4 ms·
> For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for I'm sorry, what? I did ask that as a rhetorical flourish in a different thread (as a response to you, i
by Quekid5 6y ago
> For somebody who admits having no idea what it's for
I'm sorry, what?
I did ask that as a rhetorical flourish in a different thread (as a response to you, in fact), but c'mon. You specifically said
> It's not science, or science-adjacent, or anything to do with science. It doesn't pretend to be. That's not what it's for.
I note that you didn't answer my other question: how do you justify its use if it's not 'science'.
EDIT: Btw, my allusion was to a comment by Stephen Fry in a debate. (Specifics are no doubt going to lead to more contention, so I'll omit them.)
- ncmncm 6y agoSome people insist science=good, therefore not-science=not-good. But the world is bigger than that. Your responsibility as a human is to discover value in things you encounter. Failing to find it is just failing, and says more about you than about things.
- dang 6y agoPlease don't cross into personal attack in HN threads. It's not what this site is for, and wrecks what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ncmncm 6y agoI am not attacking anyone, personally or otherwise. What I wrote applies to anybody, myself included.
- Quekid5 6y agoAh, yes. Not answering any of my questions and just putting out vague platitudes.
- dang 6y agoPlease stop.
- erhk 6y agoScience is a method not a political ideology. Rejecting science is rejecting ration. You can attack the validity of the data or you can point out flaws in conclusions but to claim science as a concept is flawed is to reject evidence based conclusions. At which point there can be no faithful discussion.