If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newser)   Stephen Colbert interrupted his normal Colbert Report opening last night in order to offer a moving and, of course, amusing tribute to the people of Boston   (newser.com) divider line 63
    More: Cool, tributes  
•       •       •

4466 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Apr 2013 at 1:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-17 01:06:40 PM  
I want to marry him and have his babies.
 
2013-04-17 01:17:18 PM  
I watched it last night and it was indeed very cool of him.
 
2013-04-17 01:18:35 PM  
I really love this guy.  He's an artist to me.
 
2013-04-17 01:19:08 PM  
Blocked in my country!

Canada cares about Boston too D:
 
2013-04-17 01:19:17 PM  

for good or for awesome: I really love this guy.  He's an artist to me.


Trolling and straw-man satire is an art?
 
2013-04-17 01:23:57 PM  
Damn you, submitter.

I am tearing up here at work, and I'm at my new desk and there is more of a chance I can be seen.
 
2013-04-17 01:24:47 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: for good or for awesome: I really love this guy.  He's an artist to me.

Trolling and straw-man satire is an art?


If you do it well enough.
 
2013-04-17 01:27:29 PM  

SultanofSchwing: Blocked in my country!

Canada cares about Boston too D:


http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1cj7rt/stephen_colbert_respo nd s_to_boston_marathon/

All kinds of mirrors here.
 
2013-04-17 01:36:58 PM  
It tells you something about the weakness of terrorism in general when we look forward to what our late night talk show hosts are going to say about it.

/There are easier ways to get mentioned on Colbert. Most of them potentially lead to actually being on it instead of being on death row.
 
2013-04-17 01:39:06 PM  

Shadowtag: It tells you something about the weakness of terrorism in general when we look forward to what our late night talk show hosts are going to say about it.

/There are easier ways to get mentioned on Colbert. Most of them potentially lead to actually being on it instead of being on death row.


might have something to do with our tendency to drone strike people without a second thought. we might have misguided leaders, but we're pretty badass.
 
2013-04-17 01:39:17 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: for good or for awesome: I really love this guy.  He's an artist to me.

Trolling and straw-man satire is an art?


It is a art.

Look what fark's own geniuses come up with sometimes.
 
2013-04-17 01:41:47 PM  

nburghmatt: Shadowtag: It tells you something about the weakness of terrorism in general when we look forward to what our late night talk show hosts are going to say about it.

/There are easier ways to get mentioned on Colbert. Most of them potentially lead to actually being on it instead of being on death row.

might have something to do with our tendency to drone strike people without a second thought. we might have misguided leaders, but we're pretty badass.


The intrusive and harassing power of the TSA is proof that terrorism still holds some power over us.
 
2013-04-17 01:48:36 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: nburghmatt: Shadowtag: It tells you something about the weakness of terrorism in general when we look forward to what our late night talk show hosts are going to say about it.

/There are easier ways to get mentioned on Colbert. Most of them potentially lead to actually being on it instead of being on death row.

might have something to do with our tendency to drone strike people without a second thought. we might have misguided leaders, but we're pretty badass.

The intrusive and harassing power of the TSA is proof that terrorism still holds some power over us.


it does. we'll still bomb the shiat out of them and they'll suffer more casualties than we do. the TSA makes little practical difference.
 
2013-04-17 01:50:18 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: for good or for awesome: I really love this guy.  He's an artist to me.

Trolling and straw-man satire is an art?


Straw-man? I'm curious. Cite example please.
 
2013-04-17 01:59:28 PM  
"A people so tough they had to buckle their God damned hats on" got a hearty guffaw out of me.
 
2013-04-17 02:14:50 PM  

Wadded Beef: B.L.Z. Bub: for good or for awesome: I really love this guy.  He's an artist to me.

Trolling and straw-man satire is an art?

Straw-man? I'm curious. Cite example please.


He constantly puts words in peoples mouths by quoting what they say, thus giving the illusion that they said stupid things just because they actually said them.
 
2013-04-17 02:16:03 PM  

Wadded Beef: B.L.Z. Bub: for good or for awesome: I really love this guy.  He's an artist to me.

Trolling and straw-man satire is an art?

Straw-man? I'm curious. Cite example please.


