(January 16, 2023 at 2:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(January 16, 2023 at 1:19 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: What's the alternative? As far as I can see, all the alternatives are even worse. That's why the most scientific thing to do is to accept it. The scientific method does not always lead you to a correct result, but it's the best method we have.
The alternative is to state, ‘Due to the flawed methodology and absurd claims in Boru’s ‘On The Meaning Of Facial Expressions In South American Rodentia’ , we conclude that the meaning of such facial expressions remains unknown. Funding is unavailable for a counter-study at this time.’ The response would be similar in the case of Kleck’s study - we simply don’t know how many lives are saved by gun use.
And THAT, me old mucker, is how science works. Science is not required to accept a dubious claim simply because no one has taken the time and trouble to formally refute it.
Boru
So, do you think that The Mad Revisionists are basically right, but that, instead of concluding "The Moon does not exist.", they should say "We do not know whether the Moon exists."?
