Is this place really about fighting ignorance?

In My Humble Opinion
81

“For every paradigm-shifting idea” followed by “there’s over 100,000 ideas put forth”. The meaning seems clear. For “every” true new idea, there’s over 100,000 ideas put forth. If he meant something else, as soon as I called for a source, he could have explained that he meant something else.

Or it could be sloppy writing all around. Or it could be something else. Or you could be pedantic and now argue over the interpretation of the language, and argue what the claim actually means. It any case, there is no source, no evidence to back it up. Which was the point of asking about it.

It’s certainly not true, as stated.

82

Good crap.

83

Not anymore, and yes, that movie is depressing as hell.

But that’s not what I questioned at all. I asked for sources of your claim, that there is more crap than gold put forth in the world. I don’t dispute the premise, that asking for evidence is what a skeptic does, and that since there is more wrong than right, skepticism is the right approach to new ideas, especially ones that seem to challenge a well established paradigm.

I didn’t criticize you, I asked for evidence. “Given the nature of your post, I would like to see the evidence for that. Several peer reviewed actual papers, or lacking that, at least some credible source for why you would claim something like that.” In this case “that” being the huge number of wrong ideas put forth for each right new idea. I don’t believe those figures are right, and they certainly are so far out of reality, they can’t even be right.

When I stated “you just claimed something, then used it as ‘a given’ to then make another claim. It doesn’t work like that.”, it was about the logic of your argument. Even if the number of wrong ideas is a dozen for each right one, it would still be correct to ask for evidence. It’s not the numbers that lead us to that sort of skepticism.

You claimed “how science” works in regards to several huge discoveries/theories about the world. But it isn’t actually how the big breakthrough ideas come about at all. So when I said, “No, in both of those examples that isn’t what happened at all. Please provide some evidence for your statement as fact.”, I was asking you for sources for your claim. Which I say is wrong.

Now the last statement certainly can be viewed as ironic, since there is actually no easy evidence to support it.
“Given your views just expressed, it should be easy for you to give the evidence to support your claims. I usually have several sources before I claim anything here, since if somebody disagrees, it’s helpful.”

However, since I am challenging YOUR claims made, the burden isn’t on me to prove anything. You made a statement as fact, and I asked you to show us the evidence.

That’s how it works.

84

There was a fight, but Ignorance sucker punched Reason and left him (colloquial “him”, as neither Reason nor Ignorance is possessed of a single gender) to die by the side of the metaphorical road. A good Samaritan (colloquial Samaritan, as defenders of Reason have no single nationality) picked up Reason and was nursing him (see note on gender above) back to health when Ignorance snuck up and sucker punched them both. This latest blow from Ignorance left Reason so punch drunk that common folk began to mistake him for Ignorance. Seeing his opportunity, Ignorance began to pass himself off as Reason, confusing more and more people every day until the whole world seemed upside down.

And that, kiddies, is pretty much where we stand today.

85

Bad crap, actually.

86

So, you’re still flogging the dead horse. Got it.

87

That particular one has been solved. Too lazy to look up just where and when. But it’s there somewhere…:slight_smile:

88

That’s pretty good.