Speaking of critical thinking. You'd think that scientists are all critical thinkers.
In my whole scientific career, I can tell you that it is much farther from the truth. Even in highly mathematical STEM fields. Most of their ideas simply suck and will not get any good results. I knew that as soon as they told me what they're thinking.
I worked with about 10 other scientists closely. Only 1 of them is capable of critical thinking. I have worked with people from the ivy league, Harvard, Berkeley, Princeton. Young professors / graduates. Their ideas suck. I could tell that they are all indoctrinated.
Allen Savory has figured out how to basically save the planet. He has learned how to capture rain water in deserts, utilize ruminant animals to fertilize barren pastures, and turned wastelands into lush landscapes for farming.
In this short clip, he talks about today's "scientists" who have no interest in experimentation (the Scientific Method), but will only believe something is "science" if there is a peer-reviewed paper:
Good for you. Experimental results are easy to fake if the researchers agree to do it. Nothing can be really certain on this planet, especially these days with tricky tech, clones, deep fakes and holograms.
Yep. I left the Academia because most of them will write papers that have absolutely no use at all. It is the same in the AI field, I walked around in one of the best conference, only about 5-10% has some sort of impact. IN ONE OF THE BEST AI VENUES!!
I have been doing / creating a lot of impactful stuff in the industry. Been looking for job. In an interview, I had someone ask me why I'm not writing any papers on the work I did. I just didn't what to say. Like, telling him that a good scientist thinks for himself and doesn't need to know whether a project has a paper to understand that it works??
Andrew Kaufman, MD, has said that in his experience, most "scientists" or "doctors" who are asked to peer review a paper, do not even understand what they are reading, and could not tell you why or if an experiement was done in a valid manner or not.
Yet, they sign off on the paper's review, thus making it "peer reviewed."
Speaking of critical thinking. You'd think that scientists are all critical thinkers.
In my whole scientific career, I can tell you that it is much farther from the truth. Even in highly mathematical STEM fields. Most of their ideas simply suck and will not get any good results. I knew that as soon as they told me what they're thinking.
I worked with about 10 other scientists closely. Only 1 of them is capable of critical thinking. I have worked with people from the ivy league, Harvard, Berkeley, Princeton. Young professors / graduates. Their ideas suck. I could tell that they are all indoctrinated.
Allen Savory has figured out how to basically save the planet. He has learned how to capture rain water in deserts, utilize ruminant animals to fertilize barren pastures, and turned wastelands into lush landscapes for farming.
In this short clip, he talks about today's "scientists" who have no interest in experimentation (the Scientific Method), but will only believe something is "science" if there is a peer-reviewed paper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDbpg1nG8Y
Yep that's what's going on!
I reviewed other people's paper. Usually there are 2 more other reviewers with me. A lot of people just let them publish even if the studies' flawed.
I didn't let them pass.
Good for you. Experimental results are easy to fake if the researchers agree to do it. Nothing can be really certain on this planet, especially these days with tricky tech, clones, deep fakes and holograms.
I just watched the video.
Lot's of scientists (in the industry and academia) thought I'm crazy for having new ideas LOL.
I've got a job offer declined when a Berkeley masters grad asked me in the interview, so you're not doing the thing they do in papers?
Yep. I left the Academia because most of them will write papers that have absolutely no use at all. It is the same in the AI field, I walked around in one of the best conference, only about 5-10% has some sort of impact. IN ONE OF THE BEST AI VENUES!!
I have been doing / creating a lot of impactful stuff in the industry. Been looking for job. In an interview, I had someone ask me why I'm not writing any papers on the work I did. I just didn't what to say. Like, telling him that a good scientist thinks for himself and doesn't need to know whether a project has a paper to understand that it works??
Andrew Kaufman, MD, has said that in his experience, most "scientists" or "doctors" who are asked to peer review a paper, do not even understand what they are reading, and could not tell you why or if an experiement was done in a valid manner or not.
Yet, they sign off on the paper's review, thus making it "peer reviewed."
Speaking of weird people having strange habits.
I can't think and speak at the same time lol. I can't speak well, at all.
But you can type?