Physics Stack Exchange Fail: Ineptitude of Consensus Science

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Physics Stack Exchange Fail: Ineptitude of Consensus Science

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:08 pm

Read this first:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... 249_230174

JMcG:
Water is unique. My paper describes why. I am not surprised by your inability to dispute it. In so doing you reveal the ineptitude of conventional theory. But that isn't necessary in that conventional theory has thus far--and despite no shortage of resources--failed miserably to reconcile the numerous anomalies of H2O, preferring, instead, to arrogantly dismiss them, hiding behind the perceived validity of their model instead of addressing arguments directly and, thereby, exposing the shortcomings of conventional misthinking.

put on hold as off-topic by David Z♦ yesterday:
This question appears to be off-topic for this site. While what’s on- and off-topic is not always intuitive, you can learn more about it by reading the help center. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

"We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – David Z
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.
1
You obviously wrote a controversial paper on polarity in water. After discussions at google groups, which leave many questions on your theory open, you ask the community here to help you justify your arguments? – engineer yesterday

JMcG:
LOL. You are a bunch of consensus based bozos.

After reading your paper I agree on one point - it is a unique perspective. – Frisbee yesterday

You birdbrains can't dispute a word of it. Water is unique. My paper describes why. I am not surprised by your inability to dispute it. In so doing you reveal the ineptitude of conventional theory. But that isn't necessary in that conventional theory has thus far--and despite no shortage of resources--failed miserably to reconcile the numerous anomalies of H2O, preferring, instead, to arrogantly dismiss them, hiding behind the perceived validity of their model instead of addressing arguments directly and, thereby, exposing the shortcomings of conventional misthinking. – James McGinn 1 hour ago

"We deal with mainstream physics here.

JMcG:
Nonsense. You imbeciles just parrot back popular beliefs.

Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic,

JMcG:
That's because you idiots don't understand science. Ignorance isn't a scientific method.

although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – David Z – James McGinn 1 hour ago

JMcG:
I'm only concerned with what is correct. If this site wishes to only parrot back what is "mainstream" then you make yourself irrelevant to scientific progress.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest