that includes so-called scientific publications has been and will always be skewed under pressure and "established authorities", private or government funding or commercial business as it is extremely pronounced especially in medical services and pharmaceutical industry where billions of dollars are at stake.

The scientific research is paved by stories of rejected and never
published breakthrough papers which only much later we unearthed by third
party.
PhysicsMatter
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2016
History of science is a patient witness to countless published volumes of thoughtless panegyrics masquerading as a science, excreted by top academics, in quest for their self-aggrandizement and financial gain and dedicated solely to
grandeur of their illustrious sponsors.

The same is happening now. The truth is that if you have revolutionary idea in science it is promptly squashed unless you come from so-called "prestigious" institution well endowed by "industry" or have as important "non-contributing" co-authors in your author list ready to benefit or profit from your hard work. The cancer of corporatism of scientific research and academia makes thing worse since is adding another layer or barrier to overcome corporate interests in addition to egos of "established" authorities.
PhysicsMatter
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2016
The wider problem is in catastrophic collapse of funding and erratic scrambling of scientists for leftover bread crumbs of research money sometimes by filing thirty or more research proposal a year everywhere practically begging for just few thousands $ creating conditions for severe conflict of interest and moral dilemmas.

Under such duress, especially young scientists cannot afford to confront any ideas worshiped by members of proposal review panels. It leads inevitably strait to mediocrity and opportunism both killers of true science while proliferate volumes of incoherent utterances. Open any scientific journal and examine for yourself mostly re-warmed half-century-old ideas and outright baseless speculations presented as facts.
PhysicsMatter
3 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2016
The fairness in reviewing of scientific papers is and will always depend of sense of individual morality and ethics of reviewer always under strong pressure from vested interests to support or bury the reports as well as responsibility for scientific community as a whole and its relevance in social context. Virtues desperately lack in today's business of science.

More interesting observations about calcified scientific establishment I found at:
https://contraria...science/
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2016
The fairness in reviewing of scientific papers is and will always depend of sense of individual morality and ethics of reviewer always under strong pressure from vested interests

Huh? Vested interests? What vested interests does a reviewer have?

And you forget that review is not done by one person but by several (who do not know of each other) . If one has an axe to grind that quickly shows up - and that person will have a hard time in future (for one they will not be asked to peer review anything anymore, so any "influence" they thought they could yield would drop to zero almost instantly)

I think you know nothing about how science - and especially the peer review process - works
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2016
But why and how Cook should cite the sources, if his approach is very new?

You cite literature to show that you are aware of the state of the art. You also cite literature that you are at odds with so that you can show where you are at odds with them and why your approach is better.

If this guy did not bother to check the state of the art or show where it is wrong then a good portion of what makes a publication is missing...of course will such papers get rejected. (But he can still publish on arxiv or similar)
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2016
And the ArXiv is not official platform or even peer-reviewed platform in any way..

If doesn't bother with writing a peer reviewable paper then he doesn't get peer reviewed.

And there are other open source publishing platforms besides arxiv. I'm sure there's somewhere where he can upload his stuff.

The lattice calculations of mass of proton took months of processor time, dozens of constant of Standard Model - and yet they're valid only with precision around 5%.

There you have it then. Did he cite those? No? Then he didn't check the state of the art.

And Einstein also didn't cite any his predecessors of special relativity in his works.

Einstein didn't go through peer review a lot of the time. It was a different time (when mostly serious scientists did science...and cranks limited themselves to selling snake oil because there was nothing to be gained from publishing crank papers)
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2016
The lattice QCD calculations are computer simulations and they cannot be compared with any explicit formulas. It's simply a quite different approach.

It doesn't matter that it's a different approach. It is the state of the art and therefore the author must show he is aware of this. Exactly BECAUSE it is a different approach to the same issue is why the author needs to show he is aware of this.

As for excessive length: Journals do have a length limit (since his formulas are supposedly 'easy' brevity should be no problem). If you expect to just dump anything in a journal's lap and let them deal with it you are living in a dream world. The standards for papers (structure, length, formatting, legibility, ... ) are very much spelled out by each journal.

utilizes the LeSage model

Since LeSage model contradicts observation it's resigned to the scrap heap of scientific history. Observation trumps theory. Always.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2016
You're probably not aware, that the LeSage model is based on observations, so it cannot contradict them. But it actually doesn't matter here, we're discussing socioeconomic limits of scientific inquisitiveness.

No. YOU were griping about a crank not getting published (and other cranks like cold fusion not getting anywhere)

it seems like you seek out stuff that has been shown not to work and champion it. Quite the Don Quixote syndrome you got there.
http://apps.elsev...01_2.pdf

The rest of your posts is - as ususal - blurry gobbeldy-gook.

Hint: Using technical terms does not make one a scientist.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2016
At the very end, even if the scientists find something really useful, it gets censored with governments and grant agencies
@ZEPH
1- linking to your personal reddit page as supporting evidence is like promoting the bible as factual scientific text - only the true believers in your delusion are going to take you seriously or consider linking to your page
2- are you phishing for peoples information linking your personal site?
3- just because you " seek out stuff that has been shown not to work and champion it" (AA_P above) and *believe* in the grand conspiracy to "censor" or suppress evidence doesn't mean it is real any more than owning a garage makes you a NASA shuttle commander
4- patenting something doesn't mean it works NOR does it mean it is legit (see hydrino's) and, especially true, it DOESN'T mean it is suppressed scientific evidence either... it only means that someone patented it (see self-drying toilet seat or anti-gravity flying machine)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph cont'd
i am not even going to bother to read most of your crap because it all boils down to this
The scientists are simply people, who don't actually care, if their research is useful or not - once there is some opportunity to collect new facts or connections, they just utilize it
1- this is called a "false claim" as defined here: http://www.auburn...ion.html

2- this is a serious cognitive bias you have called a Confirmation Bias: you intentionally seek out any information that you feel supports your own personal beliefs ignoring the whole or any information that refutes it

this is proven in your refusal to accept evidence falsifying aether
it is also validated by your continued assessment of any mainstream science

what you ignore is the overwhelming evidence that the problematic scientists are a serious minority

how many retracted vs good papers in the last year? 2 yrs? 3? 10?
crunch the numbers and get back to us
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph last post
these are just most flagrant examples of scientific ignorance. The scientific ignorance clearly is scientific fact and it does follows simply from limited timeframe of people, who are facing the increasing volume of information
mostly your above posts are not only False Claims (as defined in the above link) but the arguments of:

Special Pleading: https://en.wikipe...pleading

as well as:
the Celestial Teapot: https://en.wikipe...s_teapot

you've offered your belief as factual evidence and cited your personal webpage (called phishing, also) as evidence (circular argument - this is also consipiracist ideation)

then you make claims that are not supported by evidence, but expect us to accept the claim as factual or real

point being: the overwhelming evidence states that the peer review system and science is the best system we've had to date

not infallible, but far better than the crank alternative you suggest
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
Every finding and researcher, who got forward just a bit in it has been ignored
False Claim as well as exaggeration of reality (delusion) while not providing evidenciary proof
this is what you *believe* to be true, thus it is special pleading as well as celestial teapot
re-read those definitions
Ignored, never replicated
assumption. never replicated may well be that it was not capable of being replicated OR that the volume of research was focused in a more productive and probable area of possibilities (like your problem with CF)

again, from what you've just presented above, you are making ASSumptions about the overall state based upon a minor sampling and ignoring the overwhelming amount of the presented data published

this is validation of my points above

when you can present ALL the numbers and facts and it supports your claim, then you may well have an argument (or at least a testable hypothesis for validation/refute via the scientific method)
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph cont'd
How the gravitational waves were found?
until you learn the scientific method you will never be able to refute the science... just because you *believe* in something doesn't make it true... i've been telling you this for years now and you still haven't learned it

to prove something, you first need evidence, and singular events (even multiple scattered events) are not proof unless you can demonstrate that they overwhelm the whole or can establish the pattern of behaviour ON THE WHOLE
when you speak of the above events (5 examples stated) but ignore the whole ( https://scholar.g...as_sdtp= About 530,000 results ) then you make a false claim as well as ASSumption based upon your own personal biases, so YES, you are simply validating my claims about your bias and tactics
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
Every finding and researcher, who got forward just a bit in it has been ignored
This is perfectly true
@Zeph
if it were "perfectly true" you would be able to present valid viable evidence from a reputable source that would be supported by research as well as scrutiny... you are instead posting your personal perspective and you've linked your personal site above...

