@PanteraOnNoiseApp
more from that month
What are your thoughts when someone refers to himself as: "..I'm a credible scientist..". Is there any reason for any scientist to prove himself credible to his audience? This certainly looks the same as when a scam project will refer to itself as: "..this is not a scam..", or "..this is not a Ponzi..". By the way, this is not randomly thrown like that by these people. A validation of credibility as such, seems to be working for the scammers since their target is the naive part of their audience.
2 comments
would I lie to you?
There is no such thing as a credible scientist only credible science. Plenty of scientists who have produced some credible science have also failed. However there are credible scientific experts who can give a neutral overview of a specific field of knowledge, where it came from, where it might be going and how it can be applied to a specific problem. In this sense credibility refers to the neutrality of opinion by a scientific expert - non political - not profiting from another party - not dismissing anomalies that don’t fit established models etc. Normally these experts refer to promoting, defending and progressing a scientific view of the world which should operate neutrally in a search for scientific truth. The problem with the above is that you have to be able to separate personality and brand from proven results.