The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance.
lmao, no it fucking doesn’t. If you want to make an assertion, any assertion, and back it up with evidence, that evidence should be, well, not bullshit.
That’s all there is to it.
And if your assertion is actually correct, but X amount of attention is taken away from it because you’re spreading bullshit in support of it, that’s your own damn fault. If you’re right, you don’t have to lie to prove it.
Hmm, maybe you are right. However, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a biologist and mathematician who was considered the “Father of modern genetics”. However, he lied about his findings. We now know his numbers were fudged (sometimes heavily so) to create statistical findings that matched his assertions. This was likely done because there were other factors at play that he did not have enough information to know, but did not want to have the lingeriering unknowns destroy his support for genetics. And this is one of the reasons we now understand genetics.
If your argument is right, are you saying he was wrong? If so, how do you think the situation should have been handled? Further, why did the stratagy work so well? Are you suggesting this is an effective but immortal strategy? Was the father of genetics and a Catholic friar immortal?
lmao, no it fucking doesn’t. If you want to make an assertion, any assertion, and back it up with evidence, that evidence should be, well, not bullshit.
That’s all there is to it.
And if your assertion is actually correct, but X amount of attention is taken away from it because you’re spreading bullshit in support of it, that’s your own damn fault. If you’re right, you don’t have to lie to prove it.
Hmm, maybe you are right. However, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a biologist and mathematician who was considered the “Father of modern genetics”. However, he lied about his findings. We now know his numbers were fudged (sometimes heavily so) to create statistical findings that matched his assertions. This was likely done because there were other factors at play that he did not have enough information to know, but did not want to have the lingeriering unknowns destroy his support for genetics. And this is one of the reasons we now understand genetics.
If your argument is right, are you saying he was wrong? If so, how do you think the situation should have been handled? Further, why did the stratagy work so well? Are you suggesting this is an effective but immortal strategy? Was the father of genetics and a Catholic friar immortal?