Talk:2078: Popper

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. 172.68.90.112 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? 172.68.174.64 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.162.158.255.22 16:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem incomplete to me either. 162.158.107.43 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. 108.162.226.239 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)