I'm disappointed. I thought you would link to something where he told someone that they were wrong. Instead, he said conditionally that if the speculation pans out, then he "may be" wrong about a reason why something was observed. It wasn't a refutation, but just offering an alternative hypothesis.
That seems like a perfectly guarded statement, self-aware of its speculative basis.
I'm disappointed. I thought you would link to something where he told someone that they were wrong. Instead, he said conditionally that if the speculation pans out, then he "may be" wrong about a reason why something was observed. It wasn't a refutation, but just offering an alternative hypothesis.
That seems like a perfectly guarded statement, self-aware of its speculative basis.
Hmm... Then I have no idea what Gruber meant when he said: More on the very-wrong Peter Misek....
Not just wrong.... but very-wrong.
The link Gruber had posted right before this one was: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/09/17/claim-chowder-pe...
I wonder when the two instances of "may" were included in that piece?
If the piece was edited after the fact, I'd eat my hat. Gruber is biased, not a complete hypocrite.
1 reply →