It does, just not the volumes you think.
Here's how it will go:
I'll pick one of the myths - point out why it's a load of horseshit, you'll argue the point for a couple of pages and then claim that it's not the only thing and refer to one of the other Myths, I'll point out the cherry picked, misrepresented and out-of-context BS used in that Myth, you'll argue the point - reference some conspiratorial drivel, written by someone who wouldn't know the difference between a Virus and Bacterium - I'll refute that AND the Myth, then you'll change the subject again.
So on and so forth.
But if it makes you happy - in the 5 seconds I skim read the 'refutation' I counted at least 4 different glaring logical fallacies and 1 blatant omission - I couldn't be bothered after that.
So let's try this - since you are so Skeptical and are always totally not biased - let's see if you can spot them.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Because that isn't what I'm doing at all.
Let me put it another way - if someone brought a bike to you, with the engine missing, the forks bent and the frame visibly twisted, you took one 5 second glance at it and replied "Nope, it's fucked - get another bike" - would it be fair to say that you were arguing from a position of complete ignorance if you didn't run a full diagnostic on every aspect of the Bike?
Cause that's what you are saying.
I looked at the article and all it took to pick up multiple obvious errors was 5 seconds. Errors that anyone with an ounce of either skepticism or knowledge would pick up on. That told me all I needed to know about the article, that it was a steaming pile of shit and should be discarded as such.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
There are currently 68 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 68 guests)
Bookmarks