His character is a pastiche of right-wing stereotypes, and what's worse is it's all different shades of the right-wing spectrum rolled into one. Basically everyone who's not liberal/progressive is lumped into one person, from capitalists/libertarians to religious moralists. That is what I mean by "strawman". He'll use his character to mock right-wing capitalists one moment and right-wing religious zealots another moment as though everyone who's in one camp must be in the other. If you want an example, I saw him interview Bjork about her Biophilia app (basically an app that creates music) a year or two ago, and at one point he said to her something like, "Why desecrate music with something as evil as science?" Obviously this was taking a shot at anti-science conservatives, and yet I, who believe in science, would be considered "right-wing" by the progressive crowd he hangs with because I also believe in capitalism, and therefore I must take the shrapnel from that shot. This is what happens when you lump different shades of belief under one package deal.
 
2013-04-17 02:34:22 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: His character is a pastiche of right-wing stereotypes, and what's worse is it's all different shades of the right-wing spectrum rolled into one. Basically everyone who's not liberal/progressive is lumped into one person, from capitalists/libertarians to religious moralists. That is what I mean by "strawman". He'll use his character to mock right-wing capitalists one moment and right-wing religious zealots another moment as though everyone who's in one camp must be in the other. If you want an example, I saw him interview Bjork about her Biophilia app (basically an app that creates music) a year or two ago, and at one point he said to her something like, "Why desecrate music with something as evil as science?" Obviously this was taking a shot at anti-science conservatives, and yet I, who believe in science, would be considered "right-wing" by the progressive crowd he hangs with because I also believe in capitalism, and therefore I must take the shrapnel from that shot. This is what happens when you lump different shades of belief under one package deal.


The fact you don't die from self-inflicted irony is shocking to me.

In case you don't realize what I mean - you just pulled a huge strawman right there, and did the exact thing - straight faced and seriously, without a hint of sarcasm - that you accuse Colbert of doing through satire.
 
2013-04-17 02:38:40 PM  
You know, for the Lord of the Flies, you sure are a whiny biatch who can't take a throwaway joke from two years ago.
 
2013-04-17 02:38:45 PM  

Khellendros: B.L.Z. Bub: His character is a pastiche of right-wing stereotypes, and what's worse is it's all different shades of the right-wing spectrum rolled into one. Basically everyone who's not liberal/progressive is lumped into one person, from capitalists/libertarians to religious moralists. That is what I mean by "strawman". He'll use his character to mock right-wing capitalists one moment and right-wing religious zealots another moment as though everyone who's in one camp must be in the other. If you want an example, I saw him interview Bjork about her Biophilia app (basically an app that creates music) a year or two ago, and at one point he said to her something like, "Why desecrate music with something as evil as science?" Obviously this was taking a shot at anti-science conservatives, and yet I, who believe in science, would be considered "right-wing" by the progressive crowd he hangs with because I also believe in capitalism, and therefore I must take the shrapnel from that shot. This is what happens when you lump different shades of belief under one package deal.

The fact you don't die from self-inflicted irony is shocking to me.

In case you don't realize what I mean - you just pulled a huge strawman right there, and did the exact thing - straight faced and seriously, without a hint of sarcasm - that you accuse Colbert of doing through satire.


In what way is that a strawman, because progressives actually believe in capitalism or because they don't actually attack capitalists as being right-wing? I'm curious to see you defend either claim.
 
2013-04-17 02:39:40 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: who believe in science


If you really "believed in science" you wouldn't use the phrase "believe in science". Science is not a belief system. It is not a religion. There are no tenets of science that need to be taken on faith or that need to be "believed in" to be true.
 
2013-04-17 02:40:38 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: You know, for the Lord of the Flies, you sure are a whiny biatch who can't take a throwaway joke from two years ago.


I presume you're talking to me. Someone asked for an example and I provided one. I guess I'm just a whiny biatch for going against the Fark Progressive Hivemind to begin with, eh?
 
2013-04-17 02:42:57 PM  

Donnchadha: B.L.Z. Bub: who believe in science

If you really "believed in science" you wouldn't use the phrase "believe in science". Science is not a belief system. It is not a religion. There are no tenets of science that need to be taken on faith or that need to be "believed in" to be true.


