Dr Adequate writes:
Amongst themselves they can talk as though someone has...
I think this is where a lot of these "new phrases" and ideas come from.
Although possible... I don't think some "creationist think-tank" is sitting around conniving about their next string of words that's going to wow science and allow them to force their way into mainstream thinking.
I think it's more that they have these conversations with themselves... already all agreeing... and one guy said something they really like.
Then another guy's talking to another guy and says "I heard this wonderful talk that explained everything... the guy mentioned the difference between observational science and historical science and it just all made so much sense!"
And then, boom! The meme is created and they're all talking about how observational science vs. historical science is such a great idea. How it "explains everything" and "makes sense" and should be taught in schools.
They just forget about actually explaining the "explains everything" part, or don't need to develop the specifics of how it actually "makes sense" because it already does make sense (to them...).
And then, well... then the whole group-confirmation thing kicks in and they're all so convinced they "have something" that no one ever stops to check if the details actually exist. Which is sort of the important part...
Then we start getting into the whole problem of indicating an issue, but they have so much emotionally invested at that point that any indication of issues is taken extremely personally and it's just brushed away as part of "that scientific conspiracy!!"
Edited by Stile, : Too many problems to list, but not so many that can't be fixed.
™ Version 4.2
