Quote:
Originally Posted by jlhredshift
I think your'e goal is admirable but idealistic. I think we agree in the value of the ATM. There will always be those that will claim to have an invisible elf in their backyard, ignore them politely; I say metaphorically. But, if a large enough group to be statisictally significant proclaims the same thing we probably ought to look into it.
|
Nonsense. A statistically significant group depends on your definition, for one, but there are a lot of wrong ideas espoused by statistically significant groups no matter
how you define it.
There is, ultimately, value in some ATM concepts. Great ideas can start that way. However, there are ideas that aren't great. They aren't good. Heck, they aren't, shades of Pauli, even
bad. They're just awful, full of errors in science that a basic fourth-grade science textbook would explain.
I firmly--and I hope incorrectly--believe that "a statistically significant group" even in the most educated countries are just flat ignorant of a lot of basic science. The difference comes when ignorant people decide they know better than those who aren't.