EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5869
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2904 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12799 Posts
On July 22 2026 13:19 Simberto wrote: You didn't answer the question. You just deflected to something else. I did answer the question by giving you an idea we have accepted worse and still regarded their research as legit. You are just not processing it. If you need a direct answer, then yes, if they are able to write a convincing paper backed with research and pass every other requirement, then yes. The last thing education is about, is branding people and not accepting their work. That's against the very foundation of research and papers. the work, the scientific method etc. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2904 Posts
You're basically saying universities should reward people for being convincing conmen if factual truth isn't the foundation. | ||
|
ETisME
12799 Posts
On July 22 2026 13:21 LightSpectra wrote: Quite a big difference between pure junk science like miasma theory or young earth creationism versus a live virus that experts have to advise on while the data is still being collected, don't you think? Nope. miasma theory or young earth creationism -> wouldn't be able to be used in the assignment papers because those would not have been in creditable research paper database. You can't get a degree because you are using subpar sources. live virus that experts have to advise on while the data is still being collected -> It cames down to covid being airborne, and what level of mask would be effective. Masks were shown to be useful when Hong Kong University presented a research paper. I am not sure why the academic research field is difficult for people to understand. It's statement/papers backed by research data. | ||
|
ETisME
12799 Posts
On July 22 2026 13:27 LightSpectra wrote: Lol okay, walk me through how a flat earther is "able to write a convincing paper backed with research and pass every other requirement." You're basically saying universities should reward people for being convincing conmen if factual truth isn't the foundation. You seem to think they can, not me. You seem to think there's no creditable research paper that shows the benefits of technological innovation resulting from economic development can be solution to adapt and lower impact of climate change. The problem is you. If a flat earther is able to conduct and write a research paper that is scientifically and academically grounded, then that's how he would be able to pass. That's the whole point of academic field. The academic research field has never been about gatekeeping "truth", you must have a terrible misunderstanding how the academic world works. Why would you even think otherwise? We aren't burning scholars because they claim Earth rotates around the Sun anymore. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2904 Posts
On July 22 2026 13:30 ETisME wrote: Nope. miasma theory or young earth creationism -> wouldn't be able to be used in the assignment papers because those would not have been in creditable research paper database. You can't get a degree because you are using subpar sources. Okay but who's gatekeeping the research databases? If you're passing people who believe junk science because they were rhetorically capable of defending it, those people are going to be the ones in charge of the research databases in the next generation. The scientific method is reliable precisely because accredited universities don't reward people for peddling junk. If they did then the whole process would collapse because the people doing the experiments and the people doing the peer review aren't competent to the task. Young earth creationists, as a matter of fact, have their own internal eco system of "researchers" and "databases" to share their "research." It's the job of real scientists to make sure their students don't cite them, either accidentally or maliciously. On July 22 2026 13:32 ETisME wrote: Why would you even think otherwise? We aren't burning scholars because they claim Earth rotates around the Sun anymore. Yeah because at some point we stopped letting geocentrists graduate lmao. That's literally my exact point demonstrated for me flawlessly, thank you. | ||
|
ETisME
12799 Posts
On July 22 2026 13:38 LightSpectra wrote: Okay but who's gatekeeping the research databases? If you're passing people who believe junk science because they were rhetorically capable of defending it, those people are going to be the ones in charge of the research databases in the next generation. The scientific method is reliable precisely because accredited universities don't reward people for peddling junk. If they did then the whole process would collapse because the people doing the experiments and the people doing the peer review aren't competent to the task. Young earth creationists, as a matter of fact, have their own internal eco system of "researchers" and "databases" to share their "research." It's the job of real scientists to make sure their students don't cite them, either accidentally or maliciously. Yeah because at some point we stopped letting geocentrists graduate lmao >Okay but who's gatekeeping the research databases? If you're passing people who believe junk science because they were rhetorically capable of defending it, those people are going to be the ones in charge of the research databases in