/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6263334
>The statements I've made aren't unintelligible or fundamentally faulty (if they are you've failed to point out where)

You can follow Chomsky in the test he suggested. Your statement is useless and you bring bad science into what should be an objective discussion.
How is it not superstition?
I could say there is a teacup orbiting pluto and when you say "well we can look and it's not there" i can say "oh well how do you know? your instrument made by other scientists with their own biases just says it's not there!".

>and there's people on other /sci/threads nonchalantly accepting it as truth

Getting other people who are as dim witted as yourself to agree with you does not make you correct, you need to come up with a hypothesis to prove this. All you have done this entire discussion is mentally jerk yourself off trying to imply that I should be impressed/stimulated/feel wrong because you provide nothing to back up your claims.

Zach Weiner, thanks.