I see two possibilities:

1. You disbelieve the quote and you are using it as a counterexample. In which case, you consider the source to not be credible on the matter.

2. You believe the quote. In which case, you prove how people may believe what a prestigious scientist may say without critically examining it, even if the claim is contaminated by incredible magical thinking. This is precisely what the meme advocates against.

Neither of these scenarios contradict the meme.

Those two are not mutually exclusive nor contradictory. “Credibility” is a key word, in specific reference to information obtained from an individual through any medium. It’s possible to brand oneself as a scientist in a field and become a talking head without passing proper peer review and replicable results.

I really did not expect it to be so controversial

I should start just depicting my opinions as the Chad and other people’s opinions as the Soyjak and leaving it at that

There are times in which a scientist may speak on matters without peer review, such as interviews, their own blogs or other personal web channels, or even a TED Talk. The meme is about those circumstances.

Did Sigmund Freud’s science? Or Philip Zimbardo’s? Or Santiago Genovés‘s? Or did they contaminate their works with their preconceived notions to get false results that they already believed in? I’ll tell you the same line that I have been saying: verify with peer review and replicable results.

I agree with that much. A person can be smart in one field and ignorant in another field. My concern is with the contamination of one’s own supernatural thinking (either individual notions or the approach itself) into their scientific work and publications. That’s why I said “they may have applied similar illogic and pretenses”, not that they certainly did. That’s the importance of having methodology being scrutinized by unbiased peer review to produce replicable results.

That’s why it’s important to have peer review and replicable results

I don’t understand where you’re coming from. Could you explain further? What are the categories of black and white that you think I’m working in?

An individual doesn’t truly understand and apply the scientific approach and method if they baselessly believe that certain phenomenon are caused by supernatural forces/entities. Ergo, the individual’s credibility in their established field is called into question since they may have applied similar illogic and pretenses to their work and understanding there.

The perspective of a map does not change how the cardinal directions relate to each other. You may be confused about how in slang, “south” may mean below and “north” may mean “above”, but that slang usage does not apply with geography where these terms are rigidly defined. The South Pole is categorically the southernmost point* — there is no location more south than the South Pole. The South Pole is located within Antarctica; ergo, there is no location more south than Antarctica.

*it’s beside the point to distinguish between the Magnetic South Pole and the True South Pole for this discussion but I figured I’d mention it

One thing I think we can all agree on is that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

They don’t because they’re being repressed by the violence inherent in the system

We could form an anarcho-syndicalist commune

Be related to the boss

Other dating/hookup apps already have that, albeit (some? all?) behind a paywall

My alma mater had a café named Foo Bar in a computer science building

Somebody should really report these MAGA people for their anti-Christian biases

I would think the underground ones that host content which is horribly abusive and illegal (in ways beyond merely piracy)

El Salvador and Libya are definitely the easiest