4 ms·

You’re suggesting that OP devote his or her time to learning pseudo-science. Hard to think of anything that could possibly have less value than that.

yters 7y ago
Have you read these papers, or are you just repeating something you read online?
- iron0013 7y ago
  I mean, I haven’t watched every 9-hour-long flat earther video on YouTube either, but I’m still pretty certain that the world’s not flat.
  - yters 7y ago
    Is flat earth promoted by mathematicians and scientists with PhDs from Princeton and Cambridge, and published in mainstream IEEE journals? At any rate, you seem to be saying you have not read any of the relevant papers. I encourage you to look at least at one of the papers I mention (not just the criticisms others have written), and make up your own mind as to its validity. Most are free PDFs hosted online, and are not very long reads. The game of life paper is the most accessible, IMO. You can even reproduce the results yourself if you become interested enough. At that point, you'll be in a better position to dismiss the work. Even though I agree with you on flat earth being a pseudoscience, I have at least read some of their arguments to see what they are claiming. Same with 9/11 truthers and holocaust denialists. I at least read their arguments, so I can debunk their arguments myself. There is always the possibility that some position I vehemently disagree with might be correct.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
imjustsaying 7y ago
>pseudo-science I'm not sure why you mention this as a contrast. Macro evolution also does not follow the scientific method as there is no repeatable experiment you can design to falsify the hypothesis. This is well-known among evolutionary biologists.
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  Stop spreading pseudoscience. There's no macro-evolution, there's just evolution. Pick up a biology book instead of your Bible
  - yters 7y ago
    Try typing "macro evolution" into Google scholar. You'll see plenty of mainstream evolutionary biologist using the term.
  - exdsq 7y ago
    I hadn't heard of macro-evolution so take this from the stance of a skeptical relatively well-reasoning individual. I can't see anything from a cursory browse that suggests it's a pseudoscience? Am I missing something? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48 https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48 - https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolu... - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/

yters 7y ago

Have you read these papers, or are you just repeating something you read online?

iron0013 7y ago
I mean, I haven’t watched every 9-hour-long flat earther video on YouTube either, but I’m still pretty certain that the world’s not flat.
- yters 7y ago
  Is flat earth promoted by mathematicians and scientists with PhDs from Princeton and Cambridge, and published in mainstream IEEE journals? At any rate, you seem to be saying you have not read any of the relevant papers. I encourage you to look at least at one of the papers I mention (not just the criticisms others have written), and make up your own mind as to its validity. Most are free PDFs hosted online, and are not very long reads. The game of life paper is the most accessible, IMO. You can even reproduce the results yourself if you become interested enough. At that point, you'll be in a better position to dismiss the work. Even though I agree with you on flat earth being a pseudoscience, I have at least read some of their arguments to see what they are claiming. Same with 9/11 truthers and holocaust denialists. I at least read their arguments, so I can debunk their arguments myself. There is always the possibility that some position I vehemently disagree with might be correct.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

imjustsaying 7y ago

>pseudo-science I'm not sure why you mention this as a contrast. Macro evolution also does not follow the scientific method as there is no repeatable experiment you can design to falsify the hypothesis. This is well-known among evolutionary biologists.

bufferoverflow 7y ago
Stop spreading pseudoscience. There's no macro-evolution, there's just evolution. Pick up a biology book instead of your Bible
- yters 7y ago
  Try typing "macro evolution" into Google scholar. You'll see plenty of mainstream evolutionary biologist using the term.
- exdsq 7y ago
  I hadn't heard of macro-evolution so take this from the stance of a skeptical relatively well-reasoning individual. I can't see anything from a cursory browse that suggests it's a pseudoscience? Am I missing something? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48 https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48 - https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolu... - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/