Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

This conclusion is naive, drawn upon pidgin interpretations of the relevant concepts. You are not a scientist, so I do not accept your simplistic conceptualization of science. You have no qualification in cognitive neuroscience, so I do not accept your simplistic conceptualization of human belief.

That belief especially concerns non-evidence, is but not "my" conceptualization.

Such a factum persists, regardless of my existence, and regardless of your acceptance/rejection of such.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

That was not my claim. You cited the article "Computer Scientist" and noted that it referred to a scientist. From this you hoped that all possible connotations of "scientist" would be thereby subsumed, in equivocal fashion. I instead referred you to the article on "Computer Science," which more carefully defines the science as being composed of both practical and theoretical elements. You, having been trained as an undergraduate in the practical elements, are trying to claim also a proficiency in the theory -- irrelevant as it is to your claims. You still have not addressed that there exist other certifications beyond yours, and that the farther one goes in the field the more emphasis is placed on the theoretical aspects.

Where did I supposedly "distort" the article 'wise' one?

When you conflated the concepts of science and scientist. You took the discussion of the science and tried to apply it to the definition of the scientist. I already explained this.

I had simply expressed that I was a scientist, particularly a computer scientist.

Where did I express that I was any type of scientist, but, a computer scientist?

Can you present any such supposed quote of mine, o 'wise one'?

Why are your responses embroiled in lengthy sequences, absent evidence?

 

[JayUtah]

One need not a diploma...

Yes, one does. If you are going to draw conclusions in the field of cognitive neuroscience, you need to be able to demonstrate some proficiency in the field. You cannot. Failing a demonstration of personal proficiency, one should seek out legitimate experts in the field. You apparently have not.

I tire of your value-less, inconsequential responses.

Cry me a river. You can't answer the criticism against you, so you're making up excuses for why you don't have to listen to anyone.

One need not a neuroscience degree, such that one possesses basic dictionary usage ability.

Do real scientists rely solely on what they can Google? Or do they obtain not only basic but advanced degrees in the relevant fields that impart the requisite knowledge?

Further, you're changing horses. You posted your diploma and identified the gen-ed courses you took as the proper basis of knowledge from which to draw your conclusions. That belies that you believe academic preparation is necessary (or at least advantageous) to the credibility of your conclusions. It's disingenuous to suddenly reject the applicability of academic qualification now that it's been shown your academics are inappropriate. We've seen this behavior often among fringe theorists. They claim to be experts -- implying that expertise is necessary -- until they're shown not to be experts. Then they claim no expertise is needed. It's a fairly transparent ploy. It's the behavior of people who desperately want some shortcut to erudition and respect.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Do real scientists rely solely on what they can Google? Or do they obtain not only basic but advanced degrees in the relevant fields that impart the requisite knowledge?

Real scientists communicate, on the basis of standard google bound words.

Further, you're changing horses. You posted your diploma and identified the gen-ed courses you took as the proper basis of knowledge from which to draw your conclusions. That belies that you believe academic preparation is necessary (or at least advantageous) to the credibility of your conclusions. It's disingenuous to suddenly reject the applicability of academic qualification now that it's been shown your academics are inappropriate. We've seen this behavior often among fringe theorists. They claim to be experts -- implying that expertise is necessary -- until they're shown not to be experts. Then they claim no expertise is needed. It's a fairly transparent ploy. It's the behavior of people who desperately want some shortcut to erudition and respect.

Yet another value-less, trivially demonstrable lie.

The posting of the degree was initially in response to desmirelle's comment, via reply 293.

Desmirelle had invalidly expressed my degree's nature.

 

[JayUtah]

I had simply expressed that I was a scientist, particularly a computer scientist.

You provided evidence that you had a baccalaureate degree in computer science. You represented that this qualifies you as a computer scientist. That is wrong. You further represented that being a computer scientist qualifies you as a scientist in a way that allows you to draw conclusions in unrelated fields. That is also wrong.

Where did I express that I was any type of scientist, but, a computer scientist?

You have consistently claimed that being a "computer scientist" makes you a scientist in the way that pertains to your claims.

Why are your responses embroiled in lengthy sequences, absent evidence?

You're still scrambling for reasons not to address your critics.

 

[JayUtah]

Real scientists communicate, on the basis of standard google bound words.

That was not my question. Is real science based solely on Google? Or is it based on carefully and painstakingly acquired knowledge?

Desmirelle had invalidly expressed my degree's nature.

Straw man. You have repeatedly cited your degree as an appropriate qualification, regardless of anyone else's representations or solicitations. Further, you volunteered that your gen-ed requirements constituted an appropriate coverage of the applicable sciences.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You provided evidence that you had a baccalaureate degree in computer science. You represented that this qualifies you as a computer scientist. That is wrong. You further represented that being a computer scientist qualifies you as a scientist in a way that allows you to draw conclusions in unrelated fields. That is also wrong.

Do you not tire of expressing trivially demonstrable lies?

