2078: Popper

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 17:19, 28 November 2018 by (talk) (Transcript)
Jump to: navigation, search
At least, I don't think there's evidence. My claim that there's no evidence hasn't been falsified. At least, not that I know of.
Title text: At least, I don't think there's evidence. My claim that there's no evidence hasn't been falsified. At least, not that I know of.


Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: There is no evidence that this wasn’t created by a DESCENDANT OF KARL POPPER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.
Karl Popper was a philosopher who believed in falsification but not proof.


There's no evidence that Karl Popper wasn't born on July 28th, 1902.
No one has proven that he didn't grow up in Vienna...

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


I think this might have to do with the President's claims regarding climate change, there's no evidence that I'm not wrong Zachweix (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you're wrong. I've never seen any evidence that you're wrong. I've never met the guy (I've definitely met the guy).
ProphetZarquon (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no evidence to prove that the comic's explanation is incorrect. 18:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)SiliconWolf

I haven't failed to find no evidence that doesn't prove that you're not incorrect. Cosmogoblin (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This comic is almost doubly self-referential. Has Randall done that before? Has anyone asked if somebody has done that before? What about asking that: has that been done before? 18:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

So how about that? There's no evidence denying that this comic exists and has an explanation, and there's no evidence denying that the explanation is correct ~DiceGuy (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the transcript really incomplete? It doesn't seem like it. 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem incomplete to me either. 17:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There certainly doesn't appear to be any evidence that the transcript is incomplete. Shishire (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
As a counterargument, if a picture is worth 1,000 words, the transcript appears to be about 959 words short of completion. And I fail to see any evidence that the transcript is not incomplete. 04:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Negation by failure. Hey, it works perfectly in PROLOG. ;-)

Every time I read this, it reminds me of Bad Lip Reading's Carl Poppa[1].

Surely there's no such thing as "historical proof" as opposed to "scientific proof"? That's creationist talk.

There's no evidence that denies the existence of "historical proof". Dansiman (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)