how is that evidence?
It's very easy to disprove my claim by linking publication, which is publishing such a replication
did you not read Celestial Teapot?... first line
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others
https://en.wikipe...s_teapot

you are religious in your fanatical tenacity of your belief
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph
so... to paraphrase you:

YOU claim that "science ignores CF/superconductors/aether/etc" and it is nonsensical for ME to believe YOU on the ground that I cannot prove YOU wrong
...even though a simple search of the present day publications on ANY of your subjects (from a reputable source: https://scholar.google.com/ - not just *any* source) completely invalidates your claims

is that about it?

now read this: from the celestial teapot argument
Russell wrote that, if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the ground that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God
sound familiar? it is your religious-like argument straight out of the link i gave here: https://en.wikipe...s_teapot
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph last point
So far we have about ten reports of room temperature superconductivity from independent sources
so... ten out of 530,000... that is .00188679% of the whole (a major point i was making above)
so where is that on the sigma scale ?
how would that stand up in, say... a court of law, where you would be required to present viable evidence supporting your conclusions stated above?
it sure as h*ll doesn't validate your claim of "perfectly true" and it specifically as well as directly refutes your claim of "The lack of ATTEMPTS for replication is infallible indicia of scientific ignorance, because the scientific attitude is supposed to be based on inquisitiveness and replication of findings"

IOW - standing in a garage doesn't make you a toyota
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
Just show me some peer-reviewed attempt for replication of room temperature superconductivity finding - or stop with twaddling... If you have 530.000 articles in portfolio, it shouldn't be so difficult for you...:-)
@zeph
1- the burden of proof is upon YOU - you made the claim so prove it
2- https://en.wikipe...s_teapot

3- it should also, reciprocally, be easy for you to utilize the above 530,000 results to "prove" your point (unless you have a literacy problem)
I'm not so religious as you may think
1- i segregate between religion and a faith: you have both. you "believe" what you say about science/aether, etc and then set up "rules" or tenets (a religion) that is inviolable and also not falsifiable (see: Celestial Teapot)
2- just because you don't talk of gods doesn't mean you don't have a religion

you are promoting a known fallacy as well as pushing non-falsifiable belief wrapped in conspiracy not supported by evidence
IOW- religion
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph cont'd
as I do believe only submitted evidence - and so far you haven't provided any
but that is also what you submitted... NOTHING

you haven't provided any evidence for your claim, but somehow it is more viable or valid than my request for evidence of your claim?
that is a great big WTF as well as the very definition of Celestial Teapot... or didn't you read the link?
wanna try that, just for once? because it IS evidence of your argument tactic as well as validation of your lack of evidence: https://en.wikipe...s_teapot

Or do you want to claim, that so far no room temperature finding has been ever published?
WTF are you ranting about?

like i said: provide evidence of your claim that is from a reputable site and can be validated and you will be set up for a nobel with your paper

"it's your move by now" - time to put up or shut up

where is the evidence?
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
@Zeph
a lesson in your particular tactic:

most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear. They are motivated to believe what they do, and unless those motivations change, it is unlikely they will be swayed by rational argument... their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning
We may consider two general premises: the first, premise S, represents what the scientific community in general thinks is the case. The second, premise C, is what conspiracy theorists think is true.
Premise C, the conspiracy position, is that scientists are motivated to increase their funding (or support a green ideology, or both) by making extreme and unwarranted predictions about the dire consequences of [insert claim here]

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph cont'd

The devilish part is that confirming instances of Premise S are also confirming instances of Premise C. Whenever a result is published supporting that [insert claim here], that result also supports the idea that scientists are once again feathering their collective nests by appealing to fear. Each theory is strengthened, according to its proponents.
Premise S could be falsified if we found evidence showing ...evidence against [insert claim here]... But that same evidence would be seen by conspiracy theorists as the truth finally emerging from beneath the layers of suppression

this is, paraphrased, your exact method of attack above
it is also paraphrased (removing the "climate change" ref) from the following:
phys.org/news/2014-10-ironclad-logic-conspiracy-theories.html

check the heading "science vs conspiracy"

it matches your argument above
therefore, your argument is conspiracist ideation and religion (IOW- tenacious clinging to dogma over science)
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
Can you read?
@zeph
CAN YOU?
Just show me some peer-reviewed attempt for replication of room temperature superconductivity finding - and I will admit the defeat.. It's really as easy as it is.. :-)
is it? you stated
I do believe only submitted evidence
and yet you have historically ignored and attempted to redefine all the historical evidence i've provided, time and again, against every debunked falsified hypothesis you've promoted, from aether and dense aether to cold fusion

therefore, when you state the above, while mimicking the celestial teapot argument as well as almost verbatim replicating the argument of conspiracist ideation as stated in the above linked article ( phys.org/news/2014-10-ironclad-logic-conspiracy-theories.html ) then we can state with authority that you will simply lie or ignore the evidence ANYONE presents to you...

it also still doesn't let you off the hook: the burden of proof is upon you, not i

you made the claim, now prove it
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph cont'd
I never mentioned any conspiracy
lie - examples of conspiracist ideation and your belief
At the very end, even if the scientists find something really useful, it gets censored with governments and grant agencies

The scientists are simply people, who don't actually care, if their research is useful or not - once there is some opportunity to collect new facts or connections, they just utilize it

Every finding and researcher, who got forward just a bit in it has been ignored
then you invalidly assign your reasoning
the pluralistic ignorance is much more widespread and the auto-censorship is much more reliable, than some potential conspiracy.
not only do you mis-assign pluralistic ignorance but you misinterpret it due to your conspiratorial leanings (already historically proven and demonstrated YET AGAIN above)

i state again:
the burden of proof is upon you, not i

you made the claim, now prove it
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
Not at all, you probably "haven't realize" your situation
@zephir
besides being a perfect example of the celestial teapot argument, this is just saying "Nuh-uh! i must be right because i said so and you can't prove that my [outlandish] claim is wrong because you won't read 530,000 papers"
I made claim, that the scientists are ignorant to breakthrough findings and I did provide six examples of this ignorance
even going from 5 to 6 instances, it is still debunked by the link i provided which completely demonstrates your conspiracist ideation as well as bias and celestial teapot argument
this is my hypothesis and my evidence for it
by the way... it is NOT evidence
you provided PERSONAL CONJECTURE based upon your interpretation of the above "evidence", which is interpreted with conspiracist ideation etc

this is proven by demonstration above and reinforced by links/references i provided
2Bcont'd
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph cont'd
also note: the burden of proof is still upon you as you have NOT provided a viable, reputable link to evidence that supports your conclusions and interpretations of the papers (or examples) you listed

