But there are videos that present evidence of criminality. Comically, some criminals are so unthinking that they take videos of their own crimes and then post them on facebook. Likewise, Alexander Vilenkin wasn't thinking when he testified on multiple videos, for public viewing, of his crime against science.
In a great many cases, they are. Partly because some people have trouble reading, and cranks are often trying to appeal to such people, since the uneducated are often more easily deceived. Partly because the uneducated prefer to watch TV, and partly because making a video is a lot easier than writing a paper.
Oh, it's not _evidence_ of crankery, just as a proliferation of porn shops, liquor stores, gun stores and pawn shops (and corresponding losses of libraries, museums and parks) are not evidence of a decline in a neighborhood. But they are suggestive of it.
And, perhaps mostly, because video is the most direct and effective means of deception ever invented. It bypasses logic via image, duplicates and repeats itself almost without effort, leaves no trace of its omissions, and cannot be countered by reason or evidence without ten times the effort of making it.
Unquestionably, Alexander Vilenkin will be judged for his indisputable contribution in aiding and abetting the now rapidly accelerating moral decline of humanity, when he will stand before God at the final judgment.
For some people. For people raised on a steady diet of TV, there is no more authoritative source than video.
Exactly.
Note that the crank that made up that claim has no science to backup his ridiculous fantasy.
yazata said:
?? Of course; much (if not most) of the written material in the world is fiction (novels and the like.)
Nope. I said that serious scientists tend to publish papers, cranks tend to make Youtube videos. I have no idea what Vilenkin's video is about, or what his deal is. The fact that Eugene is pushing it is a strong argument that he is a crank, though.
Right. They do publish papers. They might appear in videos. Cranks make Youtube videos. They might try to publish papers (but usually fail.)
Right - it's merely likely.
You can, in principle, but it's a pain in the bum - and you still have to write down what was actually said if you want to sure of what is being said. With something like theology, philosophy or science, the exact terminology is important.
My point exactly.
A good lecture can bring the study material to life, but a lecture can never substitute for study material, if you want to understand the subject properly or submit it to critical appraisal.Images bypass logic whether you "choose" to allow them to or not, moving images are quite difficult and time consuming to search or reference - for the source of impressions or anything else - and the repetition that political deception depends on is effortless.
This subforum is for a dispassionate, scientific investigation of religion. And I believe that I proved that the pretense of quantum creationism (QC) out of absolute nothingness being a legitimate scientific concept qualifies as a religion. Furthermore, I think it's clear that your crying and pretended bewilderment about my point and all the distractions validates my argument. Another compelling proof is the claim that my use of video evidence isn't evidence. Thank you everyone.