Principia Discordia

Have any of you had any experience with ayahuasca? Care to share? :)

Yes.  I felt light-headed and threw up, everything looked over-saturated.

To say it was an underwhelming experience would be an understatement.

60% of us have had the same experience.

I don't even know what ayahuasca is, Captain Sweatpants.

I haven't tried it, but I also felt light-headed and threw up, and everything looked over-saturated.


Turned out, I had food poisoning.

I took some and suddenly realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

Didn't like it much. Prefer pot, it makes me giggle at shit that aint that funny.

Quote from: Hello Waffles on November 26, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
I don't even know what ayahuasca is, Captain Sweatpants.

A DMT-containing herbal brew used by Amazonian indians for ceremonial purposes, and hippies for recreational purposes.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 26, 2014, 01:43:25 PM
I took some and suddenly realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

Didn't like it much. Prefer pot, it makes me giggle at shit that aint that funny.

:D :D

Best so far!

Experience went pretty much the same, preference the other way. :)

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 01:50:05 PM

Quote from: Hello Waffles on November 26, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
I don't even know what ayahuasca is, Captain Sweatpants.

A DMT-containing herbal brew used by Amazonian indians for ceremonial purposes, and hippies for recreational purposes.

Ahh. I usually go for some sort of mead and or mushrooms for my religious pursuits (read: getting shitfaced and laughing at nothing in particular).

Spoken like a true member of the clergy

Honestly, I think drugs like that are more useful the more disconnected you are from your ecology and the systems that surround you. They serve as a good perspective-setter, and can be paradigm-shifting if you are extremely disconnected, as many Westerners seem to be.

I'm taking neuropharmacology next term, I might be able to weigh in a little more on what various psychedelics actually do.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
Honestly, I think drugs like that are more useful the more disconnected you are from your ecology and the systems that surround you. They serve as a good perspective-setter, and can be paradigm-shifting if you are extremely disconnected, as many Westerners seem to be.

I'm taking neuropharmacology next term, I might be able to weigh in a little more on what various psychedelics actually do.

Looking forward to it!

Tbh, most psychedelics have been really disappointing for me. I always preferred amphetamines, for some reason. Perhaps because my mind is so fucking noisy at the best of times, and they seemed to quiet it down somewhat.

These days my biggest intoxicants are caffeine and nicotine though. #straightedge-ish

Psychedelics just depress me. The universe seems even more pointless in that state than it does for me normally.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
Honestly, I think drugs like that are more useful the more disconnected you are from your ecology and the systems that surround you. They serve as a good perspective-setter, and can be paradigm-shifting if you are extremely disconnected, as many Westerners seem to be.

You can say that again!  :lulz:

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
I'm taking neuropharmacology next term, I might be able to weigh in a little more on what various psychedelics actually do.

Looking forward to it.

Quote from: Hello Waffles on November 26, 2014, 02:29:53 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
Honestly, I think drugs like that are more useful the more disconnected you are from your ecology and the systems that surround you. They serve as a good perspective-setter, and can be paradigm-shifting if you are extremely disconnected, as many Westerners seem to be.

I'm taking neuropharmacology next term, I might be able to weigh in a little more on what various psychedelics actually do.

Looking forward to it!

Tbh, most psychedelics have been really disappointing for me. I always preferred amphetamines, for some reason. Perhaps because my mind is so fucking noisy at the best of times, and they seemed to quiet it down somewhat.

These days my biggest intoxicants are caffeine and nicotine though. #straightedge-ish

I'm rather fond of mushrooms and the calming aftereffects they have on me. They definitely reduce my tendency toward anxiety.

I can't stand stimulants other than caffeine, and even that's a little iffy for me. I take Ritalin to help me focus and get shit done though, and that's not too bad although I feel a little TOO focused on it.

I spent a couple of months of my late teens on psillocybin caps. Started out as recreation and ended up something much deeper and more profound. Never felt the need to revisit the experience. Was kind of like learning to read and write. Once you've done it, there's no real reason to go back to grade school.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 26, 2014, 04:28:27 PM
I spent a couple of months of my late teens on psillocybin caps. Started out as recreation and ended up something much deeper and more profound. Never felt the need to revisit the experience. Was kind of like learning to read and write. Once you've done it, there's no real reason to go back to grade school.

