A strange but telling question

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Its true, as a concept it relies on tolerance within society and no matter how liberal, society sets responsibilities and boundaries to follow accordingly.

Or to put it another way...

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or to put it another way...

Thankgod my opinions are alway the correct ones, 😉

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by tweedle

Thankgod my opinions are alway the correct ones, 😉

Just goes to show that while all answers are replies not all replies are answers
!

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or to put it another way...

And yet, Cox smirkingly tells us the "facts" about the Cosmos, the Stars an' everythin' without knowing if any of it is true. He is best roundly ignored for spouting unverifiable opinion. Actually, I suppose it goes to prove your point about free speech but perhaps not as intended

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by Kursk

And yet, Cox smirkingly tells us the "facts" about the Cosmos, the Stars an' everythin' without knowing if any of it is true. He is best roundly ignored for spouting unverifiable opinion. Actually, I suppose it goes to prove your point but perhaps not as intended

When it comes to the "Cosmo, the Stars an everythin we do know a certain amount to be fact, although most of it is "we think".

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by tweedle

When it comes to the "Cosmo, the Stars an everythin we do know a certain amount to be fact, although most of it is "we think".

We know what we think we know. How Prof Cox has made a job out of telling us what might be true is his real achievement; though not much of one.

For a start he hasn't taken inverse parabella into account and its affect on quantum eco-density within the vicinity of black holes. Yes, it's just made-up tripe .

Except his 'made up tripe' is founded on hundreds of years of peer-reviewed research, using quantified observations and experiments...

[Kursk]

Unverified 'facts' are proof of nothing. My own Theory of irrelevance: COx=£4bs2.

If Prof Cox was a poster here, you'd be the first to ask him for a link to his proclaimed 'evidence' .

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Kursk

And yet, Cox smirkingly tells us the "facts" about the Cosmos, the Stars an' everythin' without knowing if any of it is true. He is best roundly ignored for spouting unverifiable opinion. Actually, I suppose it goes to prove your point about free speech but perhaps not as intended

What part of the science do you object to?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What part of the science do you object to?

The smug conjecture part.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Kursk

The smug conjecture part.

No, what *science* does he talk about that is untrue? You may have a problem with his style but what does he say that is "unverifiable opinion".

Why don't we ask our resident physicist downquark if Cox has got his science wrong?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by ianch99

No, what *science* does he talk about that is untrue? You may have a problem with his style but what does he say that is "unverifiable opinion".

I don't profess to know what is untrue. Much of what he says is unverifiable opinion. He is a D.reaming Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Go to the pub and meet people who will tell you things relevant to your actual life; Cloud 9 is a lonely place.

Could you give some examples of what he has said that is unverifiable opinion, please?

[tweedle]

I think Cox is quite clear on what's fact with evidence to back it up and what's unproven but "we think".