SilverBoltsisWmax wrote:
Chichikov wrote:
SilverBoltsisWmax wrote:
Thanks for posting someone's opinion that they blogged about, but I'm more interested in provable science than biased opinions.
there are citations? Did u bother reading it? there are citations all over that page of what they quote and where they get their info?
Well, you can cherry pick your sources, too, and if you don’t balance your science the sources are liable to have biased data, too. I wrote all my undergrad papers that way because I was lazy and didn’t care to do any real work. My profs most often were worried about form over substance, so—if they don’t care, why should I? lol
But on the flip side, science is never about “proof.” Proof is for math, logic, and the courtroom. Proof implies that there can be no further search or inquiry, whereas science is an ongoing process of discovery and investigation. No one can dispute that “gravity works.” What remains in the air is how “gravitation” works. Supposedly objects possessing mass attract each other. But we have only a limited ability to observe gravitation acting on objects in space, though the limited data we have has strong explanatory power. It is entirely possible we can find a better explanation.
Bias in an argument is a legit concern. But endless demands for “proof” only serve to send someone on a wild goose chase for a defense. I typically won’t respond because a person like that, once given proof, will demand proofs for the proof. Throwing an argument into tangents, holding opponents to standards you don’t hold yourself to, and moving goalposts accomplish nothing but wasting someone’s time all for the lullz.