Went through that. Got the substantial thing, around the same age as you. Took a long ass break. Dropped some acid and figured out that when I wasn't in that seeking mindset, I got to pretty much just sit around and laugh my ass off for hours on end enjoying the fuck out of the experience.

Once every few years I do it again.

Still haven't done DMT. Want to. No interest in Ayahuasca (even though you guys are making it sound so appealing, what with the vomiting and all).

Psilocybin has really interesting effects on rumination, memory, and plasticity -- I don't know if you've followed its use in treating PTSD and anxiety at all. Pretty interesting stuff. It seems to actually loosen the glial scaffolding that holds axodendritic synapses in place, allowing some of the connections to separate and new connections to form.

DMT is OK IME. Nothing I'd seek out.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 03:44:24 PM

Quote from: Hello Waffles on November 26, 2014, 02:29:53 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
Honestly, I think drugs like that are more useful the more disconnected you are from your ecology and the systems that surround you. They serve as a good perspective-setter, and can be paradigm-shifting if you are extremely disconnected, as many Westerners seem to be.

I'm taking neuropharmacology next term, I might be able to weigh in a little more on what various psychedelics actually do.

Looking forward to it!

Tbh, most psychedelics have been really disappointing for me. I always preferred amphetamines, for some reason. Perhaps because my mind is so fucking noisy at the best of times, and they seemed to quiet it down somewhat.

These days my biggest intoxicants are caffeine and nicotine though. #straightedge-ish

I'm rather fond of mushrooms and the calming aftereffects they have on me. They definitely reduce my tendency toward anxiety.

I can't stand stimulants other than caffeine, and even that's a little iffy for me. I take Ritalin to help me focus and get shit done though, and that's not too bad although I feel a little TOO focused on it.

Mushroom have the opposite effect on me, they make me jumpy and edgy. I wonder what that says about my body chemistry...

Quote from: Hoopla on November 26, 2014, 05:01:03 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 03:44:24 PM

Quote from: Hello Waffles on November 26, 2014, 02:29:53 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
Honestly, I think drugs like that are more useful the more disconnected you are from your ecology and the systems that surround you. They serve as a good perspective-setter, and can be paradigm-shifting if you are extremely disconnected, as many Westerners seem to be.

I'm taking neuropharmacology next term, I might be able to weigh in a little more on what various psychedelics actually do.

Looking forward to it!

Tbh, most psychedelics have been really disappointing for me. I always preferred amphetamines, for some reason. Perhaps because my mind is so fucking noisy at the best of times, and they seemed to quiet it down somewhat.

These days my biggest intoxicants are caffeine and nicotine though. #straightedge-ish

I'm rather fond of mushrooms and the calming aftereffects they have on me. They definitely reduce my tendency toward anxiety.

I can't stand stimulants other than caffeine, and even that's a little iffy for me. I take Ritalin to help me focus and get shit done though, and that's not too bad although I feel a little TOO focused on it.

Mushroom have the opposite effect on me, they make me jumpy and edgy. I wonder what that says about my body chemistry...

Perhaps that you don't have PTSD?

Quote from: Hoopla on November 26, 2014, 05:01:03 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 03:44:24 PM

Quote from: Hello Waffles on November 26, 2014, 02:29:53 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
Honestly, I think drugs like that are more useful the more disconnected you are from your ecology and the systems that surround you. They serve as a good perspective-setter, and can be paradigm-shifting if you are extremely disconnected, as many Westerners seem to be.

I'm taking neuropharmacology next term, I might be able to weigh in a little more on what various psychedelics actually do.

Looking forward to it!

Tbh, most psychedelics have been really disappointing for me. I always preferred amphetamines, for some reason. Perhaps because my mind is so fucking noisy at the best of times, and they seemed to quiet it down somewhat.

These days my biggest intoxicants are caffeine and nicotine though. #straightedge-ish

I'm rather fond of mushrooms and the calming aftereffects they have on me. They definitely reduce my tendency toward anxiety.

I can't stand stimulants other than caffeine, and even that's a little iffy for me. I take Ritalin to help me focus and get shit done though, and that's not too bad although I feel a little TOO focused on it.

