Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chickentribs
I just wanted to point out that filtherton has made a God out of the dual digit randomizer thingy! Every, and I mean e-v-e-r-y religous debate I have sat through ends just like that. "I want to believe, prove me wrong" or "There is nothing to believe, show me proof".
Now that I think about it, that bunk article is a good start for a Bible: from humble beginings The Three Princeton professors (wise men from Princeton?) brought forth a simple machine that was good, moral and all knowing. Humble with it's calculator heart, it taught us well and delivered us to a singular love.
I'm a practicing Boxtian.
|
I think you missed my point. My point was not that the box is a god. My point was that not one of us, besides apparently ratbastid, has any intimate knowledge of what is actually going on with this experiment besides what we know from this article. Being overly skeptical about someone else's work when you really have no clear understanding of what is specifically going on with their work shows more of a commitment to skepticism than to science. Its akin to reading a short article about quantum physics and immediately writing it off as preposterous based on one's notion of newtonian physics. Unless you see the data, you can't pretend to be able to make conclusions one way or another.