[Uncategorized]
[links] Link salad looks forward to some turkey
jeffsoesbe on the OryCon cheese party — Mmm, cheese.
First detection of carbon dioxide in an exoplanet — Oooooh. What you can learn from the light of a single pixel.
Bad Astronomy blog with some (retroactively) obvious logic about UFOs — Never thought of this angle before, myself.
Pirates protected from EU task force by human rights —
Eight Is Enough — Comment from The New Yorker with more on the Mormon Church and Proposition 8.
The Edge of the American West reminds us of the Iran-Contra scandal — Look! Over there! Whitewater!
?otD: How many tribbles can fit in a Volkswagen?
11/26/08
Body movement: 30 minutes on stationary bike
This morning’s weigh-in: n/a [forgot to weigh]
Currently reading: The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade by Herman Melville
Posted: 6:44 am Wed November 26 2008 |
Where am I?
You are reading the blog of Jay Lake, speculative fiction writer and author of hundreds of short stories, many novels, and winner of the John W. Campbell Award.
Learn more here.
Share or Bookmark This
Consider adding this to one of the following social bookmarking sites.
Comments
Leave a Reply
« [links] Links salad for a rump week hump day | [contests] Belated announcement of the Post-Novel Ennui Contest winner »
tetar
November 26th, 2008 at 9:49 amBad Astronomy, bad logic, and bad research. Typical debunker;s bunk. Talk to pilots who solidly observe what they characterize as machines, which are concurrently tracked on radar, which sometimes collide with planes and leave physical evidence, etc.
No one can say they’re ET, that’s specious hypothesizing, but to deny that strange things are zooming around is simply obtuse. It’s willful ignorance.
tetar
November 26th, 2008 at 10:00 amAlso, it’s bad logic to state that something does not exist simply because it has not been observed by a self-selecting group. Get serious. Hell, it’s even amateurs.
This is as absurd as Sagan’s assertion that exceptional claims require exceptional proofs. No, any proof is a proof. What IS an exceptional proof, anyway? Why would standards vary? A thing is either Q.E.D. or it’s not.
Both these are examples of scientist bigotry being mistaken as science by submissive scientist groupies and science fetishists. And ignoring bad logic and false assertions is not scientific in the least.