As I have acquired training, amidst computer science, and thereafter as I constantly apply such training vis a vis computer science aligned tasks, I am a computer scientist.

[IMGw=700]http://i.imgur.com/O4DXOot.png[/IMGw]

You have consistently claimed that being a "computer scientist" makes you a scientist in the way that pertains to your claims.
You're still scrambling for reasons not to address your critics.

You are yet to present any such supposed quote of mine.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

That was not my question. Is real science based solely on Google? Or is it based on carefully and painstakingly acquired knowledge?



Straw man. You have repeatedly cited your degree as an appropriate qualification, regardless of anyone else's representations or solicitations. Further, you volunteered that your gen-ed requirements constituted an appropriate coverage of the applicable sciences.

What nonsense, amidst your response.

Desmirelle had invalidly expressed that I had a degree in Liberal Studies.

I had simply responded with the proper study that I had done.

That I had corrected Desmirelle, is not "straw man" aligned.

 

[JayUtah]

Desmirelle had invalidly expressed that I had a degree in Liberal Studies.

And you responded by documenting what your academic qualifications really were. But you didn't stop there. You asserted -- and continue to maintain -- that your academic degree qualifies you to draw the conclusions you have drawn, until you changed horses and dismissed the need altogether for relevant expertise.

I had simply responded with the proper study that I had done.

And have continued over several pages to assert that your computer science bachelor's degree qualifies you as a scientist pertinent to the fields you invoke to support your claim.

That I had corrected Desmirelle, is not "straw man" aligned.

The straw-man portion of your claim is where you insist you have referred to your computer science diploma only as an isolated response to one person's question. Your critics are correct in saying you have subsequently invoked your degree to support your claim to be a scientist, irrespective of what any one person has said.

 

[JayUtah]

As I have acquired training, amidst computer science, and thereafter as I constantly apply such training vis a vis computer science aligned tasks, I am a computer scientist.

No, you are not. You have a bachelor's degree in computer science, which qualifies you to be a vocational computer programmer. As I have mentioned now three times, there are additional qualifications someone in your field can attain -- additional degrees and possibly appointments as academic professors or scientific officers in industry. You have done none of those. You have a basic certification.

Once again you simply equivocate via Wikipedia that a computer scientist is a scientist, negating that there are many brands of science (i.e., some being only static bodies of knowledge, not lively investigative pursuits), and many compositions of scientists. Nor does your source establish that attaining the lowest available academic certification in the field qualifies one as such a scientist.

And you're still flip-flopping over the necessity of scholarly preparation. You continue to defend your qualifications, while at the same time trying to say that such qualifications are irrelevant.

You are yet to present any such supposed quote of mine.

I never represented that you have expressed in a quote what I suspect to be your true motive. I don't require your admission or acknowledgement in order to draw my conclusion. I'm simply noting that most fringe theorists make up excuses not to pay attention to their critics when the going gets tough.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No, you are not. You have a bachelor's degree in computer science, which qualifies you to be a vocational computer programmer. As I have mentioned now three times, there are additional qualifications someone in your field can attain -- additional degrees and possibly appointments as academic professors or scientific officers in industry. You have done none of those. You have a basic certification.

Once again you simply equivocate via Wikipedia that a computer scientist is a scientist, negating that there are many brands of science (i.e., some being only static bodies of knowledge, not lively investigative pursuits), and many compositions of scientists. Nor does your source establish that attaining the lowest available academic certification in the field qualifies one as such a scientist.

And you're still flip-flopping over the necessity of scholarly preparation. You continue to defend your qualifications, while at the same time trying to say that such qualifications are irrelevant.



I never represented that you have expressed in a quote what I suspect to be your true motive. I don't require your admission or acknowledgement in order to draw my conclusion. I'm simply noting that most fringe theorists make up excuses not to pay attention to their critics when the going gets tough.

As is typical, quite the value-less, invalid inconsequential comment(s) of yours.

Come.... it is time to doff your sillily held fancy of belief's false necessitation, 'wise one'.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The straw-man portion of your claim is where you insist you have referred to your computer science diploma only as an isolated response to one person's question. Your critics are correct in saying you have subsequently invoked your degree to support your claim to be a scientist, irrespective of what any one person has said.

You are yet to present any quote of mine, that supposedly supports your nonsensical expression.

Such is belief's embarrassing design.

 

[JayUtah]

As is typical, quite the value-less, invalid inconsequential comment(s) of yours.

Come.... it is time to doff your sillily held fancy of belief's false necessitation, 'wise one'.

Gibberish.

 

[JayUtah]

You are yet to present any quote of mine, that supposedly supports your nonsensical expression.

Read my answer again until you understand it.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Read my answer again until you understand it.

I am able to unravel a region of quantum computing's mathematics.

Thereafter your expression contains not any sufficiently complex sequence; such remains value-less/invalid.

 

[JayUtah]

I am able to unravel a region of quantum computing's mathematics.

Thereafter your expression contains not any sufficiently complex sequence; such remains value-less/invalid.

Gibberish.

