I don't think my attempts at understanding it is more than speculation. Yours are no more informed, having done no research yourself.
Hogwash. We all know more about your sources than you do. You constantly imply that we are poorly informed, then constantly sidestep the examples showing that we aren't.
Further, I am beginning to detest your constant passive-aggressive flip-flopping. Take a stand or don't; but don't simply change your horse based on how well you think the discussion is going for you. You say now that you're only speculating. But not more than a few hours ago you were telling us we all had our heads in the sand.
Make up your mind.
You reject all that do not fit your paradiem.
No. You are constantly trying to make this a matter of ideology instead of evidence. You admit Turner has no evidence for the basis of her outlandish claims. That lack is why I reject her, not because I'm following some "paradigm."
Interpretation of phenomina has been with us for a long time.
And there are people who do it professionally for the benefit of all mankind. They are called scientists. There are also people who do it to the extent where they are legally liable for the correctness of their interpretations. They are called engineers. They have adopted methods that are proven to help ensure success. Those methods are not just following some "rules" or "paradigms," but are based on empirical feedback from success and failure.
When you are willing to adopt the rigor that others do when results matter, then perhaps you can argue to be taken as seriously as they. But if you're simply going to play at being a "researcher" then you will get little quarter from those you ridicule.
|