Heh, that's every pseudoscience email ever.
Found on the internet :
[AUTHOR] is [BASICALLY, ENTIRELY, PRECISELY] [WRONG / RIGHT].
To be fair, [CONCESSION]. But [UNCHARITABLE RETRACTION OF THAT CONCESSION]. In this case, [SPECIAL PLEADING].
Presuming [THING WHICH IT IS INSANE TO PRESUME], then [OVERSTATED CONCLUSION.] But if [INSANE MISSTATEMENT OF OPPOSING ARGUMENT], then [UNCONDITIONAL RETRACTION OF MY BASIC POINT].
When [THING WHICH WILL NEVER HAPPEN] happens, then I will be proven conclusively right. But until that time, no one can criticize me for having made unfalsifiable conclusions, because they were merely conditional at the time I made them.
[SHORT STATEMENT WHICH IS LESS PITHY THAN I INTENDED]
Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean. Shorter, more focused posts specialising in astronomy and data visualisation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AI Can Help Us Publish Less, Says Scientist
Not really all that much about AI in this one , actually. I think everyone agrees that "publish or perish" is bad, but I don't...
-
It's time for another round of evaluating whether ChatGPT is actually helpful for astronomical research. My previous experiments can be ...
-
My excitement for ChatGPT-5 continues to defy the Will Of The Internet. Sod y'all, this is feckin' awesome ! This is the upgrade I...
-
The last time I tried to count the number of times objects had been claimed to be the first dark galaxy candidates, I stopped at ten becaus...
No comments:
Post a Comment