Talk:Skepticism about science

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

OK, for this to fly we need to research and footnote my wild assertion in paragraph 3 humanbe in 00:53, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, there's this, but I'm not sure if it's quite what you are looking for. I think the development of the flagellum will remain hypothetical, at least for a while. I'm pretty sure most of the development happened without being fossilized, and is not recurring for the same reason we don't see new "versions" of DNA/RNA occuring. I suppose I could be wrong about that, though, and would be very interested to find out I am. -Smyth 12:00, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
To be honest I've never even understood what BEhe was trying to get at with his malaria Guff. But this looks good as a rebuttal: rebuttal. Hey that's weired it doesn't' come up now. I've copied it below as I had the tab open. Feel free to zap it.--Bob's your uncle 12:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm....[edit]

We might want to rethink this article. Skepticism about science is a legit thing. (Think cold fusion or arsenic-based life forms.) I think this is referring to JAQing off or skepticism to create doubt (there is controversy about global warming....). sterilesporadic heavy hitter 15:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)