Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

15. Really??

Fri Sep 16, 2016, 07:53 PM

Sep 2016

Your post 7:

No, it doesn't.
You seem to have preconceived notions that aren't open to discussion, and your history of wanting to ignore science makes your take here rather questionable, to be kind.
That's not really worth my time.

You wrote the post above and the comments are specifically intended to belittle me, the person. That was in lieu of an answer to the substance of the post I made. Note that none of the content is directed at you, the person, but instead relays a perception that is well accepted and widely acknowledged in academic circles. The solution is my belief.

. That just tries to gloss over the corruption in academic research.
The idea that transparency is a firewall is bunk.
The idea that transparency is actually universally practiced is bunk.
Case in point - ethanol and all of the corn state universities.
What is needed is to cultivate ethics that include shunning of academics whose work is transparently crafted to play politics for corporations.

After being called on that failure to address the arguments presented your response isn't to at least belatedly address the content of my post, it is to double down with more attempts to belittle me, the person.

Your post 14:

Personal attacks are all the pseudoscience crowd ever offers, and there was no personal attack, in the first place.
Try a little intellectual honesty, and stop treating your fellow DUers like crap by spreading BS, and claiming "attack" when none has been made.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study: Sugar Industry Secretly Paid Harvard Researchers to Blame Fat for Health Risks [View all] kristopher Sep 2016 OP

At the time, researchers all over the country were noticing a generational increase Warpy Sep 2016 #1

That simply doesn't hold water; it's bunk and explicitly refuted by the evidence found. kristopher Sep 2016 #2

You're assuming one grant covered all research everywhere Warpy Sep 2016 #3

Write your opinion to Dr. Kearns, she is the one refuting your claim kristopher Sep 2016 #4

A more balanced perspective than the hype of today's "press." HuckleB Sep 2016 #5

That just tries to gloss over the corruption in academic research. kristopher Sep 2016 #6

No, it doesn't. HuckleB Sep 2016 #7

It's amazing how those who shout "science" loudest always go straight to personal attacks. kristopher Sep 2016 #8

Mr. Pot? Have you met Mr. Kettle? OKIsItJustMe Sep 2016 #9

Walking around muttering to yourself again? kristopher Sep 2016 #10

Muttering to myself, eh? OKIsItJustMe Sep 2016 #11

And we're still waiting kristopher Sep 2016 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author HuckleB Sep 2016 #13

Awww. That's cute. HuckleB Sep 2016 #14

Really?? kristopher Sep 2016 #15

The press, sir, is reporting on a peer-reviewed study. JackRiddler Oct 2016 #19

And the press did not give the full story. HuckleB Nov 2016 #20

That's some fantasy you have there. JackRiddler Nov 2016 #21

So when no fat started weight started going up. That is very telling! ScienceIsGood Sep 2016 #16

The glycemic index; the glycemic load kristopher Oct 2016 #17

Thanks for the great info. n/t ScienceIsGood Oct 2016 #18