Appreciate the greentext for not making us watch the video.
Most people here acknowledge Michio Kaku as a meme, and all this discussion does is validate that notion even more. My point is that your last sentence doesn't really say anything Veeky Forums doesn't know... all you say is pretty much true.
I remember some people here making an analogy between the priests of a religion with popsci scientists, which I find quite apt. People will follow their sayings without critically examining them because "science". This has come to become quite accurate, even if science is not a religion. Oh well.
>Veeky Forums fails to do this. no it doesn't. It's the first thing Veeky Forums does. When /x/ tards ignore what Veeky Forums says and build strawmen that they then proceed to tear down (which is the whole point of their threads, a false sense of achievement), then Veeky Forums proceeds with shitposting like you described.
Ryan Mitchell
I have been continually posting examples of this in plaintext and greentext for the duration of this short lived thread.
Just look at the thread.
>I suspect Kaku had to lower the ''appearance'' of his IQ just to be a little bit understood by the woman.
He failed to actually reply to a single question and relied on rhetoric, as well as fallacy.
I doubt he did that intentionally.
Ethos: appeal to authority/the credibility of the speaker.
This is rhetoric and is logically fallicious.
Chase Morales
Kaku is essentially arguing in favour of a cyclical dictatorship; a new dictator every four years.
This is made most obvious in his last statements:
>Often the most popular decision is the wrong decision
Thomas Wood
he is either a brainwashed idiot or plain evil. >WHO was behind 9/11? WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11? WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11? for FUCKS sake, what a creep. he also talks about "forces of darkness" vs "forces of democracy"..
Zachary Rogers
I know, it's such a binary mindset, it's ridiculous.
Oliver Brown
> misinterpreting logical fallacies PhD is not an authority dumdum. It's a verification that you understand a branch of science on a higher and more sophisticated level, which he does. And in this case it happens to be particle physics.
ure just mad coz u got nothing to show for these people that will make them take you seriously and ure just mad at him.
Matthew Howard
In that NASA UFO thread the other day the OP was pointing out that papers have been published under the NASA name that not only entertain aliens as a serious possibility but even goes as far as to speculate on how they may work. Veeky Forums's only response was to point out that the CIA, a totally separate organization did research on psychics, a totally separate phenomenon. An actual argument would be to explain why the NASA study itself was bunk, not "it must be bunk because this other completely unrelated study turned out to be bunk". It's an even worse argument considering that you are using the work of a spying agency to gauge the work of a scientific agency just because they are both run by the same government.
I've seen a few of these threads and I have to say the "/x/ tards" are the better arguers despite their claims having less substance. Veeky Forums just storms in with the instant arrogant assumption that they are right and therefore never bothers to put together a proper argument.
John Sullivan
He also said:
>forces of darkness, ignorance, torture and persecution
What, like Al Ghraib? Guantanamo? Rendition? Blackwater? JSOC? Afghan civilian man hunting?
Lucas Cruz
back to ufo kid this is a science board. no evidence = no credibility, and no those vague 3 pixel lights do not prove aliens
Anthony Peterson
user, you argued with ethos (appeal to the credibility/prestige of the speaker) and then attempted to refute my criticism by arguing with ethos yet again.
>u got nothing to show for these people that will make them take you seriously
An argument is to be judged on its logical viability alone, regardless of who makes it.
If you judge the validity of an argument based on the speaker then logic goes out the window and you’re in the land of rhetoric.
