Sayonara

The words broke and broker entered English via different routes. Check out the histories on dictionary.com Dried bread, and not dried particularly well. It will still rot. Why should they? Winding up a watch refers to the mechanical action of tightening a spring. Winding up a project is a metaphor for pulling everything together into a final outcome. [Edit] As one might wind threads onto a spool. Put like that, I see no reason why they can't be interchangeable terms. A wise guy is not necessarily lacking in wisdom, and a wise man may well be fascetious. Also it's possible to be both. I don't see that they are opposites. They don't. Technically yes. The Ancient Greek deimos (if I remember correctly) meant 'terrible ', but also meant 'wise' and 'great'. Afaik it is only during its transition through English that it took on a negative connotation. [Edit] Further research shows that terribilis in Latin came from terrere, 'to frighten'. Certainly it's possible that something could be so good it is frightening. The dictionary definitions of terrific are: Very good or fine; splendid: a terrific tennis player. Awesome; astounding: drove at a terrific rate of speed. Causing terror or great fear; terrifying: a terrific wail. Very bad or unpleasant; frightful: a terrific headache. And as it turns out it comes from terrificus, which again is rooted in terrere. First bit: I would debate that "I am." is a properly structured sentence. Second bit: Not with today's divorce system. I have never seen a lighted electrician, barked tree surgeon or pressed dry-cleaner, but the others may well actually occur The same reason people press elevator or road crossing buttons that are already illuminated. No more or less than anyone else I'd imagine.

* Surprise testing officer

They also worked out "the time people found jokes most funny", which sounds a bit dodgy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2297365.stm

Or go one better and sing the Wrong Song.

Hello, my name's Sayonara and I'm a grumpy bastard. No really, it's true.

Look out, he's been at the medicine cabinet again. (Mew, lol).

It seems that pseudoscience, while often colourful, sometimes stimulating and - on occasion - entertaining, suffers from shortcomings which are dependent on the wielder of the hypothesis under scrutiny. Unlike conventional scientific theory, which is based upon a continually progressing and narrowing identification of event-level observations that can be demonstrated and explained via the scientific method, there is no unilateral standard within pseudoscience that restricts any one individual or group of individuals to a single approach to any given problem. Without such control, it is only a matter of time before any pseudoscience hypothesis spins wildly out of control. I cite most of the threads in this forum as evidence. Additionally, it is not always possible to move from Step 1: Observation & Hypothesis, to Step 3: Theory. The reason for this is that without specific protocols and the will to apply them to their fullest extent, anyone wishing to propound a pseudoscientific idea is more likely to rely on hyperbole, flights of the imagination and 'joining the dots' to mould the observations into a shape that fits with a predetermined conclusion. As we have seen many times over this sort of approach does not last long. So where to go from here? The aspiring pseudoscientists among us (Hi Zarkov) need some flashcards methinks. The failure of an individual to accept, understand or believe a widely accepted theorem or principle does not make that theorem or principle incorrect. As such, it cannot be cast aside whenever convenient. Because of (1), where an established theorem or principle clashes with a pseudoscientific hypothesis, the observed effects upon which the theorem or principle are based should be explained in terms of the pseudo hypothesis. If (2) is not possible, the pseudo hypothesis must incorporate full proof as to why the theorem or principle is incorrect. When new information is presented of which the pseudoscientist was previously ignorant, and which contradicts any part of the hypothesis, the hypothesis should be reviewed rather than argued over. Dogma is no substitute for data. Attack is not the best form of defence. A good hypothesis should not need to be defended. Criticism is not necessarily cynicism. Passing off any hypothesis as fact, science or truth is nothing short of pure folly, regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is pseudoscientific. Playing the intellectual property card in order to refrain from posting evidence is not justifiable. All members' IP addresses are logged with every post, and associated with the username for which they have registered personal details. Finally, a word of caution to the Pseudoscience Lite masses. While striving to be different is an admirable quality, it is in no way a good reason to cast aside whichever scientifically established theories one can find outlandish alternatives to. There comes a point where it just gets silly (re: Nasca Lines thread. Yes, satire.) Did I miss anything out?