Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 28th May 2012 03:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 519774
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-18
You're missing MY point. I disagree with his point.
So you KNOW that it is unknowable? You KNOW it is untestable? I'm glad you've been able to figure that out just by thinking about it. Why, that's completely scientific. It can't possibly be known or tested because I can't think of a way. The worse thing is, the insidious aspect of your attitude is that you ACTIVELY rule something out because you think it is unknowable and untestable. Sure, if something is unknowable or untestable, you say "we can't answer that yet". But to rule it out as even a possibility?
I'm glad people like Galileo, Newton and Einstein existed. Here's a hint, not only does science progress by the testability of known and knowable quantities, it also progresses by the expansion of borders of what is considered knowable or testable, so that was considered unknowable and untestable at one point in history is considered child's play in the future.
As they say, you're not right. You're not even wrong.
Edited 2012-05-29 00:43 UTC