Universe theory discussion

Originally posted by Digi
I'm applauding his comments. Care to respond to them?

Stating an opinion then getting upset and declaring widespread trolling when anyone brings criticism against is simply childish and unrealistic. We're not trolls, we're adults.

no, you are a nasty troll

you were not simply applauding his comments, you were doing the equivalent of standing behind a bully laughing

i know from your first reply in the thread you love nothing more than having a go at people, not just me either, you criticized gadreel's post

if the moderators are troll like, then i have no interest in this forum anymore

there are too many trolls anyway, i hope they all die

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Even the ****ing moderators are trolls

**** this forum of *****

I wish great pain, misery and suffering to every troll and his family

this is how most scientists respond to criticism, in fact

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
if the moderators are troll like, then i have no interest in this forum anymore

Eh, clearly you're not capable of accepting criticism or having a even-keeled conversation about this. Yes, I criticized your logic. It wasn't trolling, it was criticism. The same with gadreel...if you thinking asking someone to format their words more coherently or provide a summary (I only have so much time for KMC) is trolling, then you're not familiar with internet discussion.

But only one of us, for example, is wishing death upon the other. Just try to apply the same standards to your own behavior.

In my first post, I actually did provide my honest opinion on your theory and posited my own. But it went ignored to satisfy your perception of being persecuted.

Good luck to you.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm applauding his comments. Care to respond to them?

Stating an opinion then getting upset and declaring widespread trolling when anyone brings criticism against is simply childish and unrealistic. We're not trolls, we're adults.

I think that it's not criticism that's offending him, but how it's given. Perhaps he felt that the criticism offered was done in a "Mr. Know-It-All" fashion, which is not a good way to teach.

According to most physicists (at least when they appear in documentaries) it's obvious that they try to explain theories and facets of the sciences in ways that regular, non-scientists can relate to. This is actually important, because having students understand you with a sense of likability will transcend the ideas further, since they'd be yearning to learn more. Do you think this is right?

That said, I'm curious on what science credentials "King Kandy" actually has. Is he a physicist? - a science teacher? What?

I'm sure King Kandy has some sort of background in science, but my point here is that criticism should be both taken with an open mind and also given with an open mind, less it be mistaken for something else.

As for trolling -that's easy to spot. If some person responds with an insult, especially if it's derogatory in nature, then it IS trolling. I don't think that occurred in this case. But sometimes helpful criticism needs to be addressed as such.

Sure, trolls come with the territory. What is ironic about trolling is how "trolls" demean themselves. They will often hide an insult in false critique with corny one-liners, and this actually makes them look idiotic. At least in my opinion.

Example: I wrote a thread here called the Greatest Illusion and somebody responded by saying "You don't know what you're talking about"

Is that trolling? - probably not, but it sure isn't helpful criticism either. Ha -LOL.

Originally posted by darkriddle
That said, I'm curious on what science credentials "King Kandy" actually has. Is he a physicist? - a science teacher? What?

If I were a practicing scientist, would you answer my question about what a "theory of the universe" actually means in terms of scope and the ability to generate predictions?

"Mr Know It All" is an impression everyone gets when they talk to someone who has experiential/epistemological superiority in a subject unless they're extra sensitive about it (which is how teachers and most professors teach). Learning how to not get butthurt over it is part of being a grownup lol.

not to beat a dead horse or anything, however, I just recently defended my grad thesis proposal to my grad committee, a group of scientists who are trying to help me build a good thesis (as opposed to a peer review situation [I do have published work in peer review sources] where people try to literally just cut your work up).

It was brutal. In the end, they said I had a very good thesis, but their questioning and criticism wasn't nice. It wasn't qualified in fancy niceties or any of that nonsense. When you get into real science, people don't really care for such social formalities anymore. In many ways, review by fellow scientists is the most intense form of trolling, because at the end of the day, their goal is EXACTLY to make you look like you don't know what you are talking about. Its only if you can withstand the most intense criticism that you have the stomach for science.

