Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:IANAL, but... (Score 1) 430

And suing for what exactly? Suing Ubisoft because you bought something without reading the bold print on the requirements portion of the box?

You aren't a lawyer, thats clear, since you don't get very far when you try to sue someone because you are an idiot. They labeled the box, you don't get to sue. If they hadn't labeled the box, you'd have an argument.

Its rather retarded how your first instinct is to sue them for not doing what you want. This is an outstanding example of the sense of entitlement people seem to have today.

Comment Re:The Religion of Science (Score 1) 177

Isn't doubt what got us science in the first place?

Only when done sincerely, and with an understanding of the existing theories and the evidence for them, and thus their actual flaws.

We call those people "scientists". There are plenty of them who are exercising legitimate doubt yet following the evidence.

A "doubter" shares none of these aspects with scientists except for the doubt, and even then calling "doubt" is inaccurate because they are so often already convinced that the science is obviously wrong, and the scientists arrogant dogmatists for not admitting it.

At no point in my post did I suggest that dark matter is wrong.

Uh, you said that the leading dark matter hypothesis contradicted gravitational theory, which would mean one or the other was wrong, and you correctly noted that gravitational theory has been verified extensively, strongly suggesting you thought non-baryonic dark matter was ruled out.

You said claiming otherwise was "dogmatic in the extreme".

What I suggested was that people who insist it is right have a very poor grasp of the scientific method. At present it appears to be a very strong hypothesis. That's great.

Nobody is insisting that it is irrefutable. "Very strong hypothesis" is a much better description -- much stronger than most people, including you, are suggesting. The observation of the phenomenon we call dark matter is, at this point, essentially a fact, and that may be what the people are talking about.

I like to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism about any observational science that, for reasons of scale or scope, cannot (or has yet to) be proven in a laboratory setting.

That's great. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be helpful if you treated skeptics with skepticism, and looked into their arguments a little closer, or looked more into what evidence does exist for astronomical theory. You might be surprised to find out it's a lot more than you think, or were told by a "skeptic"!

Doubt is a good way to attack religion. Characterizing doubt as an attack on science is to turn science into a religion, and defeat its very purpose.

I'm not characterizing doubt itself as an attack on science.

I'm characterizing "doubt" that is founded in ignorance and the a-priori decision that the science must be wrong, as an attack on science. Which it is. Calling scientists arrogant and dogmatic because you don't understand the theory and because you can't believe they are right is not legitimate doubt. It's not useful scientific skepticism. It's hypocrisy.

While you certainly aren't as bad as many, since information you were unaware of appears to affect your opinion, this is still basically what you were doing -- calling every scientist working on non-baryonic dark matter a dogmatist for not admitting your (incorrect) argument proved them wrong. It's funny how you say doubt is a good way to attack religion, while simultaneously doing everything you can (including the topic of this post) to imply science is a religion and thus attack it via doubt.

Step one to being a useful scientific critic: Stop using arrogance and dogmatism to claim all scientists working in a particular field are arrogant and dogmatic.

The trouble with being poor is that it takes up all your time.