It's the reason AreWeSure is never wrong. That needs to change because: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2009259/9929828. No rational human being could dismiss so much evidence as AreWeSure so confidently does everyday all day.

I go out of my way to admit my errors. I have been wrong several times over the past 8 months. AreWeSure has corrected me on occasion and I'm glad AreWeSure did it. I'm only after Objective Truth.

Even Albert Einstein was wrong on occasion. He famously said "God doesn't role dice." And Werner_Heisenberg famously proved him wrong.

I think the problem in people accepting some of the horrible truths at the heart of this cluster fuck is Science isn't the requirement it used to be for Liberal Arts majors. The result is people like AreWeSure who somehow feel morally justified in dismissing "conspiracy theories".

Sorry AreWeSure but morality doesn't apply to Science. Science is just Science. It's there take it or leave it. There's no "Right" or "Wrong" in it.

Please pay attention:

"6 kinds of crazy."

Ad hominem in the first sentence. I don't know where you went to college but you obviously didn't take a course in rhetoric. An ad hominem in the first sentence is an immediate disqualification. Didn't you get the memo?

"And not a single example still."

I provided the example of the Sandy Hook Hoax. That's what all the 1), 2) and 3) were about. You've fallen back to the "you're lying" defense. You took no course in rhetoric and you didn't take many science courses if any.

Let's review the Scientific Method again shall we?

1) Objectivity: that means you don't get to bust my balls for my Observations. Objectivity is the foundation of all Science. Richard Feynman even went so far as to define the entire field of human scientific endeavor with:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts". (Maybe you could print that out and paste it on your monitor because explaining scientific objectivity to you is tiresome.)

Bad: Conclusion -> Observation

Good: Observation -> Conclusion

2) Statistical hypothesis testing(hypothesis testing has a prominent seat at the table and is based on a long history of Empiricism (also rationalism and skepticism but I don't want to overwhelm you.)

Statistical hypothesis testing is why you don't have the option of ignoring things like this: https://thesocietypages.org/feminist/files/2015/07/Mass-Shootings-Frequency.png

To maintain your objectivity you MUST address such a large standard deviation. And I can't emphasize how impossibly large it is when considering a population of 350 MILLION human beings.

The data bounces along at 10 and then explodes to 40 in a little over 5 years. To give you an idea of how absurd that is my truck's average speed over the course of 1 year probably averages out to maybe 35 mph. If there arrives a year where it averages out to 350 mph then you know something is wrong.

Right? Please tell me you took a course in statistics. That mass shooting growth is statistically impossible. The only way that many American citizens could die as a result of mass shootings 10 TIMES the historical average is if we were invaded by Canada.

I think that's enough for now.

:-D

@AreWeSure, @RweSure, @are_we_sure, @are_we__sure