Just one note. I don’t know anything about you. So I can’t make any assumptions

Just one note.
I don’t know anything about you.
So I can’t make any assumptions that would be relevant to your experience.
But if you looked at all people in all fields by what they were doing wrong and making mistakes in an publishing nonsense what pattern would you then use to determine the constitution and behavior of scientific inquiry?
Quite by accident I learned that the means of idetifying science, epistemology, logic, language, decidability, truth, morality, cooperation and conflict at all scales, is that I learned to study not what succeeded, but what failed and why. And for example, to learn truth by the study of lying.
This make me and my team as well, experts in the logic of lying, of language, of truth, and of decidability – by study of the via negativa.
So, if you were to look at science not by what you think you do or what scientists claim they do but by the errors and falsehoods and frauds they do, what would you think of science and how would you think of it differently?

Cheers

Reply addressees: @Adam_W_Sawyer @ToKTeacher @DanielWhiteson @getairchat