Comments by "Science Daemon" (@sciencedaemon) on "Sabine Hossenfelder Can’t Stop Acting Like a Complete Fraud" video.

Not necessarily. Some engineers have a chip on their shoulder and somehow look down on scientists. I have experienced this myself.
47
@MuantanamoMobile any kind of engineer.
17
@KernelThread engineering is essentially applied science with business considerations. It is not science.
3
@inpugnaveritaas oh no, you used the s word. That overused word "synergy" that people resort to because they can't explain complex interactions. LOL
3
Now why would you do a fool thing like that? I merely saw her face and listened to a very short amount a few years ago and instantly knew she was a fraud. I also have a background in physics so that probably helps me discern these liars more easily.
3
@weetabixharry that sounds very naive considering when people go into engineering in university they have all these special groups. Then after they must join the engineering society or whatever in their region. This gives them credibility and the idea that they are on a different level. In a science program you normally have nothing like that because the expectation is that you must go through masters and PhD to be give special considerations. A science bachelors doesn't carry the weight of an engineering one in terms of society/industry credibility.
2
@ uh huh, sure buddy. Keep your hallucinations to yourself.
2
The masses are sheeple. It is just like the majority believing there is some magic person in the sky that will save them, or a zombie messiah rose from a grave, etc. Welcome to reality.
2
@shokker2445 You fail to understand that scientists at the lowest levels do not not have a society that gives them credibility as do engineers.
1
@ashleybailey1785 And engineering is still not science. Of course engineering uses science. You have made no point and 1000% is an impossible number when it comes to certainty. You need to brush up on probability theory and logic.
1
@BadPractices bahaha you are just upset because you fail at intelligence. Keep crying, it won't make your reasoning correct.
1
@jshowao wrong. those societies require a degree in engineering plus years of work as an engineer. We are not talking about IEEE anyway. These are governmental organizations to establish credibility as an engineer, not some random worldwide journals, etc.
1
@jshowao you are also a liar about IEEE membership. Not just anyone can be a regular member. They have different levels. Regular members require education and experience to satisfy requirements. This means they have a status above others.
1
@ashleybailey1785 ahaha says the defensive person. You don't even see your defensiveness, do you.
1
@jshowao as expected you can't read and understand ideas. A FULL MEMBER requires certain education, work, etc. Go read their actual site to understand this. I did.
1
@jshowao fool, there are different membership types. A FULL membership has requirements. A simple membership does not.
1
@jshowao you are deliberately being obtuse. You are not a proper member without the educational/work requirements. It is just a way for them to make money and you have no ability to vote on anything.
1
@williamzk9083 why would a scientist begrudge an engineer. Scientists are above engineers, just an engineers are above trades people. Your reasoning means that engineers are jealous of scientists, not the other way around. Think through your ideas more carefully.
1
@shinton100 where do licenses come from? People that make up some part of society. You don't know how to think properly, understand ideas.
1
@shinton100 Can you learn how to write in at least high school level English before you think you are smarter than others above you. Do have some patience with yourself.
1
@shinton100 check your ideas before writing. A hardware ENGINEER definitely needs an order of engineers license to practice. Any hardware they design may lead to damages, injuries, destruction, lawsuits, etc. FYI software ENGINEERS do programming also. Now what?
1
What is time? I bet you still think it is some objectively real thing. People do not go far in PhDs of the nature you are studying in unless they tow the line.
1
@ it staggered your addled brain.
1
@Prawnsly you couldn't be more wrong. Your limited brain can't get past those projections you use when confronted with truth.
1
@sarahmuth171 Fool, something that is objectively real can be measured to have independent properties, like mass. You cannot do this with time because it is a relationship between events, not some emergent principle at all. It is all relative. But in physics time is treated as some independent variable that is seen as real and not a relationship. This is one of the things preventing discoveries in physics. It similar to the divide between the microscopic and macroscopic scales. If we just stick to one view then we cannot see the physics correctly. I bet this went right over your head because your bias showed me that you are exactly as I perceived, ignorant of other ways to approach these matters.
1
@Jebediah1999 I'm not into fetishes, you degenerate. :P
1
@Nai61a it is hilarious that you can't even reflect on how people tell time. Take your time, think it through. The earth rotates on its axis. A full day is then broken down into 24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds. This is obviously a relative measurement that even a child can understand. All of time was relative to this until a second was defined in terms of so many vibrations of a cesium atom. This is also a relative measure. Oops, you brain has exploded over how simple it is to understand that time is not an objectively real thing. It is relative to the earth rotating or an atom vibrating with no physical properties of its own.
1
Parts of academia are infested with communists. You haven't seen all those woketards invading various faculties? They are even doing it to science when they can.
1
Sure, but academia is infested with communists. Are you going to deny this in the face of all the woketards invading various faculties and forcing DEI and other crap on everyone?
1