I just realized I need some help with this figure. The proportions don't seem right. Need some Bayes up in this here thing. LMNO?
Testamonial: And i have actually gone to a bar and had a bouncer try to start a fight with me on the way in. I broke his teeth out of his fucking mouth and put his face through a passenger side window of a car.
Guess thats what the Internet was build for, pussy motherfuckers taking shit in safety...
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:34:58 PM
Andrew Wakefield.
QuoteAcademic scientists readily acknowledge that they often get things wrong. But they also hold fast to the idea that these errors get corrected over time as other scientists try to take the work further. Evidence that many more dodgy results are published than are subsequently corrected or withdrawn calls that much-vaunted capacity for self-correction into question. There are errors in a lot more of the scientific papers being published, written about and acted on than anyone would normally suppose, or like to think.
Various factors contribute to the problem. Statistical mistakes are widespread. The peer reviewers who evaluate papers before journals commit to publishing them are much worse at spotting mistakes than they or others appreciate. Professional pressure, competition and ambition push scientists to publish more quickly than would be wise. A career structure which lays great stress on publishing copious papers exacerbates all these problems. "There is no cost to getting things wrong," says Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia who has taken an interest in his discipline's persistent errors. "The cost is not getting them published."
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 04:38:32 AM
In essence, I see Atheists as people who look at reality and say "I want to be a member of an identity club that allows me to either wield my intellectual aspirations as a bludgeon, or to chuckle approvingly at those who do so".
The atheist (note the small a) population, by and large, fails to speak out against the Atheist community's bigotry, thereby tacitly accepting and endorsing it as a representation of all atheism.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:28:20 PMQuote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:44:16 PMQuote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:39:23 PMQuote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:37:08 PMQuote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PMQuote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.
What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.
Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.
And every Muslim is an extremist.
Islam is a group of closely related religions. Atheism is...?
A label taken by people who reject belief in a supernatural entity. Which, as I'm pretty sure we've talked about in your other threads, is a statement of belief ("I believe there is nothing" as opposed to the agnostic "I dunno"). As a group, atheists have been subject to forms of discrimination for centuries, and they've only just recently started to get uppity about it. And the uppity ones are a minority of the people who identify as Atheist.
The ones who choose the capital-A label seem to be forming a consensus and group identity, unlike people who simply hold an atheistic viewpoint. Unfortunately, it's a group identity that I find extremely alienating and have little respect for.
Quote from: Part of http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/23/do-better-please-just-do-better/I contrast [the treatment of this event] with the atheist community. We also have some amazingly good people — as I travel around, I run into them all the time, at all levels of organization, and all doing good work — but we also have a substantial number of amazingly awful people...and as it turns out, it doesn't take many sexist jerks clawing at the structure of your organization to distract and disrupt and impede progress. We have enough atheist asshats to provide shelter and support to exploiters — and too many of us are willing to overlook the content of our leaders' characters, as long as they are willing to say the right words about the sacred atheist cause.
I've been astounded at how many people demand that we plaster over an atheist's human flaws simply because, well, he's The Man. We've been building up a body of revered saints, rather than recognizing that every one of us is human and needs to be held accountable. Face reality: if Bora had chosen to be a leader of the atheist community, rather than the online science community, right now there would be a huge battle going on, with loud voices shouting that "He only talked to these women; aren't they strong enough to resist?" And the women who spoke out would be flooded with death threats and rape threats, and would be endlessly lampooned on our little hate nests scattered about the internet. Youtube would be full of videos expressing outrage that a Good Man should have been chastised by the Shrill Harpies of Feminism.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:58:03 PM
Funny, when I do that, it's called "Being a dick."
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2013, 04:58:31 PM
Joshua Foust, everyone's favourite college-dropout and military-industrial complex shill, is crying about the Foreign Affairs article, because it holds the USA to a higher standard than Russia and China. Also something something Greenwald and Snowden are high-tech terrorists something.