I don't know any reason why I would be. Certainly nothing you have done.
I've done research my entire life.
I don't believe that is correct. There is nothing to indicate this. I think you have a secret, personal definition of research that doesn't appear to conform with what is known to be called research.
Often it lasts for seconds before I'm comfortable with an answer and sometimes days and days. It's rarely longer.
There is nothing to demonstrate that you have done more than read the works of others and come up with what remain without demonstration as wild, unsubstantiated claims and what I think is best described as rambling.
My current research has been ongoing for 18 years now.
Where does one get a grant for surfing the internet and misconstruing the works of others to fit a personal belief?
During this time I have had reason to converse or write to various experts in various subjects.
Reason to perhaps, but no evidence that you ever did.
You might be surprised just how little I do consult experts, peers, and specialists not because I think I have all the answers but experts have invariably been wrong when I talk to them.
I'm not surprised at all. That this statement I'm responding to here provides evidence contradicting the one proceeding it doesn't surprise me either.
That you believe you know more than those that have spent decades learning and study a subject also doesn't surprise me.
They say some of the stupidest things that can be disproven almost immediately sometimes and other times I might be misled for weeks. These are experts who should have facts and data at their fingertips or memorized since mostly it's very very basic and might even be wrong on its face. But these are the experts in the hard sciences where facts can be checked; either copper sulphate is miscible in alcohol or it is not.
Perhaps they have come to the same conclusions I have and don't want to spend time on fruitless communication with someone that cannot provide a cogent argument or any support of their claims.
It's the experts in the soft sciences that are the real issue because not one of them to date has even responded to questions.
Like many things you post, there is no connection of this statement with anything that remotely touches on what you claim or anything that has been mentioned by myself or others. I have no idea what you personally define as the "soft sciences" or why you have mentioned that.
You have this idea that every question in every subject has one single correct answer but this is very false and even were it true if experts and those with fancy doctorates can't provide proper answers then why should I take the word of people on the internet who provide opinions about things that obviously have no fixed answers?
No. I don't. I have this idea that if someone is going to claim expertise in a subject or make claims about a subject, they establish that they are an expert and have evidence to back up their claims.
YOU have established nothing more than you believe some stuff. You offer nothing for others to agree with your claims and accept them. Often the claims are practically meaningless on their face.
Very few and rapidly diminishing numbers of people understand science.
There are more scientists today than the combined numbers of the prior 500 years.
Perhaps what you are seeing is that which already existed. There are a lot of people that have always failed to understand science and a lot of people peddling nonsense that they claim is science to suck in portions of that group to their belief and pseudoscience.
They are highly recognizable because they don't think they have answers but their opinions often reflect opinions that are cutting edge.
I think they are recognizable by the claims that they know everything about things that are not established to be knowable. I think Ancient Language fits in that category. Claims about the brains of 40,000 year old Homo sapiens is another example where there are no brains of that age or any age up to perhaps 5,000 years ago to study and no evidence that those making such claims have studied what there is. I think they are recognizable by a lot of rambling and empty assertions.
They never take me to task for my methodology, only my interpretations.
All I know is that your methodology appears to be reading the work of others, synthesizing that with undemonstrated beliefs about these things and then posting empty assertions based on that synthesis on numerous web forums.
No, I'm not suggesting that any experts agree with me about anything at all.
Probably just as well. I couldn't imagine it would be many or even any if they are sticking to science.
Indeed, these people rarely will even talk to me.
Once more contradicting what you seemingly implied in your opening that you could consult with experts.
All of these people are not even peers
I believe this.
but many are metaphysicians.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It is vacuous to me.
Indeed, most scientists who understand science are at least a little bit metaphysician.
Again, a claim without meaning or explanation and nothing to offer for me to accept.
This would include people like Feynman and Einstein.
If you say so. What that means to you, I cannot say and have no expectation of explanation or even an attempt at it.
Due to the nature and simplicity of my current research the bulk of it is done by search engines.
Yes. I understand surfing the web.
It's in the nature of tying together facts, history, and simple science.
And it seems sewing bits and pieces of what appears to be a trivial gleaning into a personal narrative that you believe, but have so far failed to demonstrate to anyone anywhere that I know of. If you have, you have not offered it for others to view.
You don't need much expertise for this nor extensive education.
Again, I agree. I have seen nothing that would require any sort of expertise in science.
It's mostly just grunt work like digging ditches.
Science is mostly grunt work. Scientists know this. It is the conclusions, explanations, testing and theory that arise from this grunt work that is ultimately what is important. Observing, questioning, experimenting and analyzing evidence followed by publishing and defense of those conclusions in a meaningful and comprehensive form are most important. It is the product of all that grunt work. Scientists love to tell others what they did. How they did it. What they found. And what they think that means. Something I find conspicuously lacking in your claims.
As I have said before, there is no common ground for us to work with. I have grown bored seeing the same unsubstantiated claims routinely offered on heavy rotation as if they are fact or truism. Offered without any explanation or defense of them. Seemingly as if it is unnecessary to do so.
Frankly, you don't seem interested in what anyone has to say unless it is empty enthusiasm for what you seem to see as your "great work". I don't care to try and engage with someone that isn't interested in what I have to offer. So, I will act in kind and give you the same respect you have given me.
Good luck. Good bye.
