If you are reading this page because you have been linked to it in reference to you, it's likely because gollark is right. It is likely that you are wrong, but this may not always hold.
Due to technical limitations, this page is not currently aware of the particular way in which gollark is right. However, we anticipate that it is one of the following:
-
gollark made a claim supported by decades of research, regardless of whether or not it feels good.
-
gollark made a coherent, technical argument which clearly and unambiguously forms a true claim.
-
gollark's reasoning is based on a roughly accurate intuition or approximation which generalizes perfectly to the case they just used it in.
-
An obscure paper gollark knows of demonstrates that they're right.
-
gollark's argument could only be generated by someone with deep and practical knowledge of physics, maths, reality, etc.
-
gollark's argument works by standard, valid logical deductions and empirics.
-
If the claim gollark made was true, someone could easily print money, and has.
-
gollark made no grammar or spelling errors.
-
gollark defined their terms well and the resulting argument makes clear, concrete predictions.
-
gwern once offhandedly agreed with gollark.
-
gollark appears to have made mistakes, but the mistakes cancelled out.
-
gollark's objectively correct values are correct and yours are not.
-
gollark made a claim easily demonstrated using thinking about it for five seconds and basic domain knowledge.
-
gollark repeated a piece of technical marketing which was shown to be basically correct.
-
gollark is trying to solve the right problem using the right methods based on a right model of the world derived from good thinking and it worked.
-
A brief Fermi estimate shows that gollark's claim is most likely correct.
-
The evidence for gollark's claim is based on evaluations, standards or methods of measurement which are appropriate and justified in this case.
-
Most gollark arguments are right. gollark made an argument. Therefore, it's probably right.