Rhetorican Kenneth Burke points out the rhetorical nature of the scientific outlook is his quote: “Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent if must function also as a deflection of reality.” Scientific statements, regardless of accuracy, precision, and logic, are always only a partial story as they do not include the entire story from every possible vantage point. Thomas Kuhn describes the nature of scientific discourse during periods of crisis (possible paradigm shift): “the competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs. The proponents of competing paradigms must fail to make complete contact with each other’s viewpoints for at least three reasons: first , they will often disagree about the list of problems that any candidate for paradigm must resolve because their standards or definitions are not the same, second, they ordinarily incorporate much of the vocabulary and apparatus, both conceptual and manipulative, that the traditional paradigm had previously employed, but not in a traditional way. Third, proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds, seeing different things in different relations to one another.” This is a clear rhetorical component seen in the discussion of simulation hypothesis—it attempts to shift the paradigm using some of the old concepts explaining the universe but, because they are so different, they cannot overlap.