 

[The Norseman]

While wrangling over degrees and edjamakashun is entertaining and all, the real point is the highlighted:

No, I'm not interested in reading your other self-published puffery. Do you have any peer-reviewed publications in the appropriate journals for cognitive neuroscience and folklore and mythology?
No, the response answers your question succinctly and correctly. You are claiming expertise you cannot demonstrate that you have. Further, the expertise you are claiming is not relevant to the conclusions you're drawing regarding the nature of belief in humans.
You describe yourself as a "programming god" in your nick, despite having limited practical experience and, by your own admission, a lower than typical level of education for someone in your vocation. Given that the median age of my software development team is around 40, and that their median level of experience is somewhere around 20 years, I think you're making a very hubristic claim. I would expect that hubris to rub off in other areas.

Further, when you deign to tell people what is or isn't science, then yes you are implying you are knowledgeable enough to make that judgment. I do not accept you as an expert on what constitutes science.

I don't agree, and I cannot see where you have done an appropriate level of research, experimentation, or study to support such a conclusion. Nor have your attempts to defend it here exhibited any sort of suitable erudition.

Address these points, PGJ or continue to wallow in trivialities.

You constantly rely only on lay sources and references, not upon common works in the fields to which you allude.

Yeah, that seems to be all he's got; dictionary definitions, a few Wiki quotes, and quoting his own ridiculous papers and book.

The latter is the funniest part, though. "I think xyz and to prove it, I'll just quote myself saying that I think xyz. Now prove me wrong." lol

How is it not clear to you, that a computer scientist, is not surprisingly, a scientist?

Yes, as my friend with a degree in Political Science is a Scientist, too. Won't he be pleased to learn!

One need not a diploma, such that one observes that a system absent high concern for evidence, opposes a framework that highly concerns evidence (i.e science)

One need not a neuroscience degree, such that one possesses basic dictionary usage ability.

True. It's not really the basic dictionary usage ability that you're struggling with; it's the actual English language and grammar part that's doing you in.

Why are your responses embroiled in lengthy sequences, absent evidence?

This is pretty much what you're doing (excepting the lengthy part); I suppose we can all post cute kitten, Michael Jackson, and other picture memes if you like, to bring it down to a level you can understand.

Real scientists communicate, on the basis of standard google bound words.

Real scientists communicate with whatever words are most appropriate to the topic and the audience, something you've yet to learn.

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah, that seems to be all he's got; dictionary definitions, a few Wiki quotes, and quoting his own ridiculous papers and book.

In other words, the typical presentation pattern of a non-expert trying to be more than he is.

Yes, as my friend with a degree in Political Science is a Scientist, too. Won't he be pleased to learn!

I took a political science class once. We had to read the Federalist Papers. I'm not a political scientist. The professor, Dr. Matt Kerbel, is now a department head. He's a political scientist. Political science is a kind of science. it is not the same kind of science as astronomy chemical engineering. A degree in political science does not translate to expertise in botany or pharmacology.

...it's the actual English language and grammar part that's doing you in.

Hence the recent gibberish posts.

Real scientists communicate with whatever words are most appropriate to the topic and the audience, something you've yet to learn.

Specifically, real scientists communicate most often using the nomenclature appropriate to the field. Vizzini says, "Pull the thing...and the other thing," while real sailors can name every rope and spar on their ship with the appropriate name. "Code" vis "encode" is only the beginning. Real scientists don't frantically Google for simplistic definitions and abbreviated descriptions.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

While wrangling over degrees and edjamakashun is entertaining and all, the real point is the highlighted:

​

Address these points, PGJ or continue to wallow in trivialities.




Yeah, that seems to be all he's got; dictionary definitions, a few Wiki quotes, and quoting his own ridiculous papers and book. The latter is the funniest part, though. "I think xyz and to prove it, I'll just quote myself saying that I think xyz. Now prove me wrong." lol



Yes, as my friend with a degree in Political Science is a Scientist, too. Won't he be pleased to learn!




True. It's not really the basic dictionary usage ability that you're struggling with; it's the actual English language and grammar part that's doing you in.




This is pretty much what you're doing (excepting the lengthy part); I suppose we can all post cute kitten, Michael Jackson, and other picture memes if you like, to bring it down to a level you can understand.




Real scientists communicate with whatever words are most appropriate to the topic and the audience, something you've yet to learn.

Ironically, a quote of mine you had cited, approached the entirety of your value-less response:

One need not a diploma, such that one observes that a system absent high concern for evidence, opposes a framework that highly concerns evidence (i.e science)

One need not a neuroscience degree, such that one possesses basic dictionary usage ability.

FOOTNOTE:

It is disappointing that I need express quotes of mine, that simply refer to trivially accessible facts.

 

[JayUtah]

...your value-less response:

Pointless dismissal of criticism.

It is disappointing that I need express quotes of mine, that simply refer to trivially accessible facts.

You miss the point. The point is that you refer to yourself in a context where references tend to indicate credibility. Real scientists quote other scientists. Fake scientists quote themselves.