Not here though.
On the other hand, plenty of people here are fine with social pressure for certain things.
And? No one has said that social pressure is always bad. Just that social pressure can make people say things that aren’t true.
Yes. I’m just trying to keep the discussion there.
Sure. But that’s not a concern here, since your incorrect use of the term is, in my experience, much rarer than 99.99% – in other words, your error here is not one that so many people would make, especially here. I can’t recall seeing anyone else here making it, in fact – and while I haven’t read every thread here, I have been reasonably active on the site for sixteen years. I feel somewhat confident that if 99.99% of the people here made this error, I would have noticed it.
And even if it were that common, this is a website with the primary mission of fighting ignorance. It seems counter to that mission for you to learn that you are making an error and defiantly embrace the error, valorizing it instead of acknowledging it and correcting your usage.
It’s even more ironic because you are inveighing against another form of ignorance–you sneer at the ignorant people who believe God made a donkey talk. That’s fair, because their story is inherently incredible. But the irony arises when you stubbornly cling to a different kind of error while exalting your inability to commit their kind of error.
No. But who cares? The point is that I am claiming genetic engineering happened – I am saying that the concept of it happening does not violate our understanding of the physical laws of the universe.
If it makes you feel better, substitute an unusually skilled BC-era ventriloquist.
We have had alien donkeys, donkeys with implants, donkeys with DNA alterations, time traveling donkeys (I’m pretty sure)… Now, we have ventriloquist donkeys.
I swear to the deity of your choice that the first person (apart from myself) who mentions “donkey mimes” will have their ass reported!!
It’s a pun! It’s a threat! It’s a threat that’s a pun! Do you see what you’ve driven me to? (crying softly)
I’m gonna take it on faith that you meant you are not claiming genetic engineering happened.
And if there were a ventriloquist, then the donkey didn’t speak, the ventriloquist did.
All of these are donkey memes.
This thread should go into the SDMB textbook of what happens when the mods don’t quash hijacks.
Sure – but the witnesses would have reported the donkey speaking.
Again, though, you seem to be interested in quantifying how unlikely these explanations are, as opposed to either agreeing or disagreeing that they are scientifically impossible.
At a certain level of improbability, an event is impossible.
Go ahead: roll snake-eyes seven hundred times in a row on a pair of fair dice. I’ll wait. Hint: it will not happen. It is operationally impossible.
It is “scientifically possible” only in your extended meaning of the phrase, but, then, so are the Olympian gods in all their divine might. Even Velikovsky’s madness, by your definition, is “scientifically possible.” It’s “scientifically possible” via your reformed meaning, that Atlantis sits at the bottom of the sea, with pretty mermaids and a big buff bearded Mer-king.
Your definition is vacuous. By permitting everything, you lose all possibility of meaning and context.
(In legal terms, it’s a little like asking a jury to be convinced “beyond all doubt.” Can’t happen.)
I’ve seen the same thing happen when people try to re-interpret the phrase “occurring in nature” to mean anything that occurs, whatever. Seaborgium occurs in nature. Humans walking on the Moon occurs in nature. The Internet and computers occur in nature. By taking it to mean “anything which is not supernatural” it ends up losing any useful meaning.
Agreed. But by adding the modifier “scientifically,” you go beyond the usual norms.
Would you seriously defend the concept that rolling snake-eyes seven hundred times in a row with a pair of fair dice is scientifically impossible?
Tell you what: let’s start another thread here in IMHO with that poll question: YES/NO, rolling snake-eyes seven hundred times in a row with a pair of fair dice is scientifically impossible.
What predictions do you have for the results of that poll?
Let’s assume you were invited to a board meeting for a struggling company. During this meeting, over a course of several hours, every method of rasing new capital is discussed, easy methods, hard methods, standard methods, creative ones. Finally they determine that they can not save the company. The person leading the meeting says:
“Well, unfortunately it is impossible to find the money. We can not save the company.”
What will be your response:
1- Remain silent
2- “Well, Bill, it’s not impossible!!! You could all ways buy a lottery ticket!!!”
1: Remain silent.
Of course, there is no reason for you to have asked me this question: I am not concerned about mere claims of “impossible,” unmodified by “scientifically.”
So, if the person leading the meeting said, instead, “Well, unfortunately it is scientifically impossible to find the money. We can not save the company,” I would reply.
“Based on everything I have heard, it’s not practical to believe we can save the company – but it’s not scientifically impossible. Perhaps the dire straits you’re now in arise from leaders such as you, Bill, lacking an understanding of the meaning of the words scientifically impossible. it’s realistically impossible, yes – but scientifically impossible? No. Scientifically, it’s possible we can win the lottery.”
So you make this a habit in real life, contradicting people when they use a term “incorrectly”?
Ok
You are at a friends house. Their 6 year old child comes in. The child says:
Child: Daddy… I heard some people talking, they said some doctors did a heart transplant…
Dad: Yes…?
Child: Well, when grandma died why didn’t they take her brain and transport it to someone else???
Dad: Well… that’s not possible… it’s scientifically impossible to transfer a brain from one body to another.
Bricker: Uhummmm… well, you know, Aliens, who obviously have more advanced technology than we do, could transport a brain from one body to another. So I don’t think you should tell the child that it is scientifically impossible!!! In fact, it’s only very unlikely… not scientifically impossible.
Is that - really - going to be an accurate description of your response in that situation?
I dunno, would you blast people for being religious in real life setting where you are guest at said child and dad’s house? 
This is an internet message board where we debate topics. I’m sure if Bricker was in a debate IRL, he’d have no qualms about correcting incorrect usage.
1- It is true that I often refrain from commenting or criticizing in real life on various topics.
2- However, if I did comment/criticize, my methods of criticism would be more or less the same. I will debate IRL the same way I debate here.
3- IRL, I am not overly concerned with trying to pick apart peoples terminology. I rather focus whether on the idea itself is good or bad, not the verbiage.
Depends on the context. If I were debating someone, sure. If someone said, for example, that it’s scientifically impossible for the Redskins to win this year’s Super Bowl, I’d say that I agree it’s very unlikely, but not scientifically impossible.
No. But that’s because I’d be concerned about toying with a six-year-old’s feelings concerning his grandmother’s death.
Here, I assume that the topic is less personal and the participants more resilient and better-informed than six-year-old children. If this is an inaccurate assumption, please let me know.