[Wyatt Junker deconstructs the scientific mind]
If I have 20/20 vision and you have real shitty vision does that mean that your interpretation of the alphabet wall at the optometrist's office is right when in fact its only half right? Because your vision sucks, you can make up as many of the letters you want to, or the probability of what they might be at any one time using 26 divided by the number of chances you have to guess. I don't have to do that. I'm not limited like you and the stupid scientists who are hamstrung with poor vision. I can see the letters clearly and know what they are. So instead, you make a decision to invent 'the wave' which is really just the after effect of the particle but its the only thing you can measure since your eyes suck. And then, worse, the idiots confuse the wave with the new reality because they can't see the particle. So, since the wave is the only thing they can lay claim to, its all they decide to hang their hat on, in the end. And they can still use the wave and even base observable principles on it due to probability, but in the end, its not the particle. Its just the human trying really hard to remain relevant, when they're eyes suck.
Emphasis added
39 comments
Double Slit Experiment bitch!
Seriously, light can be detected and measured as both particles AND waves. You have some sort of irrational fear of quantum mechanics?
That's nice. Meanwhile back in reality, science works. And that's really the only thing that matters. You can argue about what constitutes truth and muddy up the philosophical waters all you like but science gets results and no amount of redefining words, making analogies, claiming superiority, or other rhetorical tactics changes that. Until religion puts a man on the Moon it will always be inferior to science.
The thing is, Wyatt...vision can be tested--and corrected, when necessary--by SCIENCE.
You've made a series of, frankly, wild-assed assertions in this little rant of yours. Can you back ANY of it up with repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, OBSERVABLE results? I'm going to guess that the answer is no. So until you can, sit down, tuck in your ego, and let those of us who aren't trying to make shit up go about our business, okay?
Thanks, and have a nice day.
Twatt Wanker. Another one to add to the Hall of Shame , along with Casshiterides, AV1611VET, StuporSport and Self-Mutilation, methinks.
"when they're eyes suck"
Well, Casshiterides thinks that the eyes emit light; so one assumes that - to recharge said 'Eye Beams' - you (and nobody else) need to suck in light, so's you can put out light from the same...?! [/hyper-sarcasm]
An education in English is required, Twatt m'boy. Especially in English spelling and grammar. Then...:
image
'OH-HO-HO-HO-HO-HO! OH-HO-HO-HO-HO-HO!' [/Noblewoman's Laugh ] X3
--EDIT--
@SpukiKitty
You're way ahead of me, in our thinking. Can you tell me next week's lottery numbers...?! X3
Except in this case, you're the person with the shitty vision, and the scientists are the ones with the good vision. (By the way, 20/20 is just the cutoff beyond which your vision isn't measured. 20/20 vision does NOT imply good vision, but rather somewhat decent vision.)
Yeah... The problem, Wyatt, is that you're an idiot. You see, you're complaining about having a lot of "vision" when actually, not only is your eyesight as good as a burning corpse, but actually like this:
image
*Apologies to Derpy Hooves.
A priest would claim to know what the blurry letters say, then insist that everyone else agrees with his reading and not try to interpret the wall chart for themselves.
A scientist would invent a pair of fucking spectacles.
I think a better analogy would be:
Both you and the scientist have the same blurry vision. So the scientist tries to think of ways to better see the letters, either by going closer to them or by developing the means to improve his vision, or even more likely, by doing both and cross-checking the results against each other to get the best and most accurate result. And then other scientists will check his theoretical and practical results, trying to replicate and/or falsify them.
While you look at the blurry letters and try either to make up your own sequence or remember what some “authority” (the bible, some pastor, your parents, etc.) told you what the sequence is supposed to be. And then you insist that everyone else follows this “interpretation” without questioning it.
"you can make up as many of the letters you want to, or the probability of what they might be at any one time using 26 divided by the number of chances you have to guess."
He thinks that he knows more about quantum physics than those "stupid scientists", but he can't even get high school level probability right.
Edit:
To be completely fair, he did say "If I have 20/20 vision", so he could just be speaking hypothetically there. The quote is still monumentally stupid either way. He thinks that they are simply particles and the only problem is that they are too small for instruments to measure them accurately enough so scientists just came up with probability waves to try to compensate for this and then confused them for reality because they are all just too dumb to see what is so blindingly obvious to a guy that can't do basic math. I would love to see what kind of nonsense he would come up with if someone explained the double-slit experiment to him.
Edit again:
I just took another look at the thread and I see that he was actually responding to an explanation of the double-slit experiment. He just can't see why this is a problem for his brilliant idea. I guess that shouldn't be too surprising though.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
