|
|
|
|
|
|
by biggfoot
4645 days ago
|
|
|
How is it a widely-held theory? It hasn't stood up to scrutiny, at least any well documented tests. It is sorta misleading, in fact, because a lot of good authors and speakers assume it as a well known fact and add their leaps of imagination to it. It is OK at best as a pop culture thing, maybe a poetic spin off. Why does it have no place on Hacker ... oh, you know what, scratch that. No point entering that debate. Thanks. |
|
|
It's not so much about whether the stance is true or not and whether we should debate that. It's that articles that discredit something as trivially untrue by way of a trivially small statement. In the extreme it would be like discrediting [insert pseudoscience topic] by simply mentioning a copy of Nature. There's some degree here, sure. But tabloid-style takedowns, regardless of whether they are right, seem almost out of place.
I am wrong to say this has no place, though, which is in itself a pretty big claim with no substance behind it.