Warp, stop posting in the topic if you don't like it.
No, because misinformation should never go unchallenged. If we keep silent about misinformation, it will spread to those who are not seeing the critique.
The best way to combat irrationality is with knowledge.
Tolerating irrationality, superstition, hoaxes and conspiracy theories simply to not hurt feelings is not something I strive for, sorry.
Am I right that you consider existence of giants absolutely not possible ever no matter what?
If we are talking about human giants, then pretty much. We know enough about biology to be pretty certain that it's impossible for the human physiology to survive after a certain size.
(Incidentally, the same is true if we go to the other extreme.)
And conditions on Earth has always been the same, am I right again?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
And conditions on Earth has always been the same, am I right again?
Pretty much for the duration of what can be called humans. (Of course there have been a few glacial periods here and there during that time, but nothing that would require a significantly different biology to survive.)
And yes, I know the reverse-scientific (iow. "here's the conclusion; what evidence can we find to support it?") claims made by young earth creationists. They don't hold up to scrutiny.
Either way, a radically different environment is not somehow a magical answer to human biology surviving extremes. A radically different environment would require a radically different biology.
What creationists have to do here? Did they piss you off in the past or something?
Otherwise, I now know that something can be absolutely impossible ever no matter what, and still be called science and healthy skepticism.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Otherwise, I now know that something can be absolutely impossible ever no matter what, and still be called science and healthy skepticism.
I said "pretty much". Nothing can be claimed with 100% certainty. However, after a certain amount of evidence it becomes quite trustworthy, and doesn't make much sense to think otherwise.
Good to know that I bring rays of sunshine into your life, Warp :)
Let me put it like this:
Do you believe that the holocaust happened?
If I'm guessing correctly, you do. However, if you search around the internet, you will find a thousand times more "evidence" and "research" that it didn't happen, than you will find evidence of giants.
Yet, regardless of this, I'm assuming you still will believe that the holocaust happened. You will be critical and skeptical of all that "research" of the contrary.
But why is that? Why are you more critical of one extraordinary claim than another? Why do you put one claim under much stricter standards of evidence than the other? Why do you consider one to be more plausible than the other (even though the thing that you consider less plausible has a lot more material out there)?
Why don't you apply the same strong criticism and skepticism to all extraordinary claims?
Think about your own biases about these subjects, and why you have them.
So "pretty much" is not 100% certain, but you still call all the alternatives to your personal opinion irrationality, superstition, hoaxes and conspiracy theories. Got it.
EDIT: I saw it locked only after I posted, so don't remove.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