You're letting religion monopolize the meaning of the term "belief". Just because the religionists have given it a mystical aura for thousands of years doesn't mean that the term has to involve faith.
 
2013-04-17 02:46:54 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: In what way is that a strawman, because progressives actually believe in capitalism or because they don't actually attack capitalists as being right-wing? I'm curious to see you defend either claim.


Being progressive, liberal, or left-leaning doesn't mean you're anti-capitalist.  You lumped in everyone left-of-center, quite erroneously, as being anti-capitalist.  The fact your brain even goes that way is hilarious, and demonstrates you have very skewed ideas of capitalism, and what is right or left of center.

And you did it without a hint of irony or sarcasm.  Colbert knows he does it.  He intentionally does it in character.  You did it as an honest belief without reservation.  You've built a mental strawman that you don't even realize is a gross exaggeration.
 
2013-04-17 02:55:12 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Donnchadha: B.L.Z. Bub: who believe in science

If you really "believed in science" you wouldn't use the phrase "believe in science". Science is not a belief system. It is not a religion. There are no tenets of science that need to be taken on faith or that need to be "believed in" to be true.

You're letting religion monopolize the meaning of the term "belief". Just because the religionists have given it a mystical aura for thousands of years doesn't mean that the term has to involve faith.


nah you just misunderstand the meaning of the term "science"
 
2013-04-17 02:55:32 PM  

Khellendros: B.L.Z. Bub: In what way is that a strawman, because progressives actually believe in capitalism or because they don't actually attack capitalists as being right-wing? I'm curious to see you defend either claim.

Being progressive, liberal, or left-leaning doesn't mean you're anti-capitalist.  You lumped in everyone left-of-center, quite erroneously, as being anti-capitalist.


I did not lump anyone in, I was referring specifically to liberals/progressives, and yes they are anti-capitalist. They believe that capitalism, if left alone, is essentially destructive. Now they don't go so far as to want full-blown government control of everything, granted, but let's focus on essentials: they believe capitalism is basically bad albeit with some good side effects, therefore they think they can control the alleged bad parts and still have the good parts. Is that not true?
 
2013-04-17 02:57:43 PM  
beliefs are thoughts that you decide are true. science is a process.
 
2013-04-17 02:59:02 PM  

nburghmatt: B.L.Z. Bub: Donnchadha: B.L.Z. Bub: who believe in science

If you really "believed in science" you wouldn't use the phrase "believe in science". Science is not a belief system. It is not a religion. There are no tenets of science that need to be taken on faith or that need to be "believed in" to be true.

You're letting religion monopolize the meaning of the term "belief". Just because the religionists have given it a mystical aura for thousands of years doesn't mean that the term has to involve faith.

nah you just misunderstand the meaning of the term "science"


You're getting hung up on one word. If something is true, do you not believe in it? Science is true, I believe in science. Religion is false, I don't believe in religion and I don't have faith. Why is that so complicated to you?
 
2013-04-17 03:00:28 PM  

nburghmatt: beliefs are thoughts that you decide are true. science is a process.


Right, but you don't validate science with science. That doesn't make sense. You validate science with reason and philosophy.
 
2013-04-17 03:04:43 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: I did not lump anyone in, I was referring specifically to liberals/progressives, and yes they are anti-capitalist. They believe that capitalism, if left alone, is essentially destructive. Now they don't go so far as to want full-blown government control of everything, granted, but let's focus on essentials: they believe capitalism is basically bad albeit with some good side effects, therefore they think they can control the alleged bad parts and still have the good parts. Is that not true?


You've created an incredible black and white idea of what the left and the right believe, and it's completely wrong.  99% of the U.S, no exaggeration, is both capitalist and socialist.  Now, before you faint from offense, let me assure you.  There's nothing wrong with this.  People on the right are quite happy with government controlled services, and use them just as much as people on the right (even more so in the case of assistance-based programs).  People on the left are business owners and investors just as much as the right.

The idea that the left is anti-capitalist is wrong on its face.  Not skewed, not "a little out of line".  It's completely wrong.  Just as it's wrong to say the right is fully capitalist.  They like social services, and use them often.  Even more often than those on the left, in fact.

