Should we believe what scientists say? (Page 6)
AchillesSinatra: I don't mind if we re-direct the thread to focus on James Cagney and the Potato Song
AchillesSinatra: I'm not allowed in your deep thinking thread, Beaver.
But hey, all riff-raff are welcome here.
AchillesSinatra: I don't want you walking the streets alone at night.
Leftie will go with you.
Oh, and happy new year
justabigjoke: Achilles, you are trying to converse with people who are brainwashed with BS. There is no point in using words or intelligent discourse with several generations brought up on Bevis and butthead, and the like. You have to restrict all communication to emoticons. Wheres the one that shows that the Holocaust is the biggest lie?
AchillesSinatra: Hey, stop it already!!
I'm a big fan of Beavis and Butthead, too.
Hey Beavis, he said "wood" *guffaw*
AchillesSinatra: For reasons that needn't concern you, dear reader, I've been watching a documentary on the Yeti.
At the 1:05 mark, our resident science expert, Eugenie Scott, Executive Director National Center for Science Education, tells us:
"I think the biggest reason why most scientists are skeptical of there actually being a Yeti is that there really isn't any evidence for it."
Then at 38:55, the same expert explains...
"The problem is, I and most of the other scientists I know, would really rather know than believe. And when you look at all the evidence...um, it's pretty unconvincing."
Now, I'm not here to defend the Yeti. He can stand up for himself.
The problem is, Ms Scott, first you told us there is no evidence, then you told us the evidence is unconvincing. How can the evidence be unconvincing if there is no evidence?
On pain of contradiction or equivocation, evidence cannot be at once non-existent and unconvincing.
Far be it from me to criticize a science expert, but it's hard not to get the impression she hasn't the faintest idea what she is talking about.
A familiar story, boys and girls.