Gumby #fundie

Gumby #fundie acne.org

Just so you know, I've spoken to biologists and evolutionary scientists in both Europe and Australia and NONE of them could explain to me the points I and Aysia just raised, they just say 'Oh, that field of research hasn't been fully explored yet.' Shitheads, if something hasn't been fully explored or explained, you can't declare it to be true!!!

10 comments

Quantum Mechanic++

Classic of pseudoscientists: "More research is needed...", God of the gaps, etc.

Then it's unlikely that an expert would spend much time with Gumby when detecting that the purpose is the imposition of false a-priori premises.

Another classic:
The creationist method: Here are "the facts" (a conclusion interpreting the origin myths of an old book, like the Bible). What can we find that confirms it? (confirmation bias fallacy).
The scientific method: Here are the facts (observations of the natural world). What conclusions can we derive from them? How can we verify and test that these conclusions are valid? How can we improve our method to make more discoveries? (observation, hypotheses, scientific theories, replication, double-blind experiments, etc.)

Gumby #fundie acne.org

10 comments

Confused?