given that:
you listed 6 "instances" in 530,000 papers
AND
the minuscule amount is indicative of neither trend nor proof or validation of your claims
AND
your argument self-references to a site that is known for fallacious claims (not reputable, phishing, etc)
THEN
the only conclusion is that you not only didn't prove your point, but you are attempting to justify your belief with circular reasoning as well as conspiracist ideation and delusional belief

as i stated: the burden of proof is on you to justify your claim with reputable evidence

you've not been able to give that
you've only given personal opinion highly affected by delusional belief systems

the evidence is still above and in my favour (including the 530,000 papers on G-scholar)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
The scientists are indeed curious, but once some solution if found, whole the research ends and their inquisitiveness would be frustrated
@zeph
false claim as well as argument from ignorance
with every success (and failure) there is always more questions, starting with "why?"
this is a reflection of your personal bias and conspiracist leanings
So that the scientists must remain curious - but not so much, so that their research can continue for ever
again, assumption based upon personal bias (and personal habits)
You *might* be able to prove this for a couple of scientists, but the overall attitude (of scientists) is one of continued investigation of "why"

this demonstrates and re-validates my argument YET AGAIN
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
Of course, we could also rise darker if not criminal aspects of the same situation
@zeph
but that is what you've already ASSumed based upon your above posts... you ASSume that everyone is like you
What can you tell me about this interpretation?
other than you are already making the same ASSumption about all scientists above anyway?
until something is proven, it is speculation (hearsay) and, at best, you've provided only circumstantial evidence of anything (all based upon your personal interpretation), and that is specific to a small minority and not applicable to the whole

evidence must be reputable and concrete, but you are giving speculative or personally biased interpretations

i tend to judge an argument based upon the EVIDENCE presented, and you've not been able to make a viable argument nor present reputable evidence

and i will NOT apply a prejudice (no different from racism/sexism etc) based upon the actions of a few vs. the whole
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
So are you proposing not to target or even punish six crimes
@zeph
you are being really intentionally stupid today, eh?
1- prove there was a crime
2- i never said i wouldn't punish a crime... but you still need to prove it existed WITH EVIDENCE that is reputable
Do you think, six murders per year are still acceptable and it shouldn't be prosecuted?
do you think you should give up your computer and GPS since you argue for the existence of a known falsified hypothesis?
quit pushing for a flame war...
What if these murders were just about most significant political leaders, who could improve the life all of us?
doesn't matter. and i don't care about position over law
why would i absolve another for the commission of a crime when i will not overlook my own minor mistakes?

BUT
i will not judge something that i can't find evidence for, either

this is where your problem comes in, BTW
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
every group of scientists (or politicians or whatever else) can be just as ethical, as ethical are the people, who are sponsoring their activity from taxes
@zeph
this is an assumption that is not exactly supported by evidence,and it means that, and this is the perfect analogy because it makes the exact same assumptions you are making...
it means that you are every bit a criminal because of the war atrocities known to frequent your own physical location and nation
So if you decided to ignore the ignorance of scientists, it's OK, it's your private decision
i do NOT ignore the ignorance of the scientists... you just CAN'T PROVE that the scientists are ignorant of anything
you are making ASSSSSSumptions (as well as making an ass out of yourself) becuase you are making what is known as a false claim (see: http://www.auburn...ion.html ) AND you are promoting it as factual without proof

Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph cont'd
but you shouldn't prohibit the others in doing it instead of you
i am not prohibiting anyone, i am pointing out the logical fallacy of your ASSumptions and the fact that you are not able to bring evidence of your claims to support a conclusion you are promoting as factual

remember:
ANYONE who uses critical thinking skills needs a way to validate a claim (references)

someone who chooses to accept your site over the peer review system is obviously seeking only self validation or validation of a delusion because of the lack of reputable evidence

seeking to validate a conspiracy (or delusion) is explained above, and it is NOT science any more than you are the pope

this is the problem with most cranks: you can't see reality because of the intentional bias and refusal to accept evidence

that is not my problem, that is YOURS
it is also not "prohibiting" any true believer to accept your fallacies

i only prevent the promotion of pseudoscience
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
They're just ignoring the findings, which threaten more scientific jobs and grants, than they promise in a given moment
@Zeph
and you still haven't been able to provide REPUTABLE evidence of this... only personal biased conjecture of your "interpretations" of what you believe to be true based upon... who knows!
1) So according to you the claims of blah blah 2) It's fully OK not to publish blah blah whine cry bohoo blah Yes or not?
i made NO claims, nor will i make any
the reason: you are trying to distract away from your original fallacious claim that has no evidenciary merit and trying to refocus on a non-relevant topic in order to create the illusion of legitimacy

just from this last post that i quoted you above...
where is THE EVIDENCE that:
1- they're ignoring the findings
2- it's because it "threaten more scientific jobs and grants" etc

as for your #3... you are trying a red herring distraction and lying about me why?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2016
It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.

That is one of my favorite quotes out of one my favorite science books. He is called "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" about making the first atomic bombs and the science discoveries that lead up to even knowing there could be such a thing. The quote is from Robert Oppenheimer.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
So according to you the call for replication of apparently important and useful findings is a pseudoscience? Yes or not?


You can call for it all you want Cher. That is fine and dandy. The question you should be answering is: "Why doesn't somebody answer your call and come replicate it so it can be published?"
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
So you're incompetent for any factual discussion about it
@zeph
no, it means you are incompetent in that you can't provide evidence of your claims
see also Ira's quote
It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them
VERY relevant! LMFAO
You even cannot confirm...
actually, you are mistaken
(@Blue - sorry, gotta use caps for emphasis)
i CHOOSE not to be distracted by your tactics into a secondary irrelevant argument

i CHOOSE to keep attempting to focus you on the ORIGINAL argument presented, which you have given NO EVIDENCE

should i start re-quoting you from my first posts?

i would like to thank you, though, for providing a perfect description of the celestial argument as well as various other tactics of the cranks (red herring, false assumptions, blatant redirection, circular reasoning, etc)
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph cont'd
OK, I will return to discussion with you, after you answer the first question
re-read this:
and yet you have historically ignored and attempted to redefine all the historical evidence i've provided, time and again, against every debunked falsified hypothesis you've promoted, from aether and dense aether to cold fusion
given that you can't even provide evidence of your own conclusions stated above
AND
given that you steadfastly refuse to offer supporting REPUTABLE evidence of your claims
AND
given your historical tactics
THEN
we can surmise that: you're full of sh*t when you stated "I will return to discussion with you, after you answer the first question"

you still haven't actually answered ANY of mine!

ROTFLMFAO
The scientists who are covering the sucessfull findingsblah blah blah It's simply scientific taboo
CONSPIRACIST IDEATION at it's finest!

ROTFLMFAO
you are a hoot to watch in action
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
They even don't attempt to disprove it for not to attract the unwanted attention of publics.
That was not the question was it? The question is where are the guys who can prove it? If it can be done, isn't there one person in the whole world of 8 billions of peoples that is willing to step up and do it so the truth will be revealed?

It's simply scientific taboo with all its consequences.

Peoples doing science stuffs have the unbroken history of ignoring taboos and making the "Powers That Be" eat crow.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
Actually, the really important findings usually did come completely unexpected, thus rising the questions about actual usefulness of scientific method.
I don't really have the chops to say this for a fact because I am not a professional trained scientist so it is only my opinion.

