First thanks for posting on my e mail so I could open big. My recent experience with scientific accuracy if not parsimony, in a long article evaluating the function of one alone and another joint. Very long method. Results minimal. A question from reviewers asked why had they not evaluated heart failure end stage kidney features is ends that way often. With thousands of subjects, double blinded seems a missed task. Or was it? Letters to editor noted a major corporation sponsored the study and manufactured one of the drugs. Oversight ny investors harmful. Recent paper on statistics in blinded studies suggested attention to more findings important. Humans aren’t trees, but can be gnarly.
Was a not so recent book on florists and how communication through tiny tubes trees shared nutrition as needed. The Overstory. The hubris of humans “ believes” we should not think that way
These are the same repeated studies over and over for generations and they are just nonsense—and sadly funded by governments.
Diluted is right. People want to believe this. They want to believe something “mysterious” is going on. A higher coordination of a “hidden intelligence.”
Study quantum mechanics. That’ll rack your brain. Or chemistry. Chemistry is solid. You can’t bullshit there.
The need to publish, to be noticed, to get grants, has allowed for all sorts of mischief in the field of various aspects of science, but none more than in the area of Social Science. Good and rigorous criticisms should always be welcomed and rarely are.
Excellent essay! I'm sharing it with my network, most of whom I think are in agreement. It is estimated that ~80% of humans believe in supernaturals, though, so I doubt the behavior of journals will change. They seek profits which are 'energy tokens' in human societies, and we aren't excluded from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle
First thanks for posting on my e mail so I could open big. My recent experience with scientific accuracy if not parsimony, in a long article evaluating the function of one alone and another joint. Very long method. Results minimal. A question from reviewers asked why had they not evaluated heart failure end stage kidney features is ends that way often. With thousands of subjects, double blinded seems a missed task. Or was it? Letters to editor noted a major corporation sponsored the study and manufactured one of the drugs. Oversight ny investors harmful. Recent paper on statistics in blinded studies suggested attention to more findings important. Humans aren’t trees, but can be gnarly.
Was a not so recent book on florists and how communication through tiny tubes trees shared nutrition as needed. The Overstory. The hubris of humans “ believes” we should not think that way
These are the same repeated studies over and over for generations and they are just nonsense—and sadly funded by governments.
Diluted is right. People want to believe this. They want to believe something “mysterious” is going on. A higher coordination of a “hidden intelligence.”
Study quantum mechanics. That’ll rack your brain. Or chemistry. Chemistry is solid. You can’t bullshit there.
Go chemistry! 🧪
The need to publish, to be noticed, to get grants, has allowed for all sorts of mischief in the field of various aspects of science, but none more than in the area of Social Science. Good and rigorous criticisms should always be welcomed and rarely are.
Indeed.
I enjoyed the article, I would like to see a refutation on any type of religious claims that apologists make
A Druid might have one for you, go seek and find.
Terrific, Massimo.
Thanks to my friend and colleague, Ariel.
Clearly these trees planned it and worked together! That photo is proof.
Why else would they use all that electrical energy but to light up the forest?
🫨
Clearly! 😆
Scientism--not as dangerous as religious fundamentalism? or worse?
Not even close...
Excellent essay! I'm sharing it with my network, most of whom I think are in agreement. It is estimated that ~80% of humans believe in supernaturals, though, so I doubt the behavior of journals will change. They seek profits which are 'energy tokens' in human societies, and we aren't excluded from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle
Thanks Steven, appreciated!