ickplant@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 16 days agoAmenlemmy.worldimagemessage-square9fedilinkarrow-up1438arrow-down18
arrow-up1430arrow-down1imageAmenlemmy.worldickplant@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 16 days agomessage-square9fedilink
minus-squarenot_woody_shaw@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-216 days ago*citation required
minus-squareDasus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·16 days agoIronically, not a requirement. If you’re purely empirical/empiricist, you need at least one person to walk into a pole to prove it’s there. If you’re a rationalist, you could rationalise where the poles are. If you use both, you’re likely to hit yourself less than when utilising only one or the other.
*citation required
Ironically, not a requirement.
If you’re purely empirical/empiricist, you need at least one person to walk into a pole to prove it’s there.
If you’re a rationalist, you could rationalise where the poles are.
If you use both, you’re likely to hit yourself less than when utilising only one or the other.