I would say this is a good metaphor for the autism vaccine debate we were having earlier this month, no?
I would say this is a good metaphor for the autism vaccine debate we were having earlier this month, no?
Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
Scientific illiteracy as explained by PhD Comics
- Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
I would say this is a good metaphor for the autism vaccine debate we were having earlier this month, no?
True, but at least it spawned about 100 research projects relating to mercury, autism, vaccines, et all to prove one and for all that Jenny McCarthy is not a scientist and is fucking crazy.Replay wrote:I would say this is a good metaphor for the autism vaccine debate we were having earlier this month, no?
Although, it brings up a good point. Just how hard is it to publish a peer-reviewed study? Let's say that you're a good scientist, and you want to test a theory and make the results known as "good science". However, this theory is unpopular, not on the news, not a hot topic, etc.
Do you need grant money? Do you need hundreds of thousands of dollars and access to a huge lab to do an experiment? (Let's say it doesn't involve a super collider.)
What I'm really asking is: Is science politically driven, and is politics the only way to get anything scientifically proven? Stuff like global warming isn't what I'm talking about. Yeah, the Republicans tend not to believe it, but the science is THERE. There's hundreds of studies on it. What about the weird crap that we've never investigate because anybody with an interest in it doesn't have the money to dive into a scientific study?
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Kupek?
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
So the question is: if I spend a good hour plus writing up my theory on morality that we discussed earlier, would you have the time to respond in kind? It would be a long debateKupek wrote:Sorry, I'm just not up to writing what is essentially a short essay on research right now.
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
