Comment on Isn’t the use of strict behaviorism to explain animals kind of obnoxious?
Decoy321@lemmy.world 6 months agoYour bias is showing. The fact that we have not observed something is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.
Comment on Isn’t the use of strict behaviorism to explain animals kind of obnoxious?
Decoy321@lemmy.world 6 months agoYour bias is showing. The fact that we have not observed something is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.
MolochAlter@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Ok, have you accepted the lord Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour?
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 months ago
Black holes were thought to be only theoretical until we fucking found one.
MolochAlter@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Theoretical is not the same as “made the fuck up”
Something being theoretical is as good as it gets short of being observed in science, it means the most evidence points to it being real which is why we spent insane amounts of money to find evidence of it.
If you were to postulate black holes without evidence they would exist but they would still made the fuck up until proven otherwise, not “theoretical”.
Again, have you accepted the lord Jesus Christ?
Decoy321@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I give him the same level of acceptance as Allah, Vishnu, Odin, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There’s a nonzero possibility that they’re real, after all. I try to keep an open mind.
MolochAlter@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Sure, I give a sentient mollusk the same credence, i.e. a token amount that does not change my behaviour at all.
Decoy321@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Right, because that token credence is completely in line with your previous assertive dismissal of your earlier comments.