Mushroom have the opposite effect on me, they make me jumpy and edgy. I wonder what that says about my body chemistry...

In my experience mushrooms just make you think that EVERYTHING you think of is a great idea!
For example, I was hating some random guy nearby very much(for existing near me), i was loving watching the birds fly by. Also, everything that shouldn't move, moved. At a certain point i spent at least an hour completely fascinated by my hand and the way it was moving when it didn't. Things that normally moved annoyed me when they moved while everything else was riveting. I couldn't focus worth fuck-all though. I tried to read a book in the beginning, it got very hard to keep reading. The damn wind kept distracting me by moving nearby plants.

Anyway, my point was... Maybe you think your paranoia is a good thing?
How many distrust-reinforcing experiences have you had?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 09:08:56 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 26, 2014, 05:01:03 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 03:44:24 PM

Quote from: Hello Waffles on November 26, 2014, 02:29:53 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
Honestly, I think drugs like that are more useful the more disconnected you are from your ecology and the systems that surround you. They serve as a good perspective-setter, and can be paradigm-shifting if you are extremely disconnected, as many Westerners seem to be.

I'm taking neuropharmacology next term, I might be able to weigh in a little more on what various psychedelics actually do.

Looking forward to it!

Tbh, most psychedelics have been really disappointing for me. I always preferred amphetamines, for some reason. Perhaps because my mind is so fucking noisy at the best of times, and they seemed to quiet it down somewhat.

These days my biggest intoxicants are caffeine and nicotine though. #straightedge-ish

I'm rather fond of mushrooms and the calming aftereffects they have on me. They definitely reduce my tendency toward anxiety.

I can't stand stimulants other than caffeine, and even that's a little iffy for me. I take Ritalin to help me focus and get shit done though, and that's not too bad although I feel a little TOO focused on it.

Mushroom have the opposite effect on me, they make me jumpy and edgy. I wonder what that says about my body chemistry...

Perhaps that you don't have PTSD?

Anything's possible!  Are mushrooms known for calming those with PTSD?

Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 26, 2014, 09:10:57 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 26, 2014, 05:01:03 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 03:44:24 PM

Quote from: Hello Waffles on November 26, 2014, 02:29:53 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
Honestly, I think drugs like that are more useful the more disconnected you are from your ecology and the systems that surround you. They serve as a good perspective-setter, and can be paradigm-shifting if you are extremely disconnected, as many Westerners seem to be.

I'm taking neuropharmacology next term, I might be able to weigh in a little more on what various psychedelics actually do.

Looking forward to it!

Tbh, most psychedelics have been really disappointing for me. I always preferred amphetamines, for some reason. Perhaps because my mind is so fucking noisy at the best of times, and they seemed to quiet it down somewhat.

These days my biggest intoxicants are caffeine and nicotine though. #straightedge-ish

I'm rather fond of mushrooms and the calming aftereffects they have on me. They definitely reduce my tendency toward anxiety.

I can't stand stimulants other than caffeine, and even that's a little iffy for me. I take Ritalin to help me focus and get shit done though, and that's not too bad although I feel a little TOO focused on it.

Mushroom have the opposite effect on me, they make me jumpy and edgy. I wonder what that says about my body chemistry...

In my experience mushrooms just make you think that EVERYTHING you think of is a great idea!
For example, I was hating some random guy nearby very much(for existing near me), i was loving watching the birds fly by. Also, everything that shouldn't move, moved. At a certain point i spent at least an hour completely fascinated by my hand and the way it was moving when it didn't. Things that normally moved annoyed me when they moved while everything else was riveting. I couldn't focus worth fuck-all though. I tried to read a book in the beginning, it got very hard to keep reading. The damn wind kept distracting me by moving nearby plants.

Anyway, my point was... Maybe you think your paranoia is a good thing?
How many distrust-reinforcing experiences have you had?

I wish I had your experiences!

It's not so much paranoia as it is nihilistic dread.  I used to think about my family, and that would depress me... my dad used to be a member of the Hawks, he spent time down in Nashville in the 60s, wanting the whole Nashville Grand Ol Opry lifestyle, which didn't pan out.  He ended up being a truck driver in South Western Ontario, and when I thought of them sitting at home and watching television, and by extension millions of others doing the same, the realixation that I would likely end up doing about the same... I guess it triggered depression, more or less.

