3 ms·
> I am not trying to be an "armchair contrarian" or "backseat driver" or anything of the sort. Statements like these... > Hmm, sounds dubious, but I will read
by pdonis 5y ago
> I am not trying to be an "armchair contrarian" or "backseat driver" or anything of the sort.
Statements like these...
> Hmm, sounds dubious, but I will read on.
> But nah, these knowledgeable astronomers must have already thought of all this stuff.
...do not lend support to your claim here.
Not knowing much about an area of science on which many people have spent a lot of time and effort is fine. Being dismissive about it without knowing much about it is not.
- 37 5y agoHmm, okay, I think I understand. For the record, the 'sounds dubious' comment was directed at the claim that we know the "exact" age of the moon. It is more a criticism of shoddy journalism than a statement of my knowledge of the subject. I know enough to know that we cannot pinpoint the "exact" age of the moon. And the 'knowledgeable astronomers' claim was almost more of a meek confession that idk wtf I am talking about. It was not meant sarcastically at all. I know a little, but not as much as people who went to school and do this stuff professionally. Everyone, please note: I'm not trying to back-peddle or make excuses or anything like that here, just explaining my reasoning. (Edit: but thanks for the criticism, it really does help to see your point of view on these things. This is a discussion board after all.)
- pdonis 5y ago> the 'sounds dubious' comment was directed at the claim that we know the "exact" age of the moon. Yes, I agree shoddy journalism is a pain. I never even read the articles, I just look for a link to the actual paper (btw, thank you for providing it).
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y agoThe quality of pop science journalism is absolutely atrocious, but I'm not gonna pretend I know the answer to that problem. It just annoys me a lot.