Sohan Lalwani

I am slightly confused on what is your point

Super appropriate language here for someone accusing another of something, I clarified its a joke, perhaps learn to take one. Also, if you have read other thread people are relatively snarky with me when responding, I responded in a similar matter. Examples please If you disagree with my posts, challenge the content. Dismissing someone based on reputation points, tone, or perceived age is just unproductive 3, now 4 stupid answers. Happy now? Don't create expectations you can't live up too, "You spam this forum like a teenage boy trying to get laid. And all you do is annoy people judging by the minus rep you are getting." I correct myself with my wrong statements and are often humorous. Have you read my statements to make such a claim? Most of my DV's come from "Male Mammographers," read all the statements there I do have a query, for my own mental health I would like to be "banned" in the sense that I am blocked from this forum. However I would want to make a few statements: Using terms like groping/fondoling when describing a health professional is EXTREMELY QUESTIONABLE Down Votes should be reviewed by a moderator before being given People who make snarky comments and get responded as such should not victimize Before jumping on someone's case, ask for clarification Using crude terms like "a teenage boy trying to get laid" is some of the worst ways to assist in communication Discussions should be based off of facts and not people factionizing themselves and picking a side simply because they have known I would like to thank @TheVat for some very interesting conversations along with @CharonY for asking for clarification before attacking someone I do expect @exchemist to fully retract their statement on the thread Male Mammographers I do think that some of my DV's should be reconsidered "considering" the fact that there are literal users that say "We need big burly men" and "Fuck you" on here People with vulgar language should be banned in my opinion I recommend reading some of the comments left by @sethoflagos I am not the only snarky person here. Thanks for allowing me to be on this forum, cheers!- Sohan Its a 2 way system, HEY I ALSO DIDNT HIJACK ANYTHING, @dimreepr I believe mentioned I did I SWEAR ON MY LIFE I DIDNT

I have to support what @TheVat is saying, data interpretation itself would be a philosophy.

Oh no problem :)

Thats YOU, I also just clarified its a JOKE, learn to distinguish the two. Did I say "WHAT NASA LEVEL COMPUTER DID YOU USE LIAR?!?!?!?!!?!?!." No, I simply made a joke within context. Read the context. I made a joke, nothing here that I said is directly offensive, some comments are snarky like yours, others are humorous. If you have a problem with it simply notify me in a logical manner preferably and not go on a tangent. Am I saying "STUDIOT YOUR TOTALLY WRONG AND ARE BEING DUMB?" No, its a joke man. Mods, this isnt snarky? Anyway, I did request a ban I just wanted to notify @KJW I made a joke, not an insult. :)

I see

Ok

Does this statistic even matter?

Also, some of it is humorous Context matters as well, I made a joke also prior. I don't think KJW took offense to this What an excellent challenge "Another rude response and completely missing the point I (and KJW) was making" is... We seem to be going off topic, lets return to the original topic please. This is evidence?

You seem to be going off topic. Unless you have a counterclaim to my statement, I could care less for these emotional statements. A wise person once told me "I am not going to apologise," I shall follow in the same pursuit. Also the programmer is pretty phenomenal, if you have ever used discourse or another info exchange platform, its relatively difficult.

Not blatantly rude, its as snarky as "How far back does you memory of 'computing power' go ?"

My reply wasn't rude, I just stated that unless its relative to the discussion, I could care less. Wrong thread, ignore this

The quotes empty dude This comment is about microbiology, not really biochem

I already answered it, you just aren't reading it thoroughly, I clarified the loose terminology now. The journalist issue sounds like something you dislike, which with all due respect, I don't really care about.

It would be helpful to know precisely what I am dealing with to give the best possible answer.

There is methodological diversity, I should clarify that all scientific fields share a common foundation.

I said it does? Hence why "Unless treated in early stages. Rabies can be prevented almost entirely with post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP)"

I feel this is more a Microbiology topic unless you are talking about biochemical functions of the virus? When I said not every science shares the same philosophy, I was referring to the epistemological and methodological diversity across disciplines. For example, physics leans heavily on reductionism and mathematical formalism, while evolutionary biology often embraces historical contingency and inference from incomplete data. Similarly, fields like sociology or anthropology may use interpretive or constructivist approaches that would be alien in, say, quantum field theory. That said, the "common methodology" often cited across sciences tends to be a generalized scientific method: forming hypotheses, testing them against observations or experiments, and refining models based on evidence. But even that is more of a family resemblance than a strict template the way a chemist tests a hypothesis is fundamentally different from how a paleontologist or economist might.

Not every science shares the same philosophy. Think of data regarding a time series of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations over the past 500,000 years. To a climatologist, this is a radiative forcing proxy a dynamic signal in the Earth's energy budget. It immediately invokes climate sensitivity models, feedback loops involving albedo and water vapor, and paleoclimatic reconstructions using Milankovitch cyclicity. But now hand that same dataset to a paleoecologist suddenly, it becomes an ecological driver, a keystone variable that can modulate biodiversity trophic restructuring, and biome migration across latitudinal gradients. Both interpretations are valid, but they operationalize the data toward completely different narratives. This divergence is rooted in epistemological framing, the fundamental assumptions a field brings to what constitutes a “valid” explanation. In molecular genetics, for instance, a nucleotide sequence may be parsed through a bioinformatic pipeline to yield SNP frequencies and linkage disequilibrium profiles. But an evolutionary biologist may instead filter the same sequence through the prism of coalescent theory, phylogeographic inference, or punctuated equilibrium dynamics. The data is static, yet the inference space is non-Euclidean curved by the questions asked. Even more strikingly, interdisciplinary conflicts often arise when the same data must answer both mechanistic and emergent-level questions. For example, climate modelers may use isotope data to refine Earth system models governed by thermodynamic constraints and nonlinear differential equations. Meanwhile, an archaeologist might use the same isotopes to infer food webs or migration behavior in the Late Pleistocene, which involves probabilistic reasoning rooted in taphonomic bias and cultural evolution. It’s a kind of epistemic pluralism multiple valid truths, shaped by disciplinary affordances and cognitive schema. Ultimately, data are only as meaningful as the interpretive scaffolding we build around them. They are semantically inert until activated by a scientific imagination. The same numbers can be ontologically situated as a physical constant, a historical artifact, or a biological vector. In this sense, science doesn’t merely “read” data it performs an act of translation.

Far enough to know that just because someone duct-taped a FORTH interpreter to a 6502 and called it a telescope controller doesn’t mean we should all aspire to simulate modern physics like it’s 1983. There’s a difference between running a stepper motor and modeling quantum decoherence. You might’ve gotten by with a floppy disk and 64KB of RAM back then, but let’s not pretend that Excel-on-DOS is the gold standard for simulating quantum systems or entropy dynamics. We’re not debugging a stack of punch cards here, just acknowledging that simulating non-trivial systems with meaningful resolution tends to scale fast in complexity.

I am not giving medical advice, I am asking more information regarding the scenario as the question itself is very vague. I think it does, lets not argue about useless things like this. Return to the main topic.

They share a common and SIMILAR methodology with a common foundation, not every science has the same philosophy, that part is true. I already did, return to the first page please.

It depends on the context, physical pain can be seen with noises/actions associated with stimuli that has caused harm. An example of this would by a fish who's lung what just stabbed, you can visibly see it losing breath and bleeding. Pretty sure that animal is dead now, OP is it?

What is the goal of this? Are you trying to grow a specific strand of microbial life?

I would suggest looking at population growth to suggest otherwise.