Aya

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And nothing shows that a person cares about science than firmly believing in something that is completely NOT SCIENCE.

Maybe he's actually conducting research into the effects of long-term cognitive dissonance?

[LMNO]

You truly have a generous spirit.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You truly have a generous spirit.

[Demolition Squid]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing out on some integral part of the human experience because I've never taken an illegal drug. I don't even really like feeling drunk, so I've never felt the need to seek out more intense narcotics. Especially now that I'm a little older and some of my best friends have been in and out of hospital for their habits back when we were all teenagers.

It is interesting to hear about the science behind them, though. I can't help but wonder if studying these things in a rigorous way might help us understand the mechanics of religious experiences and artistic inspiration - which would be extremely exciting!

But then, you'll probably still have gurus deliberately muddying the waters with as much woo as possible, for the same reason big oil does everything it can to discredit environmental research.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing out on some integral part of the human experience because I've never taken an illegal drug. I don't even really like feeling drunk, so I've never felt the need to seek out more intense narcotics. Especially now that I'm a little older and some of my best friends have been in and out of hospital for their habits back when we were all teenagers.

It is interesting to hear about the science behind them, though. I can't help but wonder if studying these things in a rigorous way might help us understand the mechanics of religious experiences and artistic inspiration - which would be extremely exciting!

But then, you'll probably still have gurus deliberately muddying the waters with as much woo as possible, for the same reason big oil does everything it can to discredit environmental research.

You don't even really need gurus muddying the waters, people do a great job of it on their own. I've noticed a really strong trend in science-denying circles, which is this false consensus effect in which people project their own ignorance onto the scientific community, exchanging "I don't know" with "nobody knows" and making statements about the world that accurately reflect only their own ignorance. "Doctors don't really know what their medicines do, it's all just chemicals", "Scientists don't really know what fluoride does to the body", and so on. I actually think the reason PD pisses off so many people is because they come here expecting another fart-huffing echo chamber where they can wax philosophical about quantum reality and mystical experiences, and there are people here who actually understand how things work and are curious about breaking things down to their mechanics. This is frustrating for people who are used to thinking of themselves as intellectual and analytical by contrast with the people they hang out with, and are used to hearing "Whoa, yeah, nobody really knows how ayahuasca works, that's really deep man" instead of a bunch of assholes trying to dismantle and critically examine their ideas.

[Doktor Howl]

I've noticed a definite trend, which is that Roger says something snarky to/about Holist, and Holist promptly attacks me. I just re-scanned the thread and I said not one single derogatory or dismissive thing in response to Holist. But Roger did, and Holist promptly turned nasty on both of us. I even recall cases where I wasn't arguing with Holist but Roger was, and Holist got ugly with me and didn't address Roger at all.

Funny, that. I'll have to start pointing it out when it happens.

Babylon Horuv used to do that.  I'd jump on his shit about something, he'd attack a woman I knew in retaliation.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've noticed a definite trend, which is that Roger says something snarky to/about Holist, and Holist promptly attacks me. I just re-scanned the thread and I said not one single derogatory or dismissive thing in response to Holist. But Roger did, and Holist promptly turned nasty on both of us. I even recall cases where I wasn't arguing with Holist but Roger was, and Holist got ugly with me and didn't address Roger at all.

Funny, that. I'll have to start pointing it out when it happens.

Babylon Horuv used to do that.  I'd jump on his shit about something, he'd attack a woman I knew in retaliation.

I remember that. It was charming.

[Doktor Howl]

I've noticed a definite trend, which is that Roger says something snarky to/about Holist, and Holist promptly attacks me. I just re-scanned the thread and I said not one single derogatory or dismissive thing in response to Holist. But Roger did, and Holist promptly turned nasty on both of us. I even recall cases where I wasn't arguing with Holist but Roger was, and Holist got ugly with me and didn't address Roger at all.

Funny, that. I'll have to start pointing it out when it happens.

Babylon Horuv used to do that.  I'd jump on his shit about something, he'd attack a woman I knew in retaliation.

I remember that. It was charming.

I've promised myself 3 of his teeth, if we ever meet.  And I am not by nature a violent man.

[Doktor Howl]

Well, not that kinda violent.

[Ben Shapiro]

The reason no one likes PD is that it always fucks up the rotation. PUFF PUFF GIVE GOD DAMN IT! FUCK YOU SCIENCE!

[hooplala]

And nothing shows that a person cares about science than firmly believing in something that is completely NOT SCIENCE.

