Cryogenically treated cables

@atdavid:
The gullibility wording thing, as a way of expression...is tied to the engineering maxim of negative proofing.

Negative proofing belongs to the engineering mindset and mental type ---and engineering is very much ---not science.

Negative Proofing is very much a expression of the underlying aspect of engineering which is purely, intentionally -dogmatic. Dogmatism is all about ensuring that the future is the same as the past, and so on, re the nature of dogmatism as expressed throughout the ages. This is an excellent choice for what engineering is intended as and meant for. Engineering is for making, not exploring.

This is science. Exploration. (no facts, only theory)

So drop the gullibility horsemanure.......

atdavid"You say stubborn, I say not gullible."

Those who have attained rigid, absolute, unqualified beliefs often resort to claims of superior knowledge, education, and/or experience to justify, rationalize and defend they're beliefs which in fact are only beliefs and the refusal to entertain, consider, or even evaluate competing theories without resorting to insult, innuendo, and self-important proclamations reveal that underlying the "reason" is really "Faith".

If you cannot collect your thoughts before attempting to put them down into words, maybe it is the thoughts that are at issue?
Pseudo science is making claims, that you are not able to back up with anything approaching typical standards for evidence, then claiming everyone who disagrees with you is lying, stubborn, "does not understand", etc., and yet never actually addressing any argument presented against your case.
I am still .... after what ... 5 or 6 posts, waiting for anything at all that is not ad-hoc to support your position and/or make anything other than a straw-man against what I have posted.
It is rather funny, as the pile-on that is starting is just more of the same ... ad-homs, straw-mans, etc.  .... but no one actually putting forth anything beyond ad-hoc evidence and no one addressing arguments .... that would be poster child activity for pseudo science.

geoffkait17,968 posts11-04-2019 12:10pmYou say not gullible, I say pseudo scientist. You’re also stubborn for not letting me finish editing my posts. That’s rude, dude!

Ah look. More straw-man arguments.

You seem to have a problem with engineers? I am going to assume you are not one? Engineers with a graduate degrees are one of the most prolific generators of patents, and patents is something you appeared to indicate you place intellectual value in?

Engineers with advanced degrees, and certainly PhDs are involved in research as much as anyone, "exploring" to your verbiage. Your comment about "making" versus exploring has little to do with what field you are in, and far more to do with your roll in that field. Few doctors "explore". They explore far less than the average engineer in electronics. But just like engineering, some doctors focus on research and some engineers focus on research.

There is no "engineering" maxim of negative proofing, no more than any field within the sciences. The only aspect of "negative" proofing that ever comes into play is turning a "theory" into a law in the scientific sense.

What I see more at play here is an attempt to remove the concept of falsifiability to a topic in order to shield it from criticism. That is most definitely not science. That is classic dogma. Classic dogma attempts to shield itself from criticism by never addressing evidence against it, but by attacking its critics, but never their arguments.

So, if you want to get back to science, then address my arguments, or I will assume the only dogma in this discussion is coming from those attacking the person, not the arguments.

teo_audio1,195 posts11-04-2019 12:11pm@atdavid:
The gullibility wording thing, as a way of expression...is tied to the engineering maxim of negative proofing.

Negative proofing belongs to the engineering mindset and mental type ---and engineering is very much ---not science.

Negative Proofing is very much a expression of the underlying aspect of engineering which is purely, intentionally -dogmatic. Dogmatism is all about ensuring that the future is the same as the past, and so on, re the nature of dogmatism as expressed throughout the ages. This is an excellent choice for what engineering is intended as and meant for. Engineering is for making, not exploring.

This is science. Exploration. (no facts, only theory)

So drop the gullibility horsemanure.......

I don’t think you know the history and meaning of engineering.

and importantly, science has no laws. that’s an engineering thing and is a human weakness issue.

Laws are for punishing people who do not fit the societal ideals.

Laws have no place in science whatsoever.