[ SECRET POST #2718 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2718 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Mayim Bialik]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.
[Pacific Rim]











Notes:

Might be another 12 am day. Response time will be slow, sorry.

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 016 secrets from Secret Submission Post #388.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - this is getting spammy now ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Er, it's not just about looking at something "from different angles", though. It's the "critical" part that's missing here. Thinking outside the box =/= critical thinking. Questioning, researching and using credible sources to support your opinions is.

[(Anonymous)]

Look, though, if you apply critical thought to something then by virtue of questioning it, you may not come to the same conclusion as everyone else.

[diet_poison]

that's not how hard sciences work.

I mean yeah if there isn't enough information about something. But if there is? Then anyone who does their research will come to the same basic conclusion. Otherwise, there's a disconnect somewhere - they didn't research the same thing (which means at least one of them has done an incomplete investigation) or one of them is being illogical in their application of said research.

[(Anonymous)]

I get that.

[(Anonymous)]

No, the science is quite clear that it's unrelated to vaccines.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm seconding the other anon. We might have several theories as to what causes Autism, but scientists (at least credible ones) are pretty damn sure that vaccines do not cause it.

[(Anonymous)]

But the whole point of the secret is that she does have a science education, so the point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

[(Anonymous)]

Vaccines aren't insidious! The whole autism connection was made by one researcher and one bad study. There is NO connection! How do you people not get this?

[diet_poison]

Aren't we talking about the vaccine side of the debate though? Not the autism side.

[(Anonymous)]

That's possible, but if this critical thought that's being applied manages to exclude the scientific method and reputable studies in favor of "I heard vaccines give your kids autism!", then it's not very critical after all and there is absolutely no sense in pretending that the two conclusions are of equal merit.

I mean, look. If I said I'd thought about it really critically and came to the conclusion that yes, I can jump off the Empire State building, flap my arms energetically and fly away, is my critical thinking as sound as someone who says no, I'm going to plummet to my death because arm-flapping will not provide an adequate amount of lift to keep me from falling? Of course it isn't. It doesn't matter that we both applied critical thinking (though again, a reasonable person is going to question just how critical my thinking was) and reached different conclusions, my conclusion is still rubbish.