If you are complaining that you think people are being too harsh with their criticisms, the only thing this is indicative of is the fact you have no business doing science in the first place. You don't make friends with peer-review, and that is why it works.

Originally posted by inimalist
not to beat a dead horse or anything, however, I just recently defended my grad thesis proposal to my grad committee, a group of scientists who are trying to help me build a good thesis (as opposed to a peer review situation [I do have published work in peer review sources] where people try to literally just cut your work up).

It was brutal. In the end, they said I had a very good thesis, but their questioning and criticism wasn't nice. It wasn't qualified in fancy niceties or any of that nonsense. When you get into real science, people don't really care for such social formalities anymore. In many ways, review by fellow scientists is the most intense form of trolling, because at the end of the day, their goal is EXACTLY to make you look like you don't know what you are talking about. Its only if you can withstand the most intense criticism that you have the stomach for science.

If you are complaining that you think people are being too harsh with their criticisms, the only thing this is indicative of is the fact you have no business doing science in the first place. You don't make friends with peer-review, and that is why it works.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol, was it like "umm first question: have you considered wearing a pushup bra for your man-****? second question: how did you first arrive at your second conclusion? and third question: #@$% you" 😛

metaphorically, yes...

Originally posted by inimalist
metaphorically, yes...

Originally posted by Digi
Eh, clearly you're not capable of accepting criticism or having a even-keeled conversation about this. Yes, I criticized your logic. It wasn't trolling, it was criticism. The same with gadreel...if you thinking asking someone to format their words more coherently or provide a summary (I only have so much time for KMC) is trolling, then you're not familiar with internet discussion.

But only one of us, for example, is wishing death upon the other. Just try to apply the same standards to your own behavior.

In my first post, I actually did provide my honest opinion on your theory and posited my own. But it went ignored to satisfy your perception of being persecuted.

Good luck to you.

There is a big difference between trolling and offering constructive criticism as part of a debate

Kandy offered constructive criticism and went on to explain his viewpoint. I have no problem with this, other than I originally intended for people to give their own theories and not for the thread to just become a dissection of my theory.
I replied to his first post and was planning on replying to the second post before I saw a moderator trolling and got annoyed.

My reply now is simply I disagree that the speed of light has a limit. I believe there is a hell of a lot wrong with modern science, in particular the big bang theory and general relativity.

I am sure the mindless trolls will immediately jump on this and act like dickheads.
But, is it not POSSIBLE, considering the history of science, when people thought there were only 4 elements and we we centre of the universe and the earth was flat, is it not possible that modern science is fundamentally wrong?
Or are humans so arrogant to think "we've cracked it, you are an idiot if you don't accept our science"
I am not saying my own personal theory is correct, it is just my own personal theory.
The reality is that humans probably are incapable of understanding the universe, but we can still think about it.

I wanted people to put forward their own theories so engage in philosophical discussion and share ideas.
Some people understood the spirit of the discussion and posted their ideas, but there are too many trolls including a moderator, which annoys me.
Internet discussion does not automatically = troll fest, is that not what a moderator is for?

YOU did not offer constructive criticism, you just trolled in both your posts. Simply saying my theory has noticeable flaws, without elaborating on what they actually are, is just trolling and no different than posting "you are a dick".

As for Inimalist, Chaos and Omega, they have contributed **** all to this thread. They just spread their fat arse cheeks and dropped a dump of troll shit on the thread.

this is my reply to any future troll comments that are in store

**** off and die

Originally posted by inimalist

If you are complaining that you think people are being too harsh with their criticisms, the only thing this is indicative of is the fact you have no business doing science in the first place. You don't make friends with peer-review, and that is why it works.

Not complaining, just suggesting. With all due respect (and I really mean that) I understand what you're saying. But I disagree. This is why; I realize that theories need to be criticized - but criticism is NOT the real purpose. The actual benefit is in "proving" a theory and what is most important in science (from what I know) stems from "contributing" a credible aspect to it.