But it seems to me that the science method is essential so that when the "new" and "unexpected" shows up, you have the reason and mental discipline to recognize it for what it is. I do not think I can think of any scientist in modern times that jumped up and said "Hooyeei, I didn't see that coming, I guess I just proved god".
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
The publishing of attempt for replication even doesn't require to get into success - yet, as you can see, we still have any published report of any of ten known findings of room temperature superconductivity. Nope, really - we still haven't.

Well you are not making any sense with that line of thought. If they haven't been published, how do you know about them?

Dare you explain, why is it so?

Sure I will take that dare, I don't have any skin in the game. Is it because there is nothing to publish? Choot, even the silly EU peoples get their foolishment into print.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
I can even agree fully with it
@zeph
then you didn't understand it!
Really, you just dismissed to talk about ...
blatant lying doesn't become you and validates my claims above

i dismissed your attempts to redirect the conversation from the original topic
Actually it's just stupid ostrich tactics
so... asking you to stay on topic so that we can move in a logical methodical order is "ostrich tactics"?ROTFLMFAO
proves you are not well versed in the scientific method, BTW

what i want: evidence proving your initial claims (I quoted above-my first post, etc)

WHEN we get evidence (or admission of blatantly false claim) for point 1, we move to point 2, & so on until we get to point WTF you're asking

this is being methodical and covering the bases (something any good investigator or scientist does)

it is not admitting anything, nor hiding from anything
it is simply trying to keep focus and present logical evidenciary argument
IOW- SCIENCE
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
so... zeph...

ya can't provide evidence, so you ASSume that it is the fault of the scientists (proven above) while ignoring that it could be the fact that there isn't evidence to find (have you read all 530,000 links?)

we're the "pluralistic ignorant ostrich" hiding our heads despite you can't actually prove anything

you can't actually validate your own claims, so you want US to validate ours (except that we are the ones asking YOU for validation)
IOW- celestial teapot

your celestial teapot isn't working (neither is the distraction or red herring) so you decide to chuck it and break out the sock army...
because somehow you believe that it WILL validate your claims or make them "righteous" and somehow that supports your original false claims??

but you want everyone else to play fair and only promote what YOU believe in?
with NO evidence?

and you can't see how that is no different than religious indoctrination?

really?
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
Both of you are apparent amateurs
yeah, because only amateurs would ask you to validate extraordinary claims with evidence... no scientist ever would... Ri-i-ight
is that a line from your new stand up routine?
The similarity with Russians who are adoring Putin...It's the same trait of psychology
so, by using your own criteria and applying it to you, that means you are a rapist, murderer as well as war criminal because of your support for your community and residence?
and that seems logical to you?
but you? Completely irrational
that defines every post you've done above as well as a great many of the others elsewhere...

point being: you still offer NO PROOF, but we're the ones "fu*ed"
(BTW- what is "fu*ed"- fuzed? fuled? fumed? or are you still unfamiliar with spelling, grammar, literacy and word counts?)
You even cannot admit
so... you can't prove your comments so it is MY fault?
and that is rational to you?
ROTFLMFAO
thanks
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
If they haven't been published, how do you know about them?
This is just the point - I don't know about them.
Cher, you are making my head hurt. If you don't know about them, then why do you think they are being kept the secret by the mainstream? What it is you are trying to say? They should publish things they are not publishing but you don't even know if they are there to publish?

Is it because there is nothing to publish?
I guess not - until you have minimal scientific inquisitiveness. That is great news for you then Cher.The field is wide open and no competition.Go forth and make your mark.

We apparently have way too many selfevident truths still waiting for research - the verification of some superconductor should wait
If it could be done, there are 8 billions of peoples out there, surely at least one of them is willing to buck the mainstream and help you out by publishing something? 8 billions, not ONE rebellious soul?
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
Cher, you are making my head hurt.
@Ira
You aint the only one!
I am still trying to find at least a means of following his logic...

like you said... there is no rhyme of reason for the whole thing

UNLESS you present the argument as a religious argument, that is, and assume that the prophet zeph is infallible and thus speaking the word of [insert deity] and thus, speaks only truth

or you are insane and think the scientists are out to get you

both maybe?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2016
I just like your way of "thinking".
Thanks Zephir-Skippy. I've always been fond of you too.

Both of you are apparent amateurs,

I have never claimed to be anyting else me.

both of you are fu*ed with scientists openly, but you cannot admit it or even realize it - you're just trying to pretend the opposite.

I have no idea what that means, so I don't know if I am pretending it or not.

The similarity with Russians who are adoring Putin, despite they're fu*ed with him openly is apparent here. It's the same trait of psychology. The Russians at least have a good reason for fear of Putin's policemen - but you?
You are on the roll Cher, I don't know what you mean again.

Completely irrational.

Who has the most peoples who can't understand what he trying to get at? Me or you? I may talk funny, but I bet more peoples understand me than misunderstand you.

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
I never thought of it
@zeph
you also didn't inquire about it or seek to validate the claim
The scientists really don't bother with some replications
assumption/personal conjecture based on conspiracist ideation
We are in bit strange situation - aren't we?
not we... YOU

science is evidence based
you are stating something as factual and thus should have evidence of said claim
you can't provide evidence
THEREFORE it can't be proven factual
thus it is NOT factual until proven (at the very best, it is called an untested claim, however, as you stated there is NO evidence and it doesn't necessarily reflect the facts in the scientific community, it means it is a false claim - http://www.auburn...ion.html )

promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2016
we have ten independent findings of room temperature superconductivity
@zeph
1- singular findings https://en.wikipe...c_method

in the colloquial interwebz term: learn to science

2- science requires validation (see above link)
3- you've not given ANY reputable valid links to any paper... you've only quoted (AKA supposition or conjecture)

which brings us to this
I just want to understand the psychology of my peers, which I'm sharing the planet with by some accident
IF you refuse to accept the scientific method
AND
you refuse to accept it's known validated claims
AND
you cling to non-falsifiable argument
AND
you can't provide evidence for claims but still believe in falsified hypothesis
THEN
science and scientists are not your peers any more than the Pope is your mother
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
@zeph cont'd
It's evident, ......The continuation of jobs, news and entertainment for both sides...silent intersubjective agreement with situation
and again, i will reiterate... you have absolutely NO evidence supporting this conjecture

this is called validation of my assessments above about your conspiracist ideation as well as your zealous acceptance of false beliefs

this is why your proselytizing on PO is more like a religious pontification rather than speculative inquiry about science or it's methodology, let alone it's validation or results

you go into the subject with a firm belief that you seek validation for... if it doesn't validate your belief, it is conspiratorial and thus supports the conclusion that the [insert entity] is hiding the truth...
but if it supports your belief, the truth has won out

AGAIN, it's as spelled out here:
phys.org/news/2014-10-ironclad-logic-conspiracy-theories.html
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
The more strange is, the science doesn't seek the evidence for such an important findings
@zeph
No, the science doesn't seek to continually validate your own personal AGENDA... you want science to do CF, aether etc...you ignore the results and claim it is intentionally covering because "the science doesn't seek the evidence for such an important findings"
that is circular and non-sensical
just because they don't do what you want doesn't mean they are not doing important work

more importantly: how many negative results are you ignoring so that you can cling to this belief? we already know of the aether issue... what else?
Of course, the well known women's preferences are validated at daily basis
redirection and attempted red herring
social science and psychology are NOT physics

So, based upon your own criteria... because biologists etc are continuing to provide supporting evidence for Evolution then we can't trust the Higgs result????

