Re:Science is dead
by timr on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @03:49PM
(#986557)
What a disjoint, rambling mess. If this is the quality of thinking that concludes that science is dead, then I think I'm going to continue to put my money on science.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
It is not often that one finds a particular discourse shot through with the sort of threads, intertwined silver filaments, that touch at once on so many personal interests and gather so many errant thoughts into a larger whole that the emotional aftermath is best characterized as the shock of a sort of theoretical unification.
What?
Perhaps someone modified SCIgen for political opinion pieces? http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
Riiight. I'm sure you went into that article with an open mind. Let me guess, you think the CRU leak didn't reveal much of interest?
Instead of ad hominem, how about you refute the main and specific points brought up. I'm pretty sure Paul Graham even has an essay on how to argue properly if you're not sure how it's done.
PS - And if you want an article that uses a less self-indulgent style, read Michael Crichton's referenced speech. You'll be hard pressed to call it a rambling mess. Somehow I'm guessing, though, that you're actually biased against the claim, not its purported "messiness".