I agree with you last point, and I really, really want to with the first.

Sometimes science feels more like an art, for chemistry at least. I suppose the counter-point to this is: if you provide sufficient detail to reproduce but your results are still difficult to reproduce reliably by others, then your process wasn’t very robust and should have undergone more development before publishing. Those details may be so minor that you don’t even realize that you overlooked something.

Counterpoint: the scientific method is much simpler than you described.

1. Fuck around
2. Find out
3. Write it down

The rest are details of the above or elitism.

The liberal who doesn’t believe in the concept of critical support.

Alternate PhD

Spoken like a round leaf.

What a shit parable.

Fucking GOOD! Holy hell, still a terrible story to imagine.

It’s often the same for science, though there are actual experts who occasionally weigh in too.

And the jolly rancher.

That’s assuming they are competent enough to even use a PDF.

Exactly. Just like the “water isn’t wet” argument, it all comes down to semantics such as how you define terms.

Define genocide how they want, they’re still a bunch of ghoulish war criminals.

They never got rid of the first one, now they’ll just grandfather in Israel.

Lol, it’s been “rules for thee, not for me” for quite a long time. In particular, look at the US’s 2002 Hague Invasion Act that basically says they don’t give a fuck what the court says and if they mess with the US or US military, they’ll do anything in their power to stop it, including taking military actions.

Same, part of why I picked an X1 gen 9 over the 10 (if I remember correctly) was that the difference in chip mainly affected battery life with only marginal improvements to performance with the newer chip.