why the internet is bad?
tl;dr: Confirmation bias.
Everyone has an opinion, and with enough effort an individual can find enough supporting evidence for their crazy theories. Look at Jaime Maussan insisting the Roswell slides are authentic while the rest of UFOlogy has cried foul, proved the slides are of an exhibit from the Million Dollar Museum, and moved on.
The thought came to me when my wife commented "Yuck" on a photo of a spider embryo. Spiders aren't gross, they just have too many legs. Believing her disgust is based on spiders biting people and causing horrible infections and wounds, my follow-up comment was the non-sequitor of "Spiders don't bite people". I provided a link from Arthopod Ecology to shore up my assertation.
I am not an entomologist. I've never done any real research into bugs, arachnids, et al.
After hitting submit, I felt supremely guilty. I've read the blog post in the past, along with its update, felt the thesis is sound, but the process leading up to my response is troubling.
How many people perform their own independent research? Read dissenting opinions? Tear apart their own beliefs? The scope of my actions became apparent, I was no better than armchair "skeptics", who are merely science fandom, being lazy and using someone else's work to validate their opinions.
Not facts, opinions.
After cycling 6.3 miles today, this is the first time I felt like I needed a shower.
If you're still interested, check out Massimo Pigliucci's Scientia Salon op-ed piece Reflections on the Skeptic and Atheist Movements. Ben Thomas over at Medium has a similar post addressing A Disease of Scienceyness.
Finally I'm going to invalidate my points with ad hominem. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a mediocre scientist and overhyped science popularizer.
Everyone has an opinion, and with enough effort an individual can find enough supporting evidence for their crazy theories. Look at Jaime Maussan insisting the Roswell slides are authentic while the rest of UFOlogy has cried foul, proved the slides are of an exhibit from the Million Dollar Museum, and moved on.
The thought came to me when my wife commented "Yuck" on a photo of a spider embryo. Spiders aren't gross, they just have too many legs. Believing her disgust is based on spiders biting people and causing horrible infections and wounds, my follow-up comment was the non-sequitor of "Spiders don't bite people". I provided a link from Arthopod Ecology to shore up my assertation.
I am not an entomologist. I've never done any real research into bugs, arachnids, et al.
After hitting submit, I felt supremely guilty. I've read the blog post in the past, along with its update, felt the thesis is sound, but the process leading up to my response is troubling.
How many people perform their own independent research? Read dissenting opinions? Tear apart their own beliefs? The scope of my actions became apparent, I was no better than armchair "skeptics", who are merely science fandom, being lazy and using someone else's work to validate their opinions.
Not facts, opinions.
After cycling 6.3 miles today, this is the first time I felt like I needed a shower.
If you're still interested, check out Massimo Pigliucci's Scientia Salon op-ed piece Reflections on the Skeptic and Atheist Movements. Ben Thomas over at Medium has a similar post addressing A Disease of Scienceyness.
Finally I'm going to invalidate my points with ad hominem. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a mediocre scientist and overhyped science popularizer.