Step back, and examine what the terms capitalist and socialist actually mean, and stop lumping people based on a thick black line in the sand.  It doesn't reflect reality, and shows your patently absurd biases.
 
2013-04-17 03:10:18 PM  

Khellendros: The idea that the left is anti-capitalist is wrong on its face.  Not skewed, not "a little out of line".  It's completely wrong.  Just as it's wrong to say the right is fully capitalist.


You can be "partially" anti-capitalist and still essentially anti-capitalist, meaning that you basically believe capitalism is destructive but to be "pragmatic" you allow some of it to exist.
 
2013-04-17 03:26:16 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Snatch Bandergrip: You know, for the Lord of the Flies, you sure are a whiny biatch who can't take a throwaway joke from two years ago.

I presume you're talking to me. Someone asked for an example and I provided one. I guess I'm just a whiny biatch for going against the Fark Progressive Hivemind to begin with, eh?


Boss, nobody's dogging you for disliking Colbert.  You're getting dogged because your gripe is Colbert paints Republicans as anti-science, a quality that Republicans wear with pride until it's (correctly) mocked by liberals.

Republicans have a proven record of de-funding education, espousing religious fanaticism, and claiming rape victims can't get pregnant.  Republicans are anti-science.
 
2013-04-17 03:28:23 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: B.L.Z. Bub: Snatch Bandergrip: You know, for the Lord of the Flies, you sure are a whiny biatch who can't take a throwaway joke from two years ago.

I presume you're talking to me. Someone asked for an example and I provided one. I guess I'm just a whiny biatch for going against the Fark Progressive Hivemind to begin with, eh?

Boss, nobody's dogging you for disliking Colbert.  You're getting dogged because your gripe is Colbert paints Republicans as anti-science, a quality that Republicans wear with pride until it's (correctly) mocked by liberals.

Republicans have a proven record of de-funding education, espousing religious fanaticism, and claiming rape victims can't get pregnant.  Republicans are anti-science.


He doesn't go after only Republicans but everyone on the right-wing spectrum, from libertarians/capitalists to...Oh bugger, I'm not repeating myself!

And de-funding public education has nothing to do with being anti-science.
 
2013-04-17 03:34:32 PM  
Hivemind.

You funni.
 
2013-04-17 03:40:17 PM  

Khellendros: B.L.Z. Bub: In what way is that a strawman, because progressives actually believe in capitalism or because they don't actually attack capitalists as being right-wing? I'm curious to see you defend either claim.

Being progressive, liberal, or left-leaning doesn't mean you're anti-capitalist.  You lumped in everyone left-of-center, quite erroneously, as being anti-capitalist.  The fact your brain even goes that way is hilarious, and demonstrates you have very skewed ideas of capitalism, and what is right or left of center.

And you did it without a hint of irony or sarcasm.  Colbert knows he does it.  He intentionally does it in character.  You did it as an honest belief without reservation.  You've built a mental strawman that you don't even realize is a gross exaggeration.


I'd like to see his definition of capitalism. I bet it's along the lines of that Onion article, "Area man passionate defender of what he believes is in the Constitution."

In other news, somebody new to Grey-6!
 
2013-04-17 03:42:41 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Khellendros: The idea that the left is anti-capitalist is wrong on its face.  Not skewed, not "a little out of line".  It's completely wrong.  Just as it's wrong to say the right is fully capitalist.

You can be "partially" anti-capitalist and still essentially anti-capitalist, meaning that you basically believe capitalism is destructive but to be "pragmatic" you allow some of it to exist.


Which is not the reality that exists.  The actual difference between liberals and conservatives in the U.S. is tiny compared to the rest of the world.  The continuum of economic preferences has a very small standard deviation here.  Both are HIGHLY capitalist.  Referring to a U.S. liberal as "anti-capitalist" is laughable to the rest of the civilized world, or to anyone here with an education on such things.
 
2013-04-17 03:43:45 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: He doesn't go after only Republicans but everyone on the right-wing spectrum


I'm no longer sure what your issue with Colbert is.

Is it that he only sends up the right-wing?  Because it's been proven repeatedly that DS/CR frequently take the piss out of Dems and Libs.