Luckily, a few years ago I thought about the lives most people in history up until the last century or so lived... usually never traveling farther than 40 miles from the house they were born in... that helped quite a bit.  But they still tend to make me anxious and generally not comfortable.  I just tend to avoid them now.

Ecstasy, on the other hand, I love love LOVED.  That made me feel like everything in the world was hunky dory.

Quote from: Hoopla on November 26, 2014, 09:12:39 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 09:08:56 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 26, 2014, 05:01:03 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 03:44:24 PM

Quote from: Hello Waffles on November 26, 2014, 02:29:53 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 26, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
Honestly, I think drugs like that are more useful the more disconnected you are from your ecology and the systems that surround you. They serve as a good perspective-setter, and can be paradigm-shifting if you are extremely disconnected, as many Westerners seem to be.

I'm taking neuropharmacology next term, I might be able to weigh in a little more on what various psychedelics actually do.

Looking forward to it!

Tbh, most psychedelics have been really disappointing for me. I always preferred amphetamines, for some reason. Perhaps because my mind is so fucking noisy at the best of times, and they seemed to quiet it down somewhat.

These days my biggest intoxicants are caffeine and nicotine though. #straightedge-ish

I'm rather fond of mushrooms and the calming aftereffects they have on me. They definitely reduce my tendency toward anxiety.

I can't stand stimulants other than caffeine, and even that's a little iffy for me. I take Ritalin to help me focus and get shit done though, and that's not too bad although I feel a little TOO focused on it.

Mushroom have the opposite effect on me, they make me jumpy and edgy. I wonder what that says about my body chemistry...

Perhaps that you don't have PTSD?

Anything's possible!  Are mushrooms known for calming those with PTSD?

Quite a bit of the recent research indicates that it helps calm rumination and temporarily loosens the glial scaffolding that maintains the "hardwiring" of axodendritic connections, creating a plastic environment in which recall and re-storage of traumatic memories can be disconnected from circuits that trigger anxiety and obsessive rumination processes.

I got an intensive tutorial in how the mind formulates it's model of reality, how thoughts come about, how decisions are evaluated and made, the role that physiological inputs and reflexes play in the currently active personality and, more importantly, how to influence and override most of my own memeplex more or less at will.

Needless to say, in the hands of a 15/16 year old stoner burnout and borderline alcoholic this toolkit proved to be a disaster of hilarious proportions. 30 years on and I'm still learning to fly this fucking thing  :lulz:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 26, 2014, 09:43:16 PM
I got an intensive tutorial in how the mind formulates it's model of reality, how thoughts come about, how decisions are evaluated and made, the role that physiological inputs and reflexes play in the currently active personality and, more importantly, how to influence and override most of my own memeplex more or less at will.

Needless to say, in the hands of a 15/16 year old stoner burnout and borderline alcoholic this toolkit proved to be a disaster of hilarious proportions. 30 years on and I'm still learning to fly this fucking thing  :lulz:

This...in abundance.

Not unlike when you get that really cool bios that let's you fuck with memory timing, core voltages, and ALL THE THINGS--eventually you come to this horrible realization that, you know, maybe they were set that way for a reason...and even if not, maybe I should have figured out what the fuck I was doing BEFORE I started mucking around with it.

I do recall one interesting experience, now that I'm tip-towing down memory lane... On mushrooms, while escaping a flea market (NOT a good place for an edgy non-fan of psychedelics to start peaking) I watched cars driving down the streets of Toronto, and noticed that while they followed the basic rules of the road, that all of them were more or less driving how they wanted to, it looked like they were all over the place.  I had just started reading a shit-ton of RAW around that point, and I became aware that I was viewing the city without most of my usual filters.  At the time I thought of it as "no filters", but that's unlikely in retrospect.  I recognized that I was viewing, basically, raw reality.  It freaked me out.  But, it was very helpful in being able to realize the difference afterwards.

OK, I've spagged up this thread enough with my lame recollections....

