User:CFCF/sandbox/5
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
— Upton Sinclair
<div style="width:33%; height:400px; float:left; text-align:center; border:1px;"><div style="position:relative; top:15%; bottom:50%; color:gray; font-size: 1.5em; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">{{#invoke:random|item|{{User:CFCF/Q1}}|{{User:CFCF/Q2}}|{{User:CFCF/Q3}}|{{User:CFCF/Q4}}|{{User:CFCF/Q5}}|{{User:CFCF/Q6}}|{{User:CFCF/Q7}}|{{User:CFCF/Q8}}|{{User:CFCF/Q9}}
}}</div></div>
The idea that particular individuals drive history has long been discredited. Yet it persists in the tech industry, obscuring some of the fundamental factors in innovation.
— Amanda Schaffer, Tech's enduring Great Man Myth
Life's most persistent and urgent question is,
'What are you doing for others?'
No one rises so high as he who knows not whither he is going.
As the old lawyer’s line says, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I’d add: and demand “civility.”
— Paul Krugman, column [1].
We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.
The claim that any human group is of its essence less — or more — blessed with particular abilities than others is an attempt to make Nature herself an accomplice of political inequality
— Nicolas Condorcet
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
— Upton Sinclair
The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.
— Daniel Okrent
The self-image is that they make the world better every day at Google, despite working with glorified spam — junk-mail elevated to ideology. That and money-laundering.
1. They will state that there is evidence to the contrary.
2. They will suggest that the existing evidence has been misquoted.
3. They will say that medical research is generally so flawed that it cannot be trusted.
4.They will claim that scientific evidence is overruled by centuries of experience.
5. They will reverse the burden of proof.
6. They will say that a new scientific paradigm is required to explain how CAM works.
7. They will claim that scientific evidence and reasoning are not applicable to CAM.
9. They will suggest that the critic is paid by big pharma to defame CAM.
10. They will launch personal attacks on their critics.— Edzard Ernst and Kevin Smith, on purveyors of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) subverting science and scientists through lies and false logic., More Harm than Good? - The Moral Maze of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, p. 156, Springer 2018, ISBN: 9783319699400