Is it that one time, two years ago, in an interview with an Icelandic nymph who wears mallards as formal wear, he took a shot at the right wing's demonstrable anti-science streak?

No snark (well, no MORE snark), I just really want to know what the problem is.
 
2013-04-17 03:46:51 PM  

astro716: Khellendros: B.L.Z. Bub: In what way is that a strawman, because progressives actually believe in capitalism or because they don't actually attack capitalists as being right-wing? I'm curious to see you defend either claim.

Being progressive, liberal, or left-leaning doesn't mean you're anti-capitalist.  You lumped in everyone left-of-center, quite erroneously, as being anti-capitalist.  The fact your brain even goes that way is hilarious, and demonstrates you have very skewed ideas of capitalism, and what is right or left of center.

And you did it without a hint of irony or sarcasm.  Colbert knows he does it.  He intentionally does it in character.  You did it as an honest belief without reservation.  You've built a mental strawman that you don't even realize is a gross exaggeration.

I'd like to see his definition of capitalism. I bet it's along the lines of that Onion article, "Area man passionate defender of what he believes is in the Constitution."

In other news, somebody new to Grey-6!


Like the religionists who hijacked "belief" to make it mean essentially "knowledge by means of intuition or feeling (i.e., knowledge as non-knowledge)" so that they could claim "knowledge" of God, the pragmatic anti-capitalists have hijacked "capitalism" to mean whatever they want it to mean so that they can claim to be for it while simultaneously advocating policies that destroy it.
 
2013-04-17 03:47:10 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: nburghmatt: beliefs are thoughts that you decide are true. science is a process.

Right, but you don't validate science with science.


that is totally how you do it. what are you not understanding about science?
 
2013-04-17 03:50:45 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: And de-funding public education has nothing to do with being anti-science.


Now you're just being willfully blind.  The primary funding, backing, and political support for de-funding public education is the conservative home-schooling demographic and the parents of religious school students.  They don't want, biology, astronomy, or sex education taught to their children.  It's almost entirely anti-science.  No evolution.  No old-earth cosmology.  No sex ed from a practical standpoint.

Yes, there are those who want all services (including education) exposed to the winds of market forces as an ideal that they believe will bring about efficiency.  These are a small minority.
 
2013-04-17 03:52:23 PM  

Khellendros: Both are HIGHLY capitalist.


In practice, yes, America's left is somewhat pro-capitalist for the moment. In theory, no, they are not essentially pro-capitalist, which is why their practical implementation of their beliefs is always evolving towards more and more government controls. The small part of them that is pro-capitalist cannot co-exist simultaneously with their anti-capitalist part forever.
 
2013-04-17 03:56:34 PM  

nburghmatt: B.L.Z. Bub: nburghmatt: beliefs are thoughts that you decide are true. science is a process.

Right, but you don't validate science with science.

that is totally how you do it. what are you not understanding about science?


That's an absurdity. How can you validate science with science? In order to validate something, you must choose a process of validation that you already know is valid. In the case of science, that process would be reason. Reason itself needs no validation because it is axiomatic. You are treating science as axiomatic, and it is not.
 
2013-04-17 03:57:53 PM  

Khellendros: B.L.Z. Bub: And de-funding public education has nothing to do with being anti-science.

Now you're just being willfully blind.  The primary funding, backing, and political support for de-funding public education is the conservative home-schooling demographic and the parents of religious school students.  They don't want, biology, astronomy, or sex education taught to their children.  It's almost entirely anti-science.  No evolution.  No old-earth cosmology.  No sex ed from a practical standpoint.

Yes, there are those who want all services (including education) exposed to the winds of market forces as an ideal that they believe will bring about efficiency.  These are a small minority.


OK, I'll rephrase that to be, "Wanting to defund public education isn't necessarily anti-science".
 
2013-04-17 04:06:43 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Khellendros: Both are HIGHLY capitalist.

In practice, yes, America's left is somewhat pro-capitalist for the moment. In theory, no, they are not essentially pro-capitalist, which is why their practical implementation of their beliefs is always evolving towards more and more government controls. The small part of them that is pro-capitalist cannot co-exist simultaneously with their anti-capitalist part forever.