WTF!
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
So that the science really is ignorant in this matter?
@zeph
the google scholar link proves this to be a false assumption
just because you don't like the results doesn't mean scientists are ignorant on the matter
Or the room temperature superconductors aren't really important and we could save some needed money for more important research?
assumption without evidence and that there are only two choices
the preferences of physicists have more to do with social science and psychology, than you may think
just because they can relate to each other doesn't mean that psychologists study particle physics, which is what your comment assumed - learning how a person behaves can relate to physics, but learning sexual preferences can't tell you how the proton behaves any more than the discovery of the Higgs can tell you why you specifically cling to a falsified hypothesis

think on that for a spell

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
@z cont'd
the contemporary physics belongs into social sciences
this is your anger lashing out because you can't prove your own falsified beliefs
it's bullsh*t, & you know it
social science doesn't have the same strict code of physical evidence as physics because of the nature of the complexity and more
For example the forty years standing belief in string theory...
what part about "i follow the evidence" did you not understand?
i do not agree (or disagree) with string theory - period

as for your CF... if the evidence were to show it being a viable option (validated evidence), i would believe it

or did you forget who you were dealing with?

BTW- this still doesn't absolve you from your earlier requirement to provide evidence nor does it distract me from the point

I am gonna go eat...
feel free to expound all you want (like anything ever stopped you before, including logic or evidence LOL)
l8er
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
If it can be done, isn't there one person in the whole world of 8 billions of peoples that is willing to step up and do it so the truth will be revealed?
The publishing of attempt for replication even doesn't require to get into success - yet, as you can see, we still have any published report of any of ten known findings of room temperature superconductivity. Nope, really - we still haven't.

Dare you explain, why is it so?

Simple. RT superconductivity has not been found yet.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2016
If you're not curious, you're probably not a real scientist
I don't think that the interest of scientists about certain areas of research (cold fusion, cosmic effects to global warming, various antigravity and overunity phenomena regardless of what your preferred hypothesis might be) really reflects the ideal of scientific inquisitiveness, the economical needs of this research the less.

They do have a tendency to skip falsified and also nonsensical ideas.
You have a point there.
For example, antigravity is the gravitational field of less energy. Not much to research there.
Cold fusion, disproved. Cosmic effects on GW, why ?
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2016
so far the scientists successfully managed to ignore all reports dealing with it
@Zeph
1- false claim: you cannot state with empirical evidence that all scientists ignore all reports dealing with any subject
2- cognitive bias: you make this assumption because you can't find evidence supporting your own beliefs and personal pseudoscience
this document should help you understand your problem a little: http://www.auburn...ion.html

theorists will research some other useless sh*t anyway
false claim due to cognitive bias
this is your religious hatred attempting to slander the scientific method - if you could prove this (at all) then you would have published it in a journal and become famous
the skipped findings like the cold fusion
assumption based upon cognitive bias and ignorance
just because you don't understand the situation doesn't mean the scientists don't
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2016
@z cont'd
this is the same problem you have accepting the evidence against aether and the known debunking of certain CF publications
just because you WANT to believe something is real and it isn't doesn't mean scientists are hiding anything from you or that theoretical physicists are working on "useless sh*t anyway"
The scientists cannot claim, that the cold fusion was disproved
False claim
it cannot claim *all* CF results are disproved, but it CAN claim that a LOT of CF results are disproved

that is the reason so many left the field - credibility
you don't win back credibility very easily ... this is a very important control in science
it is one reason the scientific method is so powerful

which is why you are not credible, zeph
just because you can CLAIM something doesn't mean it is true
EVIDENCE trumps belief, proof trumps conjecture

it should have been a lesson to you... it teaches scientists
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2016
inconvenient findings.

This is stupid, promile. Why do you make a fool of yourself ?
RT superconductivity and cold fusion would be highly convenient.
May be one day we will even have these.
matt_s
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2016
"inconvenient"

So you really think the salaries of a couple scientists outweighs some entrepreneur making billions off a cold fusion device? REALLY?

You really think the salaries of a couple of peers would stop someone from inventing room temperature super conductivity and making billions?

Really?

That could quite possibly be the dumbest thing I've ever seen on these forums.

promile
Feb 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2016
@promile
Grow finally up.
promile
Feb 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2016
That's crap, promile.
promile
Feb 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2016
Time to call a doctor, promile .
promile
Feb 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2016
the existing reports about cold fusion, room temperature superconductors, antigravity devices, scalar waves and overunity devices, water clusters, psychic phenomena etc. are all crap

From my POV they're crap. Until and unless someone comes up with some independently verifiable evidence.

We are talking about dozens if not hundreds of ignored announcements.

An announcement is just that: someone saying something. That doesn't mean anything unless they can back it up with independently verifiable evidence. You would not believe the crap people announce all the time (OK, you would - because you do a fair bit of that yourself)

Currently you're just someone who believes every incredible announcement you hear without checking up on whether it's a snake-oil salesman or not (and disbelieving every announcement accompanied with hard data).
That you collect a lot of crap that way is not surprising.
promile
Feb 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2016
Until and unless someone comes up with some independently verifiable evidence

This is just a silly evasion and your subjective POV is not relevant here at all.

That is why I advocate INDEPENDENTTLY verifiable evidence. Exactly because then a subjective POV is not relevant.

The thing you are missing in your rants is that all YOU have is your subjective POV. So by your own logic you are rather silly.

Why we still have not any published attempt for replication

Because it's already published? If it's published you can't republish it (wouldn't get past peer review because it would not be original research).

After publishing it it's up to you to make a product out of it (or whatever). The only way you could publlish a replicating study is if it turns out the original study was bunk.
promile
Feb 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2016
How many times the Michelson-Morley experiment has been replicated in peer-reviewed journals?


Several times, because each time they upped the sensitivity - so it was original (read new) knowledge that aether didn't show up even at those sensitivities.. That's pefectly fine for a publication.
Just identically replicating something is not.

So, yeah...as usual: you have no clue how science works. Keep collecting crap. At least that way we'll know immediately: If Zeph champions it it's probably not worth the time to take a look at it.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2016
@promile
How many times the Michelson-Morley experiment has been replicated in peer-reviewed journals?

It hasn't.
dozens of another Galileos

Galileo was the scientist. It was actually the pope who was trying to defame science. ;-)
promile
Feb 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2016
@promile
You forgot to mention "with steadily increasing sensitivity". That is not replication, that is progress.
"Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity. ... More recent optical resonator experiments confirmed the absence of any aether wind at the 10−17 level."
promile
Feb 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
and what prohibits the scientists to replicate the RT superconductivity experiments with better sensitivity?
Ok... gotta interject here
@zeph
for starters- you cannot state with any validity that there is no one trying to replicate the studies (because of your historical delusional ranting AND because you have no evidence)

For two- you also cannot state with any authority that all said "announcements" are valid interpretations of the evidence or factual experimental results
case in point: hydrino's were also published as well as build the foundation of a current (patented, but then the patent was removed) technology, but if you actually read the paper also state a few violations of known physical laws
This makes the investigation into hydrino's nonsensical (regardless of what the web-site and your pseudoscience acolytes say)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
@zeph cont'd
This picture has different context, but it stills illustrates the situation in contemporary science well. It's a giant circlejerk industry
and this is validation of your own cognitive bias that i demonstrated above
The primary reason for your hatred and vilification of mainstream science is that you can't get your delusions taken seriously...
there really is a reason for that, and AA_P stated it succinctly
INDEPENDENTTLY verifiable evidence
this is the reason for the SUCCESSES of the mainstream science as well as the scientific method
it is also the reason for the FAILURE of pseudoscience and the things you keep promoting

just because you can't see the reality and value behind the M-M experiments and their increased sensitivity, you decry it as "just replication"
What you don't accept is that it is also supporting evidence falsifying your belief system to a very, VERY high degree of accuracy

