swansont seems to have a penchant for awesome quotes, so I think we should have a thread of swansontisms. Here are some of the ones I can think of off the top of my head:

 

One of the functions of science is to limit the scope of uncertainty contained in "for all we know," and its utility includes neither argument from incredulity nor argument from ignorance.

 

Moving at 1/35 c with respect to what? Without defining a reference, it's like asking, "What the difference between a duck?"

 

I have never understood the phenomenon of wearing one's ignorance as a badge of honor.

 

Civil discourse does not extend all the way to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos.

 

Got any more?

I want a swansont bobblehead on my desk.

I want a swansont bobblehead on my desk.

I want one too, if only to pretend he's always agreeing with me.

What do you think, swansont? <nod nod nod nod nod>

 

 

 

 

 

 

We should totally start selling those in our online store: http://www.bobblemaker.com/james-bond-custom-bobble-head-2

Edited July 2, 201015 yr by mooeypoo

Uhhh that is perfect.

"Swanson, Tom Swanson. Swoon before my high tech wristwatch that shoots a violent cascade of neutrinos that will go right through you. Literally."

"Swanson, Tom Swanson. Swoon before my high tech wristwatch that shoots a violent cascade of neutrinos that will go right through you. Literally."

 

Before my bobblehead gets too swelled I have to point out that I don't wear a wristwatch, though I do carry one in my pocket. It's a $20 Casio. However, any neutrinos it shoots will indeed go right through you.

 

But by all means, carry on.

Before my bobblehead gets too swelled I have to point out that I don't wear a wristwatch, though I do carry one in my pocket. It's a $20 Casio. However, any neutrinos it shoots will indeed go right through you.

 

But by all means, carry on.

 

"Swanson, Tom Swanson. Swoon before my oscillating crystals."

 

Right?

The phrasing "just a theory" should make one's word processor explode. IMO.

...

Bald assertion doesn't go over too well, and it's especially loathsome when it's blatantly wrong. We like evidence.

 

Try and differentiate yourself from the ELIZA program that ran on my Commodore PET 25 years ago. Please. You're passing the Turing test in the wrong way.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes' date='" not "evidence."[/quote']

I almost forgot this one.

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes," not "evidence."

 

This is one is great. I shall remember and cherish it.

I like it and I've obviously used it, but it did not originate with me.

I like it and I've obviously used it, but it did not originate with me.

 

 

From whence hath such verbiage come?

"If you decide to hypothetically violate a physical law, then you can do pretty much whatever you damn well please."

 

 

From whence hath such verbiage come?

 

Googling "plural of anecdote is not evidence" gives more than 14k hits. I can't remember where I first read it.

View PostiNow, on 24 August 2010 - 07:34 AM, said:

I've got a proverbial hard on for some bar graphs, DJ. You'd better not disappoint.

 

Please don't express this in the form of a bar graph.

It may ask the big questions, but it doesn't answer them. If you can find an answer, it's science.

This is a good one.

Don't anthropomorphise particles/waves

 

They hate that

 

This one made me laugh

 

 

If a posted idea is contrary to accepted physics, one is within his/her right to call it rubbish.

We should compile these into a book.

 

stating one's ignorance coupled with a declaration that, in effect, one doesn't want to be taught or contradicted — on a frikkin' science forum — is asshattery of the first order.

 

One of the first things you have to get used to in science is that many of the thoughts you have will be wrong.

Quoting someone who agrees with you is not proof of anything other than that person agrees with you.

This one is from yesterday.

Edited February 8, 201312 yr by ydoaPs

 

That made me immediately think of: "Without defining a reference, it's like asking, 'What the difference between a duck?'".

This isn't jazz. You don't listen to the "notes you don't play" and attach meaning to them.

Put another way: there are two types of people in the world. Those who can extrapolate from incomplete information.

I have to admit, I use the plural of anecdote pretty frequently now thanks to swansont.

It frustrates me that I can't convey how I know that you are wrong in a way that you will understand, because you have already convinced yourself that you're right, and wear your obstinate contrariness like a badge of honor. But the view from inside science is incredible, and there's nothing (except for you) keeping you from learning actual science.