1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 63:
Line 63: + + +
→On Faith
:I think the Faith edit history makes it clear what is wrong. *checks* *sees that site founder was the one who made the Faith edit* And it's of course this article. *tries to keep a straight face* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think the Faith edit history makes it clear what is wrong. *checks* *sees that site founder was the one who made the Faith edit* And it's of course this article. *tries to keep a straight face* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Andy also claimed that the "Giant Impact Theory" was unfalsiable ''and'' falsified. I'm begining to understand what it means to be a "conservative" in America. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Andy also claimed that the "Giant Impact Theory" was unfalsiable ''and'' falsified. I'm begining to understand what it means to be a "conservative" in America. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Andy's view on "conservative" and especially on science sometimes reminds me of this:
{{QuoteBox|''Doublethink'' means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of ''doublethink'' he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. ''Doublethink'' lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary.<br><br>George Orwell, ''Nineteen Eighty-Four''}}
:::It would certainly explain how he was able to use a source to offer an argument agains the GI Hypothesis while at the same time negating what it actually said. "There are no tests. And their results show that the theory is wrong!" --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)