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2016
@Zeph last post
which brings is full circle back to your support of pseudoscience over science and your willingness to accept anything against the mainstream

this, more than anything is an "infallible source of fun for me, because you're trying to defend the undefendable.. :-)"

and the reason for the fascination with you is simple: you truly can't see the delusional world you created and can't understand the simple processes which underscore reality

you really can't see why DAW/AW is falsified... or why it's economically a poor choice to invest in certain other pseudoscience

i will state this to you again: if you were even half as capable as you thought you could replicate the experiments yourself and go for publication

so why do you choose to instead simply whine, troll, cry and rant about it to those who ask for evidence?

the crude analogy is: you are simply pissing into a fan and calling it a hurricane

provide the evidence and you will gain validation
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2016
@promile
what prohibits the scientists to replicate the RT superconductivity experiments with better sensitivity

So you implicitly admit that the MM experiment was not replicated and that you misrepresented science.
Now about RT superconductivity. It may be here tomorrow but it is not here today. This explains why it is not replicated.
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2016
The first observations of room temperature superconductivity date back to 1981. It's two scientific generations already, which missed and ignored it
@zephir
1- you ASSume it is being ignored
2- you do NOT know what science is being found or investigated by classified research (this doesn't mean just military or gov't research - there is big business in civilian research)
3- your lack of logic and cognitive bias are making you seek out justification for your conspiracist ideation... science doesn't work on YOUR timetable: gravity waves were predicted 100yrs ago but only directly measured recently
That doesn't mean no one was looking, nor does it mean it didn't exist or science was ignoring anything

just because you want to see conspiracy behind everything and you can't get your personal wish list validated doesn't mean it ain't being investigated

and i can prove they are still seeking better (or room temp) superconductors with one last word: computers
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2016
@z cont'd
If you permit, I've better theory, which explains why it's not replicated: it would invalidate the BCS theory of superconductivity and also later theories of HT superconductivity, thus making their research obsolete
this is just like saying that we are not seeking to validate the biblical story of creation because it will invalidate the SM

IOW- not only stupid but also reaching
again: as there is a computer industry seeking profit there is research into superconductors (and thus, by extrapolation, room temp superC's)
so it's definitely reproducible.
what is "definitely reproducible"???
"the cold fusion"???
like i said: if it is reproducible it will provide evidence and a means to validate the claim (something CF hasn't done yet)
not even going to get involved in your twisted illogical stupidity WRT private companies

science is science is science

promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
@promile
You have to decide what you are talking about or a discussion is not possible.
Pick your choice:
1) MM experiments
2) RT superconductivity
3) Cold fusion
4) Woodward drive
5) any other business
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
I'm arguing particular objections one after another
@ZEPHIR
actually, no, you are not
you are proselytizing your fanatical religious perspective about science and your personal beliefs

IF you were arguing an objection it would have at least some evidence of value that could be researched and validated

so far, you've only offered your personal perspective and interpretations of what you see (and fail to see) which is NOT evidence of anything other than your personal bias

the predominant claim you've made is: False Claim
followed by: untested claims
(as defined here: http://www.auburn...ion.html )

so that is nothing more than promoting your opinion without evidence
the only thing needed to refute you is a differing opinion as it holds the same level of authority

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
@Zeph
downrating with your sock army isn't going to validate your claims any more than continuing to proselytize them here...

In fact, it only serves to underscore my points WRT your delusional beliefs, conspiracist ideation, and fanaticism

this is what yo don't understand about the scientific method (along with people like bs, cd, viko et al )

it is not about what you believe, think, or think you see
it is about what you can provide EVIDENCE for
and what can then be replicated validating your claim

IF you had a legitimate argument you would be able to provide evidence from a reputable source supporting your points... that doesn't mean your personal site, your interpretations of the lack of anything or the fact that something doesn't exist yet.

according to your philosophy (and above tactics) during the 100 yrs GW were not measured they couldn't possibly exist or science wasn't looking for them

epic fail for you
promile
Feb 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
to repeat the experiment again and again
@ZEPH
and apparently your literacy skills are failing you again
perhaps before you continue you should study this link: https://en.wikipe...c_method

you don't just repeat an experiment (like your blatantly stupid M-M claims above)
so repeat (yet again) what AA_P pointed out
each time they upped the sensitivity
this is one reason you can't comprehend the science and the methodology... you make ASSumptions based on your personal ignorance and cognitive bias

problem is: there are resources out there that are free refuting you easily
here is one- http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

one last point: your arguments are becoming more like DavidW/LifeBasedLogic
You are not adding anything to the conversation at all... you are simply repeating your fallacious claims in a circular conspiracist argument sans reason or logic

so who are you trying to convince? yourself?
because you have NO EVIDENCE
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
I too am guilty but:
___
There is absolutely no point in feeding the following
pariahs: bschott
psychos: Benni ichisan rodkeh
trolls: promile plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy vidyunmaya Osiris1 obama_socks mememine69 FredJose
This list is updated continuously.
promile
Feb 19, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2016
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" - William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin
@ZEPH
so now you are going to pull a "shootist" and simply point out that people have made mistakes in the past?
you also know that it was historically thought that Earth was the center of the universe too.. perhaps you should point that out?
problem is... your argument above also demonstrates WHY the scientific method is so effective. (of course, when you have a sock army to vote with and add "credibility" to yourself or to "discredit" your enemies, who needs proof or logic, right? LMFAO)
Well, the repetition is the mother of wisdom.
and this is your tactic too
problem is, you continue to repeat the lies, misinformation, falsified hypothesis, delusions and conspiracy INSTEAD of anything else

but of course you will not see it that way because you CANT... this is why you blame scientists and mainstream for what you perceive as "failures"

(re-assert your fragile ego now)
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2016
I just think, that the scientists are doing mistake...
@zeph
and this is the origin of your cognitive bias and delusion-
you ASSume:
1- ...that NO scientists are looking into this
2- ...that no evidence presented is considered by anyone
3- ...that evidence supporting CF with proper protocols that can be demonstrated is "being ignored"
(none of which you can prove)
My stance isn't based just in some general disbelief
FALSE CLAIM- this has been demonstrated here at PO for YEARS
the rest of that is simply attempts to justify your anti-mainstream stance and justify your conspiracist ideation and delusion (IOW- CRAP)
I can understand rather well
if that were the case, you would have not only picked up where you perceived a shortcoming and proved something, but you would also have contacted authors to see WHY they are doing (or not doing) something

so, NO, you do NOT understand
IOW- another false claim to self validate and for circular reasoning
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2016
I know the rules of science quite well
@ZEPHIR
FALSE CLAIM: if you knew the rules of science well you would not make the above ASSumptions, nor would you support a falsified belief and promote anti-science agenda as well as known pseudoscience
No publishing means
no, it could also mean that the attempt to publish was thwarted due to a violation of the laws of physics that are WELL KNOWN
(this is one reason the Hydrino theory is on a non-science site and the patent was retracted)

in this case the lack of evidence is NOT EVIDENCE of a lack of research

it MAY be evidence of a lack of scientific EVIDENCE, but that is actually what is called "untested claim"

so again: you must NOT know the "rules of science" as the bulk of your argument is conspiratorial, fallacious, circular and baseless

and the only one validating your claim is YOUR OWN SOCK PUPPETS
(and you consider that scientific? LMFAO)
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2016
@promile
Lork Kelvin also made many great contributions to science.
You make more mistakes than he did but no contributions.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
promile
Feb 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EyeNStein
not rated yet Feb 21, 2016
Every once in a while an article, like this one, provokes a deeply subjective reaction. I wont cite any other research, seek peer review, or calculate any variables from known law but its value remains.
This articles results reflect poorly on our society and how they devalue scientists.
Many scientists hold their values and maintain that spark of curiosity, but an increasing number 'clearly' feel such purity is undervalued, and only brown-nosing or science in support of someone's agenda earns the recognition it deserves.
Others of course will not carry forward their mentors values as they have already sold their souls to the scientific devil. Which is equally sad for them, and for us as 'benefactors' of their science.
promile
Feb 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2016
All the stuff you are pushing here, irreproducible RT superconductivity and cold fusion, water memory, etc. is on the garbage belt of science. And now you complain there is "something rotten" ? You are smelling your own odour.
promile
Feb 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2016
and the only one validating your claim is YOUR OWN SOCK PUPPETS
(and you consider that scientific? LMFAO)


.......and yours Stumpid.