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 26, 2014, 09:43:16 PM
I got an intensive tutorial in how the mind formulates it's model of reality, how thoughts come about, how decisions are evaluated and made, the role that physiological inputs and reflexes play in the currently active personality and, more importantly, how to influence and override most of my own memeplex more or less at will.

Needless to say, in the hands of a 15/16 year old stoner burnout and borderline alcoholic this toolkit proved to be a disaster of hilarious proportions. 30 years on and I'm still learning to fly this fucking thing  :lulz:

Much as I long suspected, you are a man after my own heart. Don't take it personally! :)

Have you written about the lesson learnt? I would love to read it.

Actually, my story was very similar. After a year or two of becoming increasingly sharply aware of the machineries of freedom all around us, I decided to just climb back into the hole and stick with weed. I took the occasional recreational trip which di have occasional profound experiences, but on many occasions, some with acid, some with shrooms, when I got too close to the vortex I got really scared and fainted or wrathered it out whimpering under the skirts of my wife, though later on I did learn to consciously steer away from the abyss by myself. I guess I failed grade school.

This time though... whoa. And, at the risk of pinealising myself into a rough corner, I would say that ayahuasca, which really is just dmt and MAO inhibitor brewed from 2 or 3 different plants, which allows the DMT to be taken up through the stomach and stay active for hours, goes deeper. The distinct impression I got is that with acid, you open the door, you can even walk through it, but there's either nobody there, or it's just someone (or someones) who happen by. With mushrooms, there are pixies, little natural spirits with a tinkling sense of humour and some downright wickedness. With the diviner sage, there is the celestial sheperdess, a young female presence with deeply scary undertones, amazing creativity, fickle, perhaps even Eris. With extreme doses of THC (talking 4-5 spoonfuls of fresh, strong oil), there's the crone. She delights in the passing of things and will take you for her own if you let her. But with aya, there is the mother.

Go on, laugh! :)

What is this self-indulgent shit?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 06:35:18 AM
What is this self-indulgent shit?

I think I relate. Like, this one time my buddy ate some booms and shit his pants. We were at a party and had to leave in a hurry. Laughed our asses off all the way home.

I think it's kind of like that.

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on November 26, 2014, 10:05:47 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 26, 2014, 09:43:16 PM
I got an intensive tutorial in how the mind formulates it's model of reality, how thoughts come about, how decisions are evaluated and made, the role that physiological inputs and reflexes play in the currently active personality and, more importantly, how to influence and override most of my own memeplex more or less at will.

Needless to say, in the hands of a 15/16 year old stoner burnout and borderline alcoholic this toolkit proved to be a disaster of hilarious proportions. 30 years on and I'm still learning to fly this fucking thing  :lulz:

This...in abundance.

Not unlike when you get that really cool bios that let's you fuck with memory timing, core voltages, and ALL THE THINGS--eventually you come to this horrible realization that, you know, maybe they were set that way for a reason...and even if not, maybe I should have figured out what the fuck I was doing BEFORE I started mucking around with it.

Yup. One of the hardest lessons was what I call the "dependency forest" the way that the structure hangs together as a series of interlocking trees, growing outward from core nodes and branching repeatedly to form our current mind. Changing little bits at the top (even whole swathes at a time) is pretty harmless and can be very useful but, the deeper you go, the more the butterfly effect kicks in with a vengeance. Of course, when you're suddenly granted superuser privileges who the fuck wants to piss around changing the colour scheme, right?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 06:35:18 AM
What is this self-indulgent shit?

Nobody cares about science anymore. :(

I love science but, when it comes to consciousness there essentially isn't any or rather, they're just getting started

QuoteIt seems to actually loosen the glial scaffolding that holds axodendritic synapses in place, allowing some of the connections to separate and new connections to form

So science has observed the tiny little cells that make consciousness happen and it appears that the connections between them can be re-jiggered (neuroplasticity?) and certain plants can facilitate this. How is this information useful to me? Well it isn't really but scale it up a bit and it might follow (after another decade or two of research) that consciousness can be edited.

While I'm waiting for science to discover this, I'm more than happy to discuss tried and tested semantic systems for cognitive engineering, some dating back to the stone age and some of which have been scientifically proven to, yanno, loosen glial scaffolding and shit.

