misuse of "decimated"

[Chip]

And here's another I thought was worth bookmarking.

This distinction is one that mystifies me at times. I have no problem self-identifying as ignorant; there are countless areas of knowledge of which I am ignorant, but willing and eager to learn. Yet some folk who do not understand the definition of ignorance take great offense at the label.

Another pet-peeve of mine is 'fact'. As any first year law school student can tell you, facts are constructs based upon evidence. They can be proven, unproven, or dis-proven, but the are neither true nor untrue. Their proof is entirely up to the audience to whom presented (in law this is commonly a jury, also known as the 'fact finder'), and limited in utility to the scope in which they are constructed.

A 'scientific fact' in neither true nor untrue. It simply supports the hypothesis in which it is presented. Truth, as we commonly conceive it, is (outside of a Rule #5 violation) unattainable. So, in a scientific context, it is entirely appropriate to dismiss facts that do not support a given theory and construct new facts (based upon the available evidence) to support the theory.