You fit precisely all the same categories into which you classify others. There is none of your name calling & foul mouthed platitudes contained in all the thesis of Einstein's General or Special Relativity, but you wouldn't know that because the contents of such scientific theses are far beyond your comprehension & you know it, therefore you use the language you know, the street speech of the least among us within the culture in which we live, you & your bros of the axemaster vote brigade.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2016
the axemaster vote brigade
@beni-gkam
1- TL;DR
2- i can see why you don't understand Axe being that Axe is an ACTUAL physics major
LMFAO

.

Here is important to note, that the deterministic attitude of contemporary scientists effectively prohibits them to see the emergent dual consequences of their behavior
@ZEPHIR
this is part of your epic fail WRT the scientific method, z
you claimed above
I know the rules of science quite well
this means you understand the rules of evidence for publication as well as scientific confirmation

but then you make unsubstantiated claims (AKA- FALSE claims)

this means, by definition, that you are seeking to validate your own personal delusion as you can't actually produce reputable viable evidence demonstrating anything, BUT, you believe it to be true so thus you repeatedly regurgitate the same claims with contradictory links

and you can't see the problem with that?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2016
2- i can see why you don't understand Axe being that Axe is an ACTUAL physics major


Stumpid.......he can't even do electronic circuit design nor has he ever designed a fission reactor system, I do this..........but you imagine that what makes you relevant to this website is because you agree with anything he posts, such as the imaginary pseudo-sciences of Dark Matter.

You retired old guys have so much time on your hands, why don't you spend some time in the classroom of a local community college where you can get reduced tuition expenses for seniors & take a trigonometry course & at least begin to learn a little something about math, of course you wouldn't do this because you wouldn't want your grade to end up in the bottom of the class full of 18 year olds.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2016
Hey, Stumpy-otto.

I am not benni. You owe me a response for the posts regarding otto and PTSD.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2016
Hey, Stumpy-otto.

I am not benni. .


That's for sure, I can do Differential Equations.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2016
"That's for sure, I can do Differential Equations."
----------------------------

Okay, what have you done with them?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2016
he can't even do electronic circuit design nor has he ever designed a fission reactor system, I do this
@benji-kam
you haven't even proved to be able to do differential equations, let alone the above
do i really need to link that evidence yet again? where you had an EPIC failure to even comprehend what "ODE" meant (common terminology taught DAY ONE in math class, by the way)
you agree with anything he posts
not really. there is NO person on PO that i agree with everything they post

you like to pick on retired folk like yourself... you make claims that they're stupid or incapable of learning... TRANSFERENCE?
After all, the evidence says YOU are the one not capable of math, ODE's or engineering

.

(PS- being a physics major doesn't mean he is also an engineer, you idiot!
... that is like saying an EMT should be capable of bio-medical engineering and trouble-shooting the electrical problems of modern prosthetics - ROTFLMFAO)
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2016
Answer my question about your buddy otto, Stumpy. You abused me and made charges, and now you have to back them up.

How do you feel about how he characterized war vets?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2016
You abused me and made charges, and now you have to back them up
OT
already addressed

see: http://phys.org/n...one.html

http://phys.org/n...ind.html

epic fail
How do you feel about how he characterized war vets?
you've provided NO evidence or quotes from Otto
i have provided evidence and quotes where YOU denigrated war vets

so your delusions are getting confused and you are hijacking yet ANOTHER thread with your blatant stupidity!
WOW
thanks

BTW... leaving for chores, so feel free to rant and post all your delusional crap-o-la below

Maybe you can actually provide EVIDENCE for a change?
ROTFLMFAO
sorry..; forgot who i was talking to!
BYE!
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2016
Bye, Stumpy. Say hello to my Air Commandos, you know-it-all.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
Say hello to my Air Commandos
Stolen valor
There has been no confirmation whatsoever that you were affiliated with or assigned to any air commando unit, NOR has there been any confirmation that you were detached, TDY, or any other type duty to a SF/AFSOC unit of ANY name.

you had NO military record associating you with ANY Special Forces unit, let alone the AFSOC or the successors to 16th Pursuit Group, 1 AC or 1 SOW

throwing around NAMES doesn't mean anything either
unless you can provide a copy of said orders that can be researched and actually validated through FOI, then this claim is simply your attempt to spread yet another known false claim

AND
1st Air Commando Wing, which was established and activated on 1 June 1963
Re-designated: 1st Special Operations Wing on 8 July 1968
according to official records, 1AC SQUADRON was at NKP
http://chancefac...._TLC.htm

NOT korat
and NOT THE WING /GROUP (Hulbert. FL- i trained there, BTW)

gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
Stumpy, you changed your tune. At first you screamed at me there were no such thing as Air Commandos in the Air Force. But my group was the technical part of Task Force Apha, Toots, we put the mission together, made the equipment work, tested at Field Four at Eglin, and deployed to Nahkon Ratchasima to operate it for a year, until replaced. by new troops.

We modified continuously, had the inventor of the ADSIDS and other versions of the sensors, as well as three EC-121Rs stuffed with electronics and people over the battlefields and the Trail continuously for years, without a single minute of coverage lost. Yeah, we lost 22 of us "non-combatants" there, but it is what we had to do. It is the price of unarmed reconnaissance.

I am not going to take flack from some hoser stuck in a fire truck.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
What is it with your psychology? Are you getting otto-itis? You used to be honest and non-malicious, but now another person seems to be oozing through the crust.

I do not question your alleged experiences, why would you question mine? I sent you proof, but you did not read them.

Go to Westin's BatCat page and look me up. You do NOT want me to send you my performance reports, because they would make your head explode. I do not know why you folk cannot accept some folk had different experiences than you, stuck in your little holes of life.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
Important values? Rigid honesty.

That is what you do not get infields which are not based on science. The trouble comes in the softer pursuits, such as business, finance, money, religion, law, and the other parts of life which are not real, because we invented them. Getting used to the fact that we can change them or our minds, we start to assume science is that way, too.