Was Keynes pro or anti-capitalist?

I think we need a base line.
 
2013-04-17 04:09:56 PM  

SixPaperJoint: B.L.Z. Bub: Khellendros: Both are HIGHLY capitalist.

In practice, yes, America's left is somewhat pro-capitalist for the moment. In theory, no, they are not essentially pro-capitalist, which is why their practical implementation of their beliefs is always evolving towards more and more government controls. The small part of them that is pro-capitalist cannot co-exist simultaneously with their anti-capitalist part forever.

Was Keynes pro or anti-capitalist?

I think we need a base line.


Is this a trick question? If you think Keynes was pro-capitalist, you're not thinking in essentials. That's what I've noticed in common about those who've given me grief here: the inability to think in principles. If you see everything in shades of gray, it's because you're not looking closely enough.
 
2013-04-17 04:10:25 PM  
bookmark for when I get home
 
2013-04-17 04:17:12 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Khellendros: Both are HIGHLY capitalist.

In practice, yes, America's left is somewhat pro-capitalist for the moment. In theory, no, they are not essentially pro-capitalist, which is why their practical implementation of their beliefs is always evolving towards more and more government controls. The small part of them that is pro-capitalist cannot co-exist simultaneously with their anti-capitalist part forever.


B.L.Z. Bub: Khellendros: B.L.Z. Bub: And de-funding public education has nothing to do with being anti-science.

Now you're just being willfully blind.  The primary funding, backing, and political support for de-funding public education is the conservative home-schooling demographic and the parents of religious school students.  They don't want, biology, astronomy, or sex education taught to their children.  It's almost entirely anti-science.  No evolution.  No old-earth cosmology.  No sex ed from a practical standpoint.

Yes, there are those who want all services (including education) exposed to the winds of market forces as an ideal that they believe will bring about efficiency.  These are a small minority.

OK, I'll rephrase that to be, "Wanting to defund public education isn't necessarily anti-science".


I quoted the two exchanges above, but I encourage you to take a moment and re-read the last few dozen posts.  Are you not noticing your strawman now?  You're stepping very carefully to segment and demonstrate the nuance of a right-leaning position - science, education, faith, capitalism - but you refuse to give the same nuanced approach to the other side.  Left-leaners are anti-capitalists, and support government taking over operations, but in your case, your beliefs have nothing to do with religion, and defunding public education isn't necessarily anti-science.

Do you truly not understand how hypocritical you sound?  Your entire thought process paints one side with a broad brush, but your side is different and special.  You do it knowingly and honestly, but have a problem with Colbert doing it in satire and entertainment.
 
2013-04-17 04:24:34 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Like the religionists who hijacked "belief" to make it mean essentially "knowledge by means of intuition or feeling (i.e., knowledge as non-knowledge)" so that they could claim "knowledge" of God, the pragmatic anti-capitalists have hijacked "capitalism" to mean whatever they want it to mean


rwtverio.ncte.org
 
2013-04-17 04:26:34 PM  

Khellendros: Left-leaners are anti-capitalists, and support government taking over operations, but in your case, your beliefs have nothing to do with religion, and defunding public education isn't necessarily anti-science.


Here are the basics: if you believe that there must be some controls of capitalism because capitalism is basically destructive, then when you see the damaging effects of the controls you advocate it will not cause you to rethink your basic premises, it will only cause you to advocate more controls to mitigate the effects of the previous set of controls. From your point of view, the beast that must be controlled is capitalism, and nothing will dissuade you from that, and you are constantly moving in the anti-capitalist direction.

Conversely, there is no logic that establishes that if you believe capitalism is essentially good then you will be moved to have religious beliefs. That's a non-sequitur.
 
2013-04-17 04:30:08 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: nburghmatt: B.L.Z. Bub: nburghmatt: beliefs are thoughts that you decide are true. science is a process.

Right, but you don't validate science with science.

that is totally how you do it. what are you not understanding about science?

That's an absurdity. How can you validate science with science? In order to validate something, you must choose a process of validation that you already know is valid. In the case of science, that process would be reason. Reason itself needs no validation because it is axiomatic. You are treating science as axiomatic, and it is not.


it's called empirical validation and it's the basis of science you farking retard.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report