3 ms·
You have to be open to points of view which may sound ridiculous on the surface though if you can make a case for them. For example, having a model in 1800 that
by letitgo12345 8y ago
You have to be open to points of view which may sound ridiculous on the surface though if you can make a case for them. For example, having a model in 1800 that said that everything is both a particle and a wave would have sounded like satire but it wouldn't have been wrong.
Or having a point of view in 1800 that interracial relationships are not immoral or in 1900 that gay relationships are not immoral would have sounded like satire but again, not something that would have been the wrong point of view.
- abalone 8y agoThese are totally invalid analogies. Scientific claims are never judged by the ridiculousness of the claim but by the strength of the evidence. Every scientific journal would be fairly judged on its assessment of the data and methodology. Every scientific journal is fair game for a “grievance study” and every one that accepts satirically ridiculous methodologies or conclusions would be very fairly judged fraudulent. Your other example confuses popular points of view with academic studies. If there is a better example of the problem here I can’t think of it.