Folk in those areas lose sight of what it takes in science. Many have no clue, and think they make it up, or vote on it, or are guessing like the folks in the other fields.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
there were no such thing as Air Commandos in the Air Force
I said
the AF doesn't have "air commando's"
they have Para-rescue and Combat Controllers [and LE/SF]
as in- IT DOESN'T, not it DIDN'T- try looking at the dates, benni-kam
as noted already above, and something YOU should be VERY aware of considering the dates, the 1 AC's were renamed to 1 SOW, and the NKP was NOT your "Korat" base

because of the changeover in '68, this would be well known starting at LEAST by '67 as there would already have been planning for the changeover for everything from patches to letterhead to designation and signage- the military & gov't lives on it's paperwork (again, undermines your comment- IOW- you lied)

to continue: you can't provide ANY information that can validate your claim of "affiliation" to the NKP base and it's ops, nor even to show deployment or assignment to Korat

therefore, at BEST you provided an untested claim that has false information
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
I do not question your alleged experiences, why would you question mine?
because you've been caught in too many lies and you cannot accept provable, validated information as being legitimate or real... your typical response to something like a VALIDATED STUDY is to hem and haw with "but i have experience" and bullsh*t like that
I sent you proof
1- i read everything you sent
2- you've NEVER ONCE sent proof of Korat, NKP, or any other validation from combat or exposure to combat, nor have you sent anything that can be traced to you through military records USAF, dept of records OR the VA veterans archives: http://www.archiv...eterans/

performance reports have been artificially inflated since they were implemented, so that is MOOT and demonstrates nothing but that you need to have your ego stroked by external sources

personally, i don't CARE if you believe anything about me, BTW
moral support from a demonstrated liar is like having a backup nanny who's a pedo
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
Yeah, we lost 22 of us "non-combatants" there, but it is what we had to do. It is the price of unarmed reconnaissance.

@gham

The lose of 22 lives is tragic but you left out the part that they weren't combat loses. They were the result of two crashes, one at the airfield and the other near the airfield in Thailand.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
@benni-kam
Important values? Rigid honesty.

That is what you do not get infields which are not based on science
one reason that the scientific method is so effective is because THERE IS VALIDATION AND EVIDENCE for a claim or theory

the ONLY thing you've historically given (and still offer) is wrong information supported by "i have experience in 47 bazillion engineering fields and i teach engineers how to be better engineers even though i don't have a license and can't legally actually do it in CALI or any other state"

then you cross-post and drag the whole whine-cry bullsh*t argument onto various other threads to attempt to get support for being a liar proven wrong (like here: http://phys.org/n...uts.html

or HERE: http://phys.org/n...ess.html

OR HERE: http://phys.org/n...ent.html )

go lie to someone else
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
Hey, Stump.

If you are ignorant of how engineers work, just tell us. You will not find it in wiki or the nasty comments of otto. Look up my name and 7X24Exchange, and maybe some of my old reviews will surface. I resent you attacking me because of your own pathetic frustrations.

You and otto make up what you want to believe, like Reagan.

Not a good sign.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
"The lose of 22 lives is tragic but you left out the part that they weren't combat loses. They were the result of two crashes, one at the airfield and the other near the airfield in Thailand."
---------------------------------

Oh, what a difference!! I hope you send notes to their families telling them there was no honor in their service. You called them REMFs, remember?

What has happened to you hateful folk to make you act like this?
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
Look up my name and 7X24Exchange, and maybe some of my old reviews will surface
Well Cher I for one did that way back about year ago when you first started hooting about it. That was the first clue I got that you were a bragging phony and making the big exaggerations on your history.

It took some doing because just putting in the 7X24Exchange only gives back a bunch of financial and investing stuffs. But when you actually find the electrical stuffs, if you read about George Kamburoff Skippy, it says to gave presentations on BASIC ohm's law to the office staffs which they got CEU's for. Is that the 33,000 engineers you taught the good stuff to that they missed in engineers school?

You got to hunt for it, but it is all in there if you know what you looking for. Like your "Master Science Degree" that doesn't have Engineer or Management or Environment or Energy written anywhere on him.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
If you are ignorant of how engineers work, just tell us
@benni-kam
my daughter is an electrical engineer with a PE
when i want to know about something you are saying, i ask her or actually look up the data in a format that can be used to either validate or invalidate what you say
Now, considering Wiki has REFERENCES and the bulk of your comments are simply "i am a super-uber commando engineer", then it stands to reason that the source that can VALIDATE the claims it makes is the more accurate source
That makes it Wiki- 47 bazillion
goerge- 3

PS- and old "review" of a credit course on "BASIC ohm's" is NOT A LICENSE NOR PROOF THAT YOU ARE A LICENSED ENGINEER
it is proof you are associated with a class
THAT'S IT
END OF STORY

also note: that is not making up something that i want to believe in
THAT IS CALLED VALIDATION
it is called PROOF
it means, given your LACK of proof, you still can't validate your claims
THUS it proves only YOU make sh*t up
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
@benni-kam cont'd
also note, none of the "7X24Exchange" feedback or postings actually validate your affiliation with the commando's or 1SOW at NKP

In fact, it means, by definition, you are intentionally attempting to distract away from the fact you have no evidence
I sent you all kinds of proof
you sent NOTHING proving the above, etc OR validating any claims about PE, or your SOF affiliations

that is called stolen valor, BTW
that is attempting to steal the valor from combat special forces troops in 'Nam
What has happened to you hateful folk to make you act like this?
it's not about hate, it's about proof
it is also about your continued false claims and KNOWN LIES

quit doing that and maybe you can repair your reputation
start validating your claims and maybe you will find a more receptive audience
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
I resent you attacking me because of your own pathetic frustrations
And most of the people here resent you lying about who you are and what you know.
Skippy, it says to gave presentations on BASIC ohm's law to the office staffs which they got CEU's for
Like I figured, lunch-and-learns.

you had NO military record associating you with ANY Special Forces unit, let alone the AFSOC or the successors to 16th Pursuit Group, 1 AC or 1 SOW
And like I said I don't make fun of vets only lying cheating psychopaths.

And I am sure there are many vets who would want to beat the shit out of you for the lies you post here.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
We can judge by the character displayed by Ira, otto and the Stumpette they are not in science. I have never seen professionals scream the nasty and personally insulting comments like these kids throwing their tantrums.

otto taunts war vets for using the VA for help. Real class.

Ira and stumpy are so angry they are jumping on the bandwagon. It seems I upset their little game here of commenting on the posts of others. When I posted unlikely events, they did not ask, they screamed LIAR and BULLSHIT at me.

When I proved my experience, they went completely nuts, thinking then had found another phony like themselves.

So, we will probably have to ride it out, until the kids get tired of screaming.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2016
Stumpy said he sent my name in as a liar to Stolen Valor and to "the feds". I REALLY REALLY hope he did it, and it's not just another silly threat. Because we in this country have the opportunity to face our accusers, and I want to do it.

Why are people here who are just here to attack others posting in a science forum? They are as far from objective science as possible, hurling nasty comments at others, out-of-control, in an emotional tantrum.

Let's get back to science, and stop the Twitter nonsense.

And tell these goobers you do not have to have an engineering degree to work as an engineer. These folk are ignorant of how the real world works.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2016
Stumpy said he sent my name in as a liar to Stolen Valor
But you are a liar and you should be made to pay for it.

I'm sure you've had to pay for it in the past, and I'm guessing that psycho monitoring was one of the conditions of your punishment.

How soon their disease let's them forget. We all read your lies in this very thread.

The psychopath's bag of tricks...

"Psychopaths just have what it takes to defraud and bilk others: they can be fast talkers, they can be charming, they can be self-assured and at ease in social situations; they are cool under pressure, unfazed by the possibility of being found out, and totally ruthless. And even when they are exposed, they can carry on as if nothing has happened, often making their accusers the targets of accusations of being victimized by THEM.

"I was once dumbfounded by the logic of an inmate who described his murder victim as having benefited from the crime by learning "a hard lesson about life." [Hare]

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.