This seems to be a pretty common mindset for those who consistently shit all over science. Has anyone seen the video of the other Megan Fox "auditing" the science of a museum, despite knowing nothing? She constantly says "that's not how science works", as if she has the actual inside scoop on how things are actually done. I've also seen it on FB with anti-vaccinators... Wtf?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Only tangentially related, but I was just making spaghetti and musing about another thing that happens a lot in woo fart-huffing chambers; the practice of believing that knowledge has not changed beyond the last they read about a subject. You see prime examples of this in Discordians who believe that scientists have no idea what the pineal gland really does, because they read it in a book that was written sixty-five years ago. Kind of a lot has happened, scientifically-speaking, since then.

Knowledge changes. I would bet that a ton of the "the mechanism is unknown" statement in my textbooks are out of date, let alone any statement of ignorance from decades ago. Science and the advancement of knowledge is moving at an astonishingly rapid pace -- if there's anything you assume we don't know, because you read somewhere that we don't know, you have to ask yourself when the last time you touched base with the research was. If it was more than six months ago, time to re-check before you back yourself into a corner by making unequivocal statements. If you can't verify, then it is wise to proceed with caution, so you'll be less likely to have your pride injured when someone fact-checks you.

[Doktor Howl]

Only tangentially related, but I was just making spaghetti and musing about another thing that happens a lot in woo fart-huffing chambers; the practice of believing that knowledge has not changed beyond the last they read about a subject. You see prime examples of this in Discordians who believe that scientists have no idea what the pineal gland really does, because they read it in a book that was written sixty-five years ago. Kind of a lot has happened, scientifically-speaking, since then.

Knowledge changes. I would bet that a ton of the "the mechanism is unknown" statement in my textbooks are out of date, let alone any statement of ignorance from decades ago. Science and the advancement of knowledge is moving at an astonishingly rapid pace -- if there's anything you assume we don't know, because you read somewhere that we don't know, you have to ask yourself when the last time you touched base with the research was. If it was more than six months ago, time to re-check before you back yourself into a corner by making unequivocal statements. If you can't verify, then it is wise to proceed with caution, so you'll be less likely to have your pride injured when someone fact-checks you.

More to the point, "Mechanism not known" does not imply that you can just fill the void up with your turds and call it "science".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And nothing shows that a person cares about science than firmly believing in something that is completely NOT SCIENCE.

This seems to be a pretty common mindset for those who consistently shit all over science. Has anyone seen the video of the other Megan Fox "auditing" the science of a museum, despite knowing nothing? She constantly says "that's not how science works", as if she has the actual inside scoop on how things are actually done. I've also seen it on FB with anti-vaccinators... Wtf?

Part of that is that they're parroting something they heard from someone they consider an authority figure. The only way Megan Fox could have any idea whether or not that's how science works is if someone told her so. A lot of these anti-vaccination people are just parroting something they read on a snake oil blog or other website; they don't understand the science at all, so they take the word of someone they presume does.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Only tangentially related, but I was just making spaghetti and musing about another thing that happens a lot in woo fart-huffing chambers; the practice of believing that knowledge has not changed beyond the last they read about a subject. You see prime examples of this in Discordians who believe that scientists have no idea what the pineal gland really does, because they read it in a book that was written sixty-five years ago. Kind of a lot has happened, scientifically-speaking, since then.

Knowledge changes. I would bet that a ton of the "the mechanism is unknown" statement in my textbooks are out of date, let alone any statement of ignorance from decades ago. Science and the advancement of knowledge is moving at an astonishingly rapid pace -- if there's anything you assume we don't know, because you read somewhere that we don't know, you have to ask yourself when the last time you touched base with the research was. If it was more than six months ago, time to re-check before you back yourself into a corner by making unequivocal statements. If you can't verify, then it is wise to proceed with caution, so you'll be less likely to have your pride injured when someone fact-checks you.

More to the point, "Mechanism not known" does not imply that you can just fill the void up with your turds and call it "science".

Right? It's like a puzzle... you can't just jam ANY piece in, whether it came out of the same puzzle box or not. It has to be the right piece, that is contiguous with the others, fits the space, and makes up a part of the whole picture.

One problem that has arisen with the Internet is the ability of hucksters to lie to a larger audience; there is exactly nothing stopping anyone from making shit up and calling it science. I don't really know how to address this problem, because I believe firmly in freedom of speech, but it has made me wonder whether there should be some kind of licensing system such as exists with doctors and lawyers.

Of course, with doctors we have that whole naturopathy thing totally undermining the MD system. I imagine something similar would happen if we started licensing scientists.