> I said a movie was bad because I don’t enjoy being lectured about science by actors, many (if not most) of whom have only the most tenuous grasp of science. I wasn’t being “disingenuous”. I meant every word.
I not only said it, I repeated it, and then re-confirmed that I meant what I originally said.
You asserted without evidence they "probably mostly" failed. Thats a very different statement than your "tenous grasp" claim. If you're going to make sweeping generalizations, don't be a coward about it.
What's worse, you claimed you didn't make any assumptions, which you very clearly did -- that the writers and performers were uneducated, when in fact they are.
Then when presented with evidence, you doubled down and even still continue to gaslight, hence: disengenous.
Uneducated folks can still make correct assertions, and that's the entire point of science. The idea and supporting observations are meant to drive the conversation, not one's laughably judgemental opinion of the person presenting them.
That's a concept with which you, being so educated, are undoubtedly familiar.
I not only said it, I repeated it, and then re-confirmed that I meant what I originally said.