 | | Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) Question: What's "junk science"? Probably important to define it/back it up before requesting that it's not used by Steve.... Is there another thread one might use for reference of such a definition? DaveE (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) First, with out defining it crisply, you do (sort of) know what I mean and agree that it's a good idea to avoid it, right? Can I take the "I know it when I see it" cop out? :-) Kidding aside, I would tend to define it along the lines of the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote: <Junk Science> (...) In this neck of the woods one will more often hear a reference to "pseudoscience" or perhaps even sophistry; that is, arguments which generally appear reasonably plausable, logical or convincing at a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
