Off-Topic > Off-Topic - The Funnies

pontificator

<< < (2/2)

tobiaus:
woof... that's sounds like a deeply cynical view.

it's not alien to me, i'm a skeptic in many things, but skepticism being one of them. i'm sure you do fine with it, but other people have to guard themselves. first they log on to the internet, then people tell them scientists are just hacks that get lucky sometimes, and sooner or later everyone is being homeschooled because they fancy themselves smarter than people who think for a living and as a way of life. but scientists always make mistakes. typically each one is a step to a better understanding, i'll give them that.

mikshaw:
Oh, I didn't mean to give the impression that I think they're hacks...I just tend to exaggerate a bit too often.  I think science is a necessary process of evolving theories, and nothing we've learned from it is 100% fact.  What scientists believe to be true is often replaced when contrary evidence is found to be more reliable and logical.  We should accept the most rational and well-supported explainations as probable reality, but never as solid fact.  I was mostly pointing to the habit of scientists to speak of theories as if they were fact, using phrases such as "this is", "they are", and "it will" instead of things like "evidence strongly suggests this is",  "studies have shown they are" , and "we believe it will".  Semantics may be unimportant to many people, but you can see it every day in advertising and politics that slight differences in the wording of a sentence can give quite different impressions of what the truth is.

tobiaus:
oh i agree, and i wasn't accusing you or putting words in your mouth. i was just saying that in general, people have to be careful because it starts our realizing science doesn't have all the answers, and then people do 180's and go nuts against reason.

i very much doubt you're in any danger of it, it's difficult to believe it happens to anyone, let alone how common it is. we did a world class job taking the thread off topic, i wonder if anyone else will mention (or read) the article?

softwaregurl:
The theory of trying to prove a universal negative.  It is impractical to prove that something does not exist anywhere in the universe, but saying impossable is using a universal negative to explain that a universal negative is impossable.

As far a right or left handed, where does that leave us ambidextrous people?

tobiaus:

--- Quote from: softwaregurl on December 16, 2008, 11:09:28 PM ---...but saying impossable is using a universal negative to explain that a universal negative is impossable.
--- End quote ---

that was incredibly awesome, i loved it.


--- Quote ---As far a right or left handed, where does that leave us ambidextrous people?
--- End quote ---

well according to the pseudoscientific exaggerations, exactly where you should be.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page