Blame Quintushalls for this.
Moderators: NeatNit, Kimra
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:57 pm
At the risk of being "that guy" it's been discussed at least once:
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/10 ... is_sc.html
"Back to the salmon. The results were statistically significant, but the fish was dead. So we laugh. In 1620, that would have been evidence for the soul, and no one would have laughed.
The problem is the same in both cases. They are questioning the nature of the data. They should be questioning the nature of the fish. "
anon wrote:They should be questioning the nature of the fish. "
How is it that a writer can lay out a though out critique of the subject (like "anxiety in the amygdala makes no practical sense" or "We have left reflective plates on the Moon") but then make an even stupider conclusion then the one they are refuting ("hence the Moon is painted on a celestial sphere" or "They should be questioning the nature of fish"?) Time and time again this happens. *faceplam_emoji*