But maybe they are? I mean, if you agree on differences ("in some respects"), how can you then seriously expect to not see any differences in outcome at the end?
Why would that be great? And what the hell does "the profession is richer for it" even mean? Satisfaction of the practitioners in the field? You surely agree that this is not the only valid possible metric here. And not even the only way to achieve such ends.
Has it ever occurred to you, that maybe, just maybe, there are promises made, but they actually have no base in reality? As in, is a whole profession really better off? Have you ever seen even one shred of evidence, that there are tangible benefits, better results in the end, or something?
Always funny to me how easily critical thinking gets thrown out of the window by persons who one would expect that they should know better.
You really think that this distinction holds up? Twitter, per se, not a public forum, but a specific account on Twitter (or what shall be the definition?) can actually be a public forum? And in doubt, who gets to draw the line?
Which major extinction event? Do you really think this is an appropriate comparison to proven major extinction events of the past (e.g Chicxulub, 66 m. years ago)?
What makes you arrive at this conclusion? Apart from the issue that I would call that a misnomer. But don't get me wrong, I know what you mean here.
But I believe that this article makes a very good point, because if you followed social sciences a bit in the recent past, you could get the impression that they seem to reject the theory of evolution almost in its entirety.
Not sure what you're trying to hint at, but I'd say this should be part of the discourse and part of research as well, obviously. True to the principles of the scientific method.
> Bryan is just upset we guessed right. It is called science.
This description is actually pretty good, I think the general public vastly underestimates how often it boils down to this. So, in conclusion, yes, science is often just guessing right.
The disconnect between the expectations and reality.
Well, to some degree you will always have it, but that is a very interesting facet, and I concur that it is somewhat increasing. It has in the recent past, and it still is..
> And it is not limited to media or CEO's, but it made its way into top researchers.
Interesting. One would assume that top researchers would be more "immune" than anyone else, but if it's true what you say and it already made its way..
For the record, I think you are onto something here.
What would be your favorite pet theory that explains this phenomenon?
Do you believe it has something to do with this culture of "fake it till you make it", as if we have forgotten the value of honesty?
Annoying? But to _whom_? You? Because, as everyone knows, you are the final arbiter when it comes to the interpretation of my comments.
> Because you went and decided to call out an English speaker, who was writing English, on the "incorrect" spelling of an English word? Sure, in Serbian it might be "Milanković's cycles", but in English it's Milankovitch.
Yes, because it's wrong. The romanization / anglicization of the name in Serbian Cyrillic is Milankovic. The form with "-tch" is simply wrong. You can go ahead and argue that the erroneous form is now well established, but I don't buy such argumentation. I strive to correct that.