the next generation. You can do your own research. This isn't anything new. Research and publication field have been around for more than 300 years plus. >The scientific method is reliable precisely because accredited universities don't reward people for peddling junk. The scientific method is to reliably accept creditable challenges. Here's the official definition: The scientific method is a systematic, empirical process used to acquire knowledge. It relies on careful observation, formulating a testable hypothesis, conducting controlled experiments, analyzing data, and validating or revising the hypothesis to build reliable, reproducible explanations of the natural world. >Yeah because at some point we stopped letting geocentrists graduate lmao. That's literally my exact point demonstrated for me flawlessly, thank you. Nope. It's because we learnt to use scientific method to allow proof/disprove, not by getting better at branding people | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2904 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12799 Posts
On July 22 2026 13:56 LightSpectra wrote: "Do your own research" means building upon valid experiments/studies that have already been done. It would be literally impossible to learn anything about medicine if you had to wade through thousands of maliciously-submitted antivax or miasma "papers" while trying to find legitimate research. That's why medical journals and universities don't publish them. Again, the idea is medical journals and universities only base it around whether the research is scientifically sound and peer reviewed. Not whether you think some journals were maliciously-submitted and therefore untrustworthy. And it's actually entirely possible to build a new research of your own, and then compare across other researches against parts of your research. (like the method used etc) I am actually a bit surprised/confused, are you not taught about these in high school? We have to use scientific papers, journalists, researches, since like year 9 or so. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2904 Posts
Your tutor telling you your paper on climate change was bad enough that you should pick a different topic was doing peer review. | ||
|
ETisME
12799 Posts
On July 22 2026 14:08 LightSpectra wrote: The first step of peer review is immediately throwing something in the garbage if it obviously has no merit. That is, again, why biologists aren't wasting half their day continually re-debunking miasma theory. Your tutor telling you your paper on climate change was bad enough that you should pick a different topic was doing peer review. >Your tutor telling you your paper on climate change was bad enough that you should pick a different topic was doing peer review that's a big assumption, considering I was referencing credible research papers. Again, are you not taught what scientific method is? I hope you are learning. Also I wasn't writing a research to be published. the educator is meant to point out where the issue is, not on whether they agree with the conclusion. Don't role play yourself as the tutor now  | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2927 Posts
| ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2927 Posts
On July 22 2026 14:08 LightSpectra wrote: The first step of peer review is immediately throwing something in the garbage if it obviously has no merit. That is, again, why biologists aren't wasting half their day continually re-debunking miasma theory. Your tutor telling you your paper on climate change was bad enough that you should pick a different topic was doing peer review. For the record, a tutor telling you to change topic isn't what peer review means. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2904 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2797 Posts
On July 22 2026 14:16 ETisME wrote: >Your tutor telling you your paper on climate change was bad enough that you should pick a different topic was doing peer review that's a big assumption, considering I was referencing credible research papers. Again, are you not taught what scientific method is? I hope you are learning. Also I wasn't writing a research to be published. the educator is meant to point out where the issue is, not on whether they agree with the conclusion. Don't role play yourself as the tutor now How do you know your tutor was suggesting you change subjects because of a personal motivation, and not because you weren't making a compelling argument? From my perspective either could be true. | ||
|
ETisME
12799 Posts
On July 22 2026 14:22 EnDeR_ wrote: What was the grading rubric for this document? What was the context, which degree programme, which year? We normally add accuracy checks as part of any assessments involving external research. I must have the draft somewhere; the claim was that the rate of economic growth tied to development of climate change tools and rate of adaptions per regions. Obviously not too difficult to write about, given a lot of these are quantifiable data with case studies.. It's just the standard final assignments. for economics (social science, not the commerce). Accuracy is easy since I was only referencing the university provided research paper portal access and major news outlet basing around past events. They didn't give me a failure, they just said I should pick another topic all together. Who knows, maybe they thought it's too broad or predictive. | ||
| ||
