Bardfinn on Reddit constantly claims to be a "Hi! Retired (computer) scientist here!". He will alternative between using the more specific "retired computer scientist" and the more vague/general "retired scientist" allegation depending on the topic he's responding to.

Bardfinn uses this allegation of had having a scientific background in order to claim a position of authority over his opponent. He doesn't use his alleged scientific background to impart knowledge but rather to beat down his opponents and claim moral superiority over them, under the pretense of being neutral and scientific. Here are some examples of posts where Bardfinn felt the need to mention his alleged scientific background in order to claim authority:

Hi! Retired scientist here!

Science has been "100%" wrong several times through history; Modern Science has spent a massive amount of time and effort early on, trying to make sense of (for example) dinosaur fossil bones (before they knew what dinosaurs were), having (reasonably defensible but utterly wrong) explanations for geologic upthrust fault crust folding, and (my favourite example) spending an entire generation denying the hypothetical model of continental drift and the evidence for it — primarily because of Young Age of Earth and Theistic Creation arguments.

The difference between Modern Science, and the pseudo-scientific hogwash that attempts to masquerade as science (to push an agenda),

Is that Science will and must change its conclusions to fit the verified facts, while the hogwash starts with a conclusion and cherry-picks whatever supports that conclusion, ignoring anything inconvenient.

That is the common thread — whether it's been Young Earth Creationism, or Flat Earthism, or the denial of harm caused by tetraethyllead additives to petroleum fuel, or denying the harm of tobacco or denying the harm of asbestos or the Vaccines Cause Autism kooks —

They always say "This is the truth", first. Then they say that you have the ability to decide! For yourself! With their handy dictionary and study guides!

The first thing that a confidence scammer tells you is that he trusts you.

Science and scientists don't trust you, unless you are trained, and have published in a peer-review process, and increasingly only if someone can replicate your results independently.

Many of us have spent careers watching the harm caused by people hijacking science to push their particular agendas, and we would like to have public understanding and acceptance of support for genuine science.

/u/tired_of_nonsense wrote a comment three years ago about Armchair Scientists, and it is worth reading every. single. time.

https://old.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/69ruex/redditor_explains_the_problem_with_science/dh9bnih/

Hi, retired computer scientist here!

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/bc8dc4/what_is_up_with_rcryptonumbers/ekotqy9/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Hi! Retired scientist. Allow me to explain:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ModSupport/comments/aj68mq/confused_by_this_message_from_an_admin/eeta7nz/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

I have to make this disclaimer: I'm not personally neutral on this. I'm a retired scientist, and this is one of my pet causes. I believe that this explanation is neutral, however, because it is backed up by history.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5s54e1/eli5_what_do_epa_opponents_mean_when_they_say/ddcgmyi/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Background facts: I'm retired. I'm a lot older than I look. People mistake me for mid-thirties usually.

Now, the reason my therapist wants me to wear bright coloured clothing is because I am chronically depressed, anxious, have been diagnosed with PTSD, and incidentally I have problems — the Fight or Flight response kicks in — when people grab my arms, hands, shoulders, neck. Sometimes, depending on my mindset and where they grab, it's Fight.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IDontWorkHereLady/comments/54flh2/buy_one_get_one_free/

6 years ago (2014) Bardfinn would post about being a computer scientist without specifying that he was retired:

I'm a computer scientist, and while my speciality is not in the field, I follow very closely the disciplines of trustability and verifiability in software and architecture.

I ask that society and technology prevents them from economically justifying dragnet surveillance of the entire populace, instead of (as it should be) individuals targeted by due process of law. [LOOK WHO'S TALKING]

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ycs5l/hi_reddit_im_brian_krzanich_ceo_of_intel_ask_me/cfjebo0/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Assuming Bardfinn actually had a job in science at the time, he apparently must've lost it in 2014 and has been unable to find gainful employment as a scientist to this day. This means that Bardfinn has been "retired" (read: unemployed) for 6 years.

Another thing Bardfin will do in Reddit threads is make repeat references to some kind of research he claims he was once part of, where he had to quantitatively categorize statements online according to how trustworthy these were. He once referred to this past activity as "my job":

I can give an outline of the tiers of discourse we categorised in my job.

