Oct 08, 2016 19:47
Something I read a while back has kind of stuck with me, and recently I had a thought about it...it's when you make a scientific-sounding claim on the basis of a correlative observation (such as fluoride in drinking water being either good for your teeth or causing Alzheimer's) and then it becomes a dogmatic position which is defended with "catastrophic" language (if you take it away, millions will suffer/if it continues, millions will suffer). I find this to be the modern equivalent to "it will anger the gods."