There is a saying "standing on the shoulders of giants." This analogy refers to the collective idealism that people share in order to form a more complete knowledge of the universe around us.

Einstein could not have formed his theories without Newton, and Hawkins probably could not have achieved his grand achievements without Einstein's knowledge - and so the list goes on.

There is an etiquette to uphold in sharing ideas and notions that maybe important to the scientific community. I ask you then, is this false?

Progress in science has always been benefited by "respectful, helpful criticisms" and even more so by contribution. If all scientists dumped etiquette at the door, egos and squabbles would slow and hinder them from achieving their results.

(-- This is the part where you should say I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT) ..I'm just kidding. LOL.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Inimalist

inimalist, the "I" isn't capitalized

also, I asked about your definition of a "theory of the universe" in terms of its scope and such. Are you prepared to talk about that?

What type of observations could I predict using your theory? how would I falsify it? what experiments could I run to add some core observations to it?

I'm sorry you are so sensitive

Originally posted by darkriddle
Not complaining, just suggesting. With all due respect (and I really mean that) I understand what you're saying. But I disagree. This is why; I realize that theories need to be criticized - but criticism is NOT the real purpose. The actual benefit is in "proving" a theory and what is most important in science (from what I know) stems from "contributing" a credible aspect to it.

There is a saying "standing on the shoulders of giants." This analogy refers to the collective idealism that people share in order to form a more complete knowledge of the universe around us.

Einstein could not have formed his theories without Newton, and Hawkins probably could not have achieved his grand achievements without Einstein's knowledge - and so the list goes on.

There is an etiquette to uphold is sharing ideas and notions that maybe important to the scientific community. I ask you then, is this false?

Progress in science has always been benefited by "respectful, helpful criticisms" and even more so by contribution. If all scientists dumped etiquette at the door, egos and squabbles would slow and hinder them from achieving their results.

(-- This is the part where you should say I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT) ..I'm just kidding. LOL.

ok, well, your impression is incorrect /shrug

the etiquette would be like, "don't insult a person", but even that is sort of a grey zone. Einstein faced incredibly tough criticism, and even gave his own later in life (he refused to accept quantum theory because he saw it as nothing more than "gambling"😉.

the peer-review process is not about constructive criticism. It is about finding fault and flaws in the theory or observations of people who are trying to publish work. Only when you can get through this process of having your research vetted by your peers do you get to be considered one of the "giants" whose shoulders you stand upon.

Originally posted by darkriddle
I think that it's not criticism that's offending him, but how it's given. Perhaps he felt that the criticism offered was done in a "Mr. Know-It-All" fashion, which is not a good way to teach.

According to most physicists (at least when they appear in documentaries) it's obvious that they try to explain theories and facets of the sciences in ways that regular, non-scientists can relate to. This is actually important, because having students understand you with a sense of likability will transcend the ideas further, since they'd be yearning to learn more. Do you think this is right?

That said, I'm curious on what science credentials "King Kandy" actually has. Is he a physicist? - a science teacher? What?

I'm sure King Kandy has some sort of background in science, but my point here is that criticism should be both taken with an open mind and also given with an open mind, less it be mistaken for something else.

As for trolling -that's easy to spot. If some person responds with an insult, especially if it's derogatory in nature, then it IS trolling. I don't think that occurred in this case. But sometimes helpful criticism needs to be addressed as such.

Sure, trolls come with the territory. What is ironic about trolling is how "trolls" demean themselves. They will often hide an insult in false critique with corny one-liners, and this actually makes them look idiotic. At least in my opinion.

Example: I wrote a thread here called the Greatest Illusion and somebody responded by saying "You don't know what you're talking about"

Is that trolling? - probably not, but it sure isn't helpful criticism either. Ha -LOL.

I'm not trying to teach. That would be a futile endeavor in this medium.

And I'm also not going to pull punches if I think someone's argument or idea is very wrong. Thing is, people have a hard time separating critiques on their ideas from personal affronts. I'm always willing to explain to someone that I mean the former, not the latter, but far less patience for those who won't acknowledge the difference.

