There are quite a few claiming this qualification. What they do not realize is that they often prove themselves to be anything but 'scientists', same goes for the 'teachers'.

​

How does one proves he is not what he/she claims to be? Simple, really: They do not do any research by themselves and ask for proof.

​

When I read something that feels funny (and there are quite few threads that way) I look for the flaws in reasoning and the information given. I then research if I am right to think there is a flaw, after all I am acting on a 'feeling'. When I find and verify what I need to either confirm of deny the veracity of my feelings I usually have learned something in the process. You do not see me ask for a 'proof'.

​

Can we ever trust a 'proof' offered by someone whose reasoning we question?

​

A scientist (I am not one) behaves the same. He observes, test, verifies, test again, share with others that in turn will verify and test. None of those involved will ask for 'proof'. They will ask for clarifications but never for 'proof'.

​

So that you know, the next time you ask for 'proof' I will send this topic and refuse to answer anything an 'on line scientist/teacher' asks until he/she comes with a valid argument against a proposal or statement. Then I will ask for clarification and do my own follow-up. In the mean time, instead of butting head we both can learn.