case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2015-10-25 03:32 pm

[ SECRET POST #3217 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3217 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2015-10-26 04:38 am (UTC)(link)
I see sarcasm goes over your head

and you just sort of proved my point about theories versus fact. Thanks.
kitelovesyou: butterfly scales (Default)

[personal profile] kitelovesyou 2015-10-26 04:58 am (UTC)(link)
No they didn't. There is no "fact" except that which can be proven by observation + hypotheses. An elemental study of artificial intelligence could tell you that. You must have a hypothesis, a structure to make sense of observation. Some are hard-wired to kick start the process, most follow on from inductive or deductive reasoning. In short, everything is a theory, including what we see or think we see in front of our noses.

It's very naive and ignorant to argue as you have done but perfectly understandable.