Comment on Finish him. đȘ
Honytawk@lemmy.zip âš5â© âšweeksâ© agoYou mean Sir Isaac Newton, who believed in Alchemy and wrote many things on the subject?
He became only a scientist after his work was peer reviewed.
Comment on Finish him. đȘ
Honytawk@lemmy.zip âš5â© âšweeksâ© agoYou mean Sir Isaac Newton, who believed in Alchemy and wrote many things on the subject?
He became only a scientist after his work was peer reviewed.
testfactor@lemmy.world âš5â© âšweeksâ© ago
Believing in alchemy isnât quite the slam dunk you think it is, since at the time we didnât even know atoms existed, lol. It turns out that people who have massive gaps in the information available to them come to wrong conclusions sometimes, lol.
Youâre just restating the position that Iâve already argued a ton elsewhere in the thread, so instead Iâll ask for a moment of introspection.
Do you believe you would have taken this stance if Elon Musk hadnât taken the opposite one?
You are currently arguing that Isaac Newton wasnât a scientist until that moment someone found his notebooks, at which point he magically became one. Youâre arguing that none of the people who did the research on nuclear physics during WW2 that led to the development of the atomic bomb were scientists, since none of that research was intended for publication or peer review.
Would you have said Oppenheimer wasnât a scientist outside of the context of this image weâre responding to?
At this point I just feel like Iâm arguing against people who are knowingly taking a position they never would have taken if not to âown Elon Musk.â Itâs the knee jerk reaction of âI canât agree with that person I hate, so Iâve gotta argue the opposite.â
Which, look, I get the hate and like to see him dunked on as much as the next guy, but itâs the definition of arguing in bad faith if you donât actually believe the thing youâre arguing for.