For some reason tho, these non-scientific approaches seem to throw a whole bunch of panties into turmoil round here so, yeah, fuck that noise.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2014, 03:07:13 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 06:35:18 AM
What is this self-indulgent shit?

Nobody cares about science anymore. :(

DRUGS R MORE BETTER.  THERE'S FAIRIES AND CRONES.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 27, 2014, 04:36:43 PM
.
For some reason tho, these non-scientific approaches seem to throw a whole bunch of panties into turmoil round here so, yeah, fuck that noise.

The world has had enough bliss-ninny gurus.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 04:46:49 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 27, 2014, 04:36:43 PM
.
For some reason tho, these non-scientific approaches seem to throw a whole bunch of panties into turmoil round here so, yeah, fuck that noise.

The world has had enough bliss-ninny gurus.

But it's like, maaaan, like the Mother Goddess, and I know stuff, like ALL the stuff, and shit.

Because that's totally useful information. Just blow your mind, and then you can be right forever and in perpetuity because you got Enlightened. That's it, the end. No need to fuss around with learning stuff, you did it and you're done.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 04:46:17 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2014, 03:07:13 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 06:35:18 AM
What is this self-indulgent shit?

Nobody cares about science anymore. :(

DRUGS R MORE BETTER.  THERE'S FAIRIES AND CRONES.

SCIENCE DON'T KNOW NOTHING, TAKING DRUGS IS CONSCIOUSNESS ENGINEERING THAT GOES BACK FOREVS.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2014, 06:45:54 PM
Because that's totally useful information. Just blow your mind, and then you can be right forever and in perpetuity because you got Enlightened. That's it, the end. No need to fuss around with learning stuff, you did it and you're done.

Who needs rationalism when you can sit in the corner and smear your feces on the wall?   :lulz:

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2014, 06:50:38 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 04:46:17 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2014, 03:07:13 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 06:35:18 AM
What is this self-indulgent shit?

Nobody cares about science anymore. :(

DRUGS R MORE BETTER.  THERE'S FAIRIES AND CRONES.

SCIENCE DON'T KNOW NOTHING, TAKING DRUGS IS CONSCIOUSNESS ENGINEERING THAT GOES BACK FOREVS.

I am fascinated by Holist's aversion to actual science.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 08:20:36 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2014, 06:50:38 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 04:46:17 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2014, 03:07:13 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 06:35:18 AM
What is this self-indulgent shit?

Nobody cares about science anymore. :(

DRUGS R MORE BETTER.  THERE'S FAIRIES AND CRONES.

SCIENCE DON'T KNOW NOTHING, TAKING DRUGS IS CONSCIOUSNESS ENGINEERING THAT GOES BACK FOREVS.

I am fascinated by Holist's aversion to actual science.

I'm kind of fascinated by the totally dismissive response to my attempt at participating, like "oh so research has found the mechanisms by which certain hallucinogens can help rewire debilitating physical responses to traumatic memories? Oh, well, that's all theoretical, I'ma talk about subjective experiences through my cultural filter".

I was like, this is interesting and I know something about it, but apparently what I find fascinating about it is completely invalid because maiden mother and crone. Which surely can't be experiences that are the result of reframing experiences in a vulnerably plastic brain in light of a particular cultural background, it must be some glorious Universal Truth, because fuck science what does it know anyway.

Besides, doing a ton of hallucinogens at 17 makes you Forever Wise. You can just stop, secure in the knowledge that you had universal enlightenment, and never try again.

The constant hostility and strawmanbuilding really does grind. I tell you about impressions I gathered during a pretty fucking freaky profound trip, you infer my attitude towards science and my world view. That is so unscientific, Woman-who-has-yo-justify-herself-all-the-time and Underappreciated-man-who-has-found-solace-in-grump! Although I don't think it is the only thing worth caring about, I do care about science. A lot. In fact I am beginning to suspect I care about it a great deal more than either of you.

