Pop reference

I agree with FG too, but how do you know what references to trust? Most of our silly thoughts are based on what we 'feel' is right.

So maybe we all should not argue to begin with because more than likely we are all wrong. :fly:
For most applications critical reading and the application of general knowledge is enough to determine the relative truth of some thing. You make these distinctions everyday, hundreds of times, without even thinking about it. It's how we can have sarcasm.

Science has their method, that being truth is an ongoing process made up of empirical and independently reproducible facts, the theories that would logically support those facts, and falsifiability of the theories (demarcation, that it is logically possible to be shown false, I cant explain it without using too many words).

Humanities usually uses logical consensus of the best available evidence and the largest number of independent sources. It's not usually important that an art is shown to be 'true' though. History has an entire method of research based on primary sources. >.>
 
For most applications critical reading and the application of general knowledge is enough to determine the relative truth of some thing. You make these distinctions everyday, hundreds of times, without even thinking about it. It's how we can have sarcasm.

Science has their method, that being truth is an ongoing process made up of empirical and independently reproducible facts, the theories that would logically support those facts, and falsifiability of the theories (demarcation, that it is logically possible to be shown false, I cant explain it without using too many words).

Humanities usually uses logical consensus of the best available evidence and the largest number of independent sources. It's not usually important that an art is shown to be 'true' though. History has an entire method of research based on primary sources. >.>

Where is your citation?
 
Where is your citation?

I didn't reference anything. It could be annotated maybe.

Goes:

[Original opinion]. [Assertion]. [Example].

[Summary or common knowledge].

[Summary of common knowledge]. [Reference to common knowledge].
 
Bah, where is the old laid back FG?
I am laid back o.o Why does everyone seem to think Im spazzing out. *points*

You can be laid back and still construct grammatically complex sentences with multisyllable words. Delivery, intonation, doesn't come across well in text. Were I more laid back I'd be dead.
 
I am laid back o.o Why does everyone seem to think Im spazzing out. *points*

You can be laid back and still construct grammatically complex sentences with multisyllable words. Delivery, intonation, doesn't come across well in text. Were I more laid back I'd be dead.

You haven't been as witty. Besides the sarcastic undertones in some of your posts that you may think is funny.
 
I think the term you're looking for there is "polysyllabic"


but don't quote me on that :p

That's wierd... It's in oxford but not american heritage and only in unabridged versions of webster's o_O Poly- would be a greek root but multi- would be latin.

I bet if you compared usage multi- prefixes are used more in legal and art contexts and poly- occurs more in the sciences. Icky sciences, especially medicine, are predisposed to greek derivations because the classic works in those fields were written in greek; Hippocrates, Galen, etc. Works of law are almost exclusively in Latin >.>

*falls asleep*
 
Last edited:
The Larch

LarchTree.JPG