Outside exact sciences, a theory, in order to be strong, must
consistently follow a reliable method and apply it with rigor
against the backdrop of a sensible pool of trustworthy data --
as opposed to handpicked cases to suit the biases of the
author. Moreover, it ought to be tested against current data and
produce satisfactory predictions. It should not rely on hindsight
to support its claims.
After Lepore's trashing of Christensen's ahistorical mumbo
jumbo, I started pondering about my own thought process and
I realized that, in bits and pieces, almost inadvertently, I have
developed for the last decade or so, partially in my
mind and other times in writing, a theory of history which is
quite superior in its consistency and accuracy to the other
alternatives out there.
After thinking long and seriously about it, I have decided to call
it Historicist Bowel Determinism. Throughout history, change
occurs either evolutionarily or revolutionarily, with pinpointed
factors surrounding specific persons. Even though no single
individual is determinant to change the history of time, in the
aggregate history records leaps, breaks, inflection points and
movements in terms of identifiable individuals who are a result
of their environment though also influence it in a specific way.
My theory is that the only observable, demonstrable and
consistent pattern between the aforementioned individuals
is how their bowels function. Each and every resolute individual
throughout history, whose actions and ideas have caused a
landmark in history, have been chronically constipated.
Whether that affects their moods or in fact pushes them into
drastic positions and actions is the subject of my life work from
this point forward. However, the historical fact is consistent,
demonstrable and, thus, can serve as the basis for building
societal predictions.
I will elaborate further in this thread. Please contain your
excitement as I develop my stream of thought.
Originally posted by SeitseI already have a better name.
Outside exact sciences, a theory, in order to be strong, must
consistently follow a reliable method and apply it with rigor
against the backdrop of a sensible pool of trustworthy data --
as opposed to handpicked cases to suit the biases of the
author. Moreover, it ought to be tested against current data and
produce satisfactory predictions. It should ...[text shortened]... rate further in this thread. Please contain your
excitement as I develop my stream of thought.
Seitse's Science of Statistical Scatology©
My theory got its first batch of empirical data. After researching the profile
of the original post's thumbs down issuers, they show a very
uncomfortable and painful condition which combines constipation with a
compulsion to smell their own farts. This condition obviously compels
them to channel their negativity through disapproval of any manifestation
of creativity which is not their own. In conclusion? Potential serial killers.
More field tests to come.
Originally posted by SeitseAny excuse to loiter in a field, hey?
My theory got its first batch of empirical data. After researching the profile
of the original post's thumbs down issuers, they show a very
uncomfortable and painful condition which combines constipation with a
compulsion to smell their own farts. This condition obviously compels
them to channel their negativity through disapproval of any manifestation ...[text shortened]... ty which is not their own. In conclusion? Potential serial killers.
More field tests to come.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe trick to getting across the field untainted is to always look at the ground in front of you, and watch where you're stepping.
I, for one, have taken a solemn vow to cease walking through them, no matter how flower-infested they appear; one never knows when a Seitse data mine lies beneath the flora.