I was interested in the science. I mean if you're gonna fuck around with your headmeats, might as well have an idea of what you're doing to it, right? I've found this thread really helpful in that regard as i've been wondering if a psychedelic experience might be good for me. I have a bunch of negative thought patterns sometimes and I've been thinking that a trip like that might be enough to help rewire some of that fucked up thinking. I've only ever messed with pot, which unless its the right strain, will put me right to sleep, and the one time i took Welbutrin, which just made my head hurt. Salvia looks manageable and might do the trick, though some people tell me all it does is cause ten seconds of pins-and-needles sensation.

Quote from: EL MAESTRO! on November 28, 2014, 07:09:22 AM
I was interested in the science. I mean if you're gonna fuck around with your headmeats, might as well have an idea of what you're doing to it, right? I've found this thread really helpful in that regard as i've been wondering if a psychedelic experience might be good for me. I have a bunch of negative thought patterns sometimes and I've been thinking that a trip like that might be enough to help rewire some of that fucked up thinking. I've only ever messed with pot, which unless its the right strain, will put me right to sleep, and the one time i took Welbutrin, which just made my head hurt. Salvia looks manageable and might do the trick, though some people tell me all it does is cause ten seconds of pins-and-needles sensation.

Salvia isnt a very good babbys first psychadelic. Ive yet to have a "good" trip on it, and from what I gather from around the internets there really isnt a good trip to have on it, just a not as pants shittingly horrifying one. Not that it wasnt useful, insightful ect, its just you want to stretch out your mental sphincter a bit before you tackle it. Psilocybin sounds like what youre looking for. If youre too lazy to grow shrooms then just brew up some morning glory tea.   

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 03:06:24 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 08:20:36 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2014, 06:50:38 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 04:46:17 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 27, 2014, 03:07:13 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2014, 06:35:18 AM
What is this self-indulgent shit?

Nobody cares about science anymore. :(

DRUGS R MORE BETTER.  THERE'S FAIRIES AND CRONES.

SCIENCE DON'T KNOW NOTHING, TAKING DRUGS IS CONSCIOUSNESS ENGINEERING THAT GOES BACK FOREVS.

I am fascinated by Holist's aversion to actual science.

I'm kind of fascinated by the totally dismissive response to my attempt at participating, like "oh so research has found the mechanisms by which certain hallucinogens can help rewire debilitating physical responses to traumatic memories? Oh, well, that's all theoretical, I'ma talk about subjective experiences through my cultural filter".

I was like, this is interesting and I know something about it, but apparently what I find fascinating about it is completely invalid because maiden mother and crone. Which surely can't be experiences that are the result of reframing experiences in a vulnerably plastic brain in light of a particular cultural background, it must be some glorious Universal Truth, because fuck science what does it know anyway.

Besides, doing a ton of hallucinogens at 17 makes you Forever Wise. You can just stop, secure in the knowledge that you had universal enlightenment, and never try again.

This is why I'm saying we're outside the remit of science. Consciousness is an entirely subjective experience. Your scientific interest is like someone watching people skateboard and then jumping in the conversation with a whole bunch of fancy words that explain how the wheels go round.

That's all good and well but a bunch of skaters were talking about grinding the lip. No we're not scientists but we somehow had still managed to figure out the wheels went round. Of course for a scientist, this claim is preposterous. How could we possibly know this? I bet we didn't know there were four of them, tho, right? Brand new studies have only just discovered this. We couldn't possibly know that.

 :deadthread:

From an OP about ayahuasca? How the fuck did we manage to derail it onto drugs?  :?

 :pope:

Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on November 28, 2014, 07:31:59 AM

Quote from: EL MAESTRO! on November 28, 2014, 07:09:22 AM
I was interested in the science. I mean if you're gonna fuck around with your headmeats, might as well have an idea of what you're doing to it, right? I've found this thread really helpful in that regard as i've been wondering if a psychedelic experience might be good for me. I have a bunch of negative thought patterns sometimes and I've been thinking that a trip like that might be enough to help rewire some of that fucked up thinking. I've only ever messed with pot, which unless its the right strain, will put me right to sleep, and the one time i took Welbutrin, which just made my head hurt. Salvia looks manageable and might do the trick, though some people tell me all it does is cause ten seconds of pins-and-needles sensation.

Salvia isnt a very good babbys first psychadelic. Ive yet to have a "good" trip on it, and from what I gather from around the internets there really isnt a good trip to have on it, just a not as pants shittingly horrifying one.