Tier 0 — the ad hominem tier — sounds something like "You are an %}}%". and "You aren't qualified to discuss this because you are an X (or aren't a Y).

This is easy to recognise; people who are resorting to this need time to cool off or, if they persist, to be removed from the community. This is also the easiest to automatically remove, because there are lists of "naughty" words which bots (like AutoModerator) can match and remove the comment.

Tier 1 is Responding to Tone — "I don't like the way you say this", "why do you use big words?" "Why do you use small words?" "Why don't you use Z language?" — but also includes nitpicking over grammar, usage, punctuation. This is the zone populated by our Tongue-Clucking Grammarians; they "Just want you to change one little thing …".

Also known impolitically as "Grammar Nazis" — but observing that is Tier 0 behaviour. This is where forum moderators really work hard, in gently reminding people to be civil, to "remember the human".

"Sea Lions" also are here — commenters who demand, in nominally polite language, that someone making a statement or answering a question or engaging in a debate produce evidence. Their goalposts for what constitutes "sufficient evidence" cannot be met — so it can help to stop and ask people demanding evidence, whether there are any conditions that would change their mind on the topic, thank them for asking to be included in the discussion, and find out what they want from the discussion.

Tier 2 is Flat Contradiction — it involves simply stating an opposing position, without any evidence or support. This can be the easiest to identify, and the easiest to ignore. It is also the easiest for trolls to perform — by vote brigading down on someone's statement, or having a large number of people make the same basic negation statement in many ways, in their own words. It's important to remember that, on Reddit, voting is meant to promote comments that add to the discussion and downvoting is meant to be to remove Tier 0 and Tier 1 commentary from view, and Tier 2 when it is used to flood or harass specific users or the community. It's not an "I disagree" button.

These constitute the tiers we would consider as in the spectrum of "Trolling".

Tier 3 is the Argument tier — discussing the issues, weighing the evidence, and building a case by presenting reasoning and evidence. Each person is presenting their views to each other and to the audience (and it helps to remember that today the audience could easily be the whole world!)

Tier 4 is the CounterArgument tier — this is the tier with the highest requirements, and involves being able to identify key points of someone else's argument, refuting them directly as facts or through reasoning, and offering a better argument or explanation. This is difficult to do properly, because it also requires making it clear that you are addressing the argument, and not the person, and many people identify closely with the arguments they advocate, and consider the refutation of the argument they are advocating as a personal criticism. So, you have to evaluate whether the person you're talking with is capable of detachment from the issues they're discussing.

So, with that as a guide, you, too, can evaluate whether a discussion you're engaged in, or are witnessing, is "good discourse".

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3jfjwr/a_note_on_what_constitutes_good_discourse/cuotysn/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Obviously there is no evidence whatsoever, certainly none provided by Bardfinn himself, that his claims of having a scientific background or experience with scientific research are actually true. He has never provided even a sliver of evidence that he actually partook in the research described above or that this research ever actually happened.

Given that Bardfinn claims to be a retired computer scientist, wouldn't he, like is expected of any scientists, be forthcoming about his resumé to prove that he really does have a PhD? Wouldn't he disclose the research alluded to above? As you would expect, in the context of all the other lies he has already told, this was Bardfinn's blatantly evasive answer when asked to prove his claims:

Denial and the demand for "proof" is artificial rhetoric.

https://www.reddit.com/r/redditsecurity/comments/idclo1/understanding_hate_on_reddit_and_the_impact_of/g29w5c0/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Bardfinn is such an authoritarian that he denies people's right to demand proof for his claims that he's actually a retired scientist with real scientific credentials.

It's highly amusing that the man who once posted the statement "scientists don't trust you unless you're trained" now refuses to be transparent about his own credentials. A true scientist would be more than forthcoming about his background and training.

Conclusion: until Bardfinn provides verifiable evidence about his various claims to scientific fame, any statement he makes about being "Hi! Retired scientist here!" or speaking in the name of science should be considered false by default. Either you prove your work or you GTFO.