|
|
|
|
|
by MarkusQ
41 days ago
|
|
It is as (or more) common for that type of construct to be used to set up tension for subsequent exploration. "Can light really be both particles and waves?" I also find it interesting that the "Dawkins is clueless" argument requires inconsistently reading questions as statements; the initial question is "obviously" to be read in the affirmative and this one (presumably just as obviously) in the negative. The counter, that he's actually trying to get people to think about an interesting nest of questions is less tortured: they are actual questions. |
|