Orson Welles was a bit derogatory, granted. But one, it's the internet, you need some thicker skin if that's going to get to you. And two, he was already slinging around accusations of trolling by that point, so it wasn't worth reasoning. I don't have time for people whose responses end in "**** off and die" when dealing with anything on KMC. Not enough perspective, so it's not worth dealing with them.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, well, your impression is incorrect /shrug

...Very doubtful. You CAN give credible critique by considering the theory set before you, then trying to prove it, then pointing out what you feel is at fault. This is called "Teamwork" and many scientific discoveries have benefited by it...and always will.

The drive behind science, and learning for that matter, is in competing respectfully - not by trying to "out-smart" each other.

In fact, when a person honestly (genuinely that is) critiques another person's work - they are contributing their in-put, which automatically makes them work together.

Yet working together is only successful, if respect is present: thus is born "etiquette."

Science is a vastly interesting and exciting field of studies. It can be a very beautiful and enlightening experience. I would hope that notion will be remembered.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not trying to teach. That would be a futile endeavor in this medium.

And I'm also not going to pull punches if I think someone's argument or idea is very wrong. Thing is, people have a hard time separating critiques on their ideas from personal affronts. I'm always willing to explain to someone that I mean the former, not the latter, but far less patience for those who won't acknowledge the difference.

Orson Welles was a bit derogatory, granted. But one, it's the internet, you need some thicker skin if that's going to get to you. And two, he was already slinging around accusations of trolling by that point, so it wasn't worth reasoning. I don't have time for people whose responses end in "**** off and die" when dealing with anything on KMC. Not enough perspective, so it's not worth dealing with them.

just before that i also said that the comment was aimed at the trolls for any future comments they make, so i not need to reply to them all

why is it wrong to hate trolls?

if i saw a video on youtube of a group of scummy youths beating some random person and setting fire to them whilst laughing all the while, i hate them and wish them death

trolls are just like those type of people, so i hate them and wish the death

Originally posted by darkriddle
...Very doubtful. You CAN give credible critique by considering the theory set before you, then trying to prove it, then pointing out what you feel is at fault. This is called "Teamwork" and many scientific discoveries have benefited by it...and always will.

The drive behind science, and learning for that matter, is in competing respectfully - not by trying to "out-smart" each other.

In fact, when a person honestly (genuinely that is) critiques another person's work - they are contributing their in-put, which automatically makes them work together.

Yet working together is only successful, if respect is present: thus is born "etiquette."

Science is a vastly interesting and exciting field of studies. It can be a very beautiful and enlightening experience. I would hope that notion will be remembered.

is this the way you think it should work, then? because my personal experience with the scientific process, the literature I have read about the purpose of peer-review and the general philosophy of science itself disagree with what you are saying...

A reviewer on a paper submitted for publication is doing you a disservice if they think of you as their "teammate". You aren't. Seriously, not to sound like a dick, but if you have no experience with the scientific process to the point where you can't distinguish between review and collaboration, you probably shouldn't be commenting on it. Like, just as a question, have you ever gone through a peer-review process? Have you ever had an article rejected? Have you seen the way such reviews are written?

Originally posted by darkriddle
...Very doubtful. You CAN give credible critique by considering the theory set before you, then trying to prove it, then pointing out what you feel is at fault. This is called "Teamwork" and many scientific discoveries have benefited by it...and always will.

The drive behind science, and learning for that matter, is in competing respectfully - not by trying to "out-smart" each other.

In fact, when a person honestly (genuinely that is) critiques another person's work - they are contributing their in-put, which automatically makes them work together.

Yet working together is only successful, if respect is present: thus is born "etiquette."

Science is a vastly interesting and exciting field of studies. It can be a very beautiful and enlightening experience. I would hope that notion will be remembered.

does your "theory" generate any predictions for future experiments?

OOPS!!!! ignore the above post, that was directed to GRIMNIR, who appears to be refusing to elaborate on his theory