What was wrong with it?

Were they trolling, /sci/ ?

>it’s about [how] things [are] simultaneously true and untrue

Its all over bros. Do like I do - pack up and head into the woods. We need to created a Galt's Gulch -- shrug it off and go off and build our own responsible communities.

They Clamp.

Heard this explanation in a manga, but it always sounded like a stupid to me.

I mean, big boobs, like child-bearing hips is a sign of fertility isn't it? Why would it have to "emulate" anything else?

Science is predicated on the notion of falsfiability, meaning that scientific claims are always subject to possible criticism, change, and future revision. In recent years, the notion of "settled science" has become increasingly prevalent in public discourse, with many people demanding punishment and censorship for individuals -- including working scientists -- who disagree with the "settled science".

This naturally raises the methodological question of how to define "settled science". The scientific method is predicated on falsifiability, but if certain concepts, ideas, or models are, ex hypothesis, considered to be "settled", then such claims are not subject to further revision, and are therefore unfalsifiable. This means we need to revise our current understanding of the scientific method to incorporate a rigorous definition of "settled science", and the criteria for identifying what constitutes settled science. That being said, I have never seen any such criteria explicitly presented, so to that end, what objective logical, mathematical, and empirical criteria can be used to distinguish "settled science" from regular science?

what size microscope do I need in order to analyze the health of my spouge

wtf is implied multiplication?
>>>/pol/373653768