Sayonara

Why is option 4 uber stupid in the poll but uber homoerotic in the thread?

\o/ All hail Daisy the magnificent! I hated them all because they mocked Timmy's canine stupidity. Bastards.

Allow me to simplify: If we are not in the "real" reality, and have no means to detect the "real" reality or distinguish it from our own, then this is our reality. It's entirely subjective. The "if" is just not relevant.

Exists.

We can't be sure we aren't rhinos plugged into a matrix of some sort, but since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that we are it is not really worth consideration. It was a difficult decision laying off the banana - he did rightly point out that all those comments about him in the trheads will no longer make sense, but I think he's happier and better off at the retirement home.

Of course complications can arise. Like "That wasn't chicken :D"

The did not find 70 sextillion stars in a strip of sky. They observed the bright galaxies in a strip of sky and used the data to calculate the minimum number of stars in the entire cosmos.

Of course he looks European - he's one of our colonists like the rest of you rebellious lot. Now stop chatting and do Her Highness's bidding, slave!

We know.

You know what? You're completely correct. We don't know that we know what we know. There is no way to be sure. But there comes a point where you have to make a decision. You can either go with the observable evidence and base your models on the best data, or be forever lost in the world of maybe. No faith is required. Only a healthy measure of scepticism.

When people alledge the universe is "more a donut than a ball", do they mean it literally, or "donut shaped... in every direction" (a hyperdonut, I suppose you'd call it) ?

When I was at university they considered such services to be a form of plagiarism. If students want to be lazy and refuse responsibility for their own work, let them. The consequences will be a valuable lesson.

Based on the second half of his question, I suspect fazed was more interested in whether there is a gap in the market.

lol

He is over there ^ Relative to me of course, not you.

In case anybody was wondering, the word science comes from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge. It doesn't leave much scope for "maybe the universe works because of this thing I can imagine, despite the evidence". If that's what you're after, you want a very tolerant philosophy forum.

I knew you'd spot that! That's exactly what I mean about not always mapping out every possibility in every post. Failing to mesh with 1 out of all established theories is pretty good odds on being correct.

atinybananamonkey

Did it not occur to you that perhaps I don't plough everything I think into every single post? Odd as this may seem i actually have "quite a bit" to do. I don't have the time to spend mapping every possiblity out for every kid who comes along posting random madness they made up before they've bothered to learn about logic, deductive reasoning and scientific method. This isn't about rigidity at all. I am actually possibly one of the most open-minded people you will meet - the fact that I don't always express it here is in no way relevant. This is not a "What If" forum, this is a Science forum. We discuss science here, in scientific terms, using universal concepts and established theory. Since you have elected not to consider any of this as a possibility - or indeed a probability - then yes, you are judging me. I don't have to justify the content I omit from posts or put into them, and I certainly don't have to prove to you that all of established theory is any more likely than whatever crap people can pull out of thin air. Yes, there is a possibility we have made serious errors and don't fully understand everything we think we do, but that doesn't mean that all of the madness that has been posted here in the past is "as likely as" what we think is real. It's not difficult to spot an argument or model that can't stand under even its own weight. That's because all the major established theories mesh together. Something that only meshes with one or two of them is highly likely to be wrong. I thought the point of your campaign was to laud doing this as "a good thing"?

Just to be absolutely clear on this, the above post was sarcasm.

Just because we don't all explicitly state "actually, nobody really knows anything and I could be talking crap" at the end of every post doesn't make it true, and it doesn't mean we don't accept it as a margin for error. Perhaps you should refrain from making judgements about people's personalities and instead appraise them on the scientific discourse they engage in. You know, on this Science Discussion Forum. [edit - that was for SS]

Don't call me stupid, stupid.

I like the way I pre-replied to that

Is there any particular reason not to, other than the usual scepticism-inducing media sensationalism?