I agree. It's a thrill-seekers trip. You definitely have to have an acquired taste for WHOOOOOAAAOAOOAOAOOFUUUUCK.

If given my druthers, I'd just as soon do nitrous though. It's a lot more consistent and has roughly the same effect on me.

Salvia was a hoot. There's a thread around about it somewhere.

Either "Or Kill Me" or "Literate", I think.

Hehe, it got moved to a The Peanut Gallery:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10329.0 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10329.0)

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 28, 2014, 05:09:12 AM
.Although I don't think it is the only thing worth caring about, I do care about science. A lot. In fact I am beginning to suspect I care about it a great deal more than either of you.

:lulz:

You suspect wrong.  Everything you propose is anti-rational.  Not irrational, anti-rational.  Homeopathy.  Trotting out Harmine (Ayauasca) AGAIN (like every other bliss ninny since the 60s) like it's something new...And then Brushing Nigel aside when she mentions that there's an actual component of hallucinagenics that might have an ACTUAL medical application.

Questioning previous scientific conclusions is good, but first you kind of have to learn the science involved.

But that takes work, and that's not why you're here.

Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on November 28, 2014, 07:31:59 AM
.If youre too lazy to grow shrooms then just brew up some morning glory tea.   

http://azarius.net/encyclopedia/5/Morning_Glory_Ipomoea_violacea/

None for me, thanks.   :)

This whole mess is sort of a reverse-RWHN thing.

Quote from: EL MAESTRO! on November 28, 2014, 07:09:22 AM
I was interested in the science. I mean if you're gonna fuck around with your headmeats, might as well have an idea of what you're doing to it, right? I've found this thread really helpful in that regard as i've been wondering if a psychedelic experience might be good for me. I have a bunch of negative thought patterns sometimes and I've been thinking that a trip like that might be enough to help rewire some of that fucked up thinking. I've only ever messed with pot, which unless its the right strain, will put me right to sleep, and the one time i took Welbutrin, which just made my head hurt. Salvia looks manageable and might do the trick, though some people tell me all it does is cause ten seconds of pins-and-needles sensation.

Thanks, I'm glad that my effort to participate wasn't universally seen as a worthless derail. As someone who uses drugs as well as studies them I find it fascinating to understand the mechanisms behind the experiences, because that helps inform me in how to get the most out of the experiences. Understanding how a tool works helps us to use it better.

I found salvia kind of boring, honestly, and I've done it a bunch of times. It was just like being me, only more so. :lol: I remember having some epiphany about masturbation, but I forget what it was.

For reducing negative thought patterns, though, mushrooms are awesome IME.

Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on November 28, 2014, 07:31:59 AM

Quote from: EL MAESTRO! on November 28, 2014, 07:09:22 AM
I was interested in the science. I mean if you're gonna fuck around with your headmeats, might as well have an idea of what you're doing to it, right? I've found this thread really helpful in that regard as i've been wondering if a psychedelic experience might be good for me. I have a bunch of negative thought patterns sometimes and I've been thinking that a trip like that might be enough to help rewire some of that fucked up thinking. I've only ever messed with pot, which unless its the right strain, will put me right to sleep, and the one time i took Welbutrin, which just made my head hurt. Salvia looks manageable and might do the trick, though some people tell me all it does is cause ten seconds of pins-and-needles sensation.

Salvia isnt a very good babbys first psychadelic. Ive yet to have a "good" trip on it, and from what I gather from around the internets there really isnt a good trip to have on it, just a not as pants shittingly horrifying one. Not that it wasnt useful, insightful ect, its just you want to stretch out your mental sphincter a bit before you tackle it. Psilocybin sounds like what youre looking for. If youre too lazy to grow shrooms then just brew up some morning glory tea.   

Morning glory? Why not go straight for datura?

That reminds me that there's a beautiful datura next to the bike path at South Waterfront, I have a pocketful of seeds in one of my jackets around here somewhere (for planting, not eating).

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 28, 2014, 05:09:12 AM
The constant hostility and strawmanbuilding really does grind. I tell you about impressions I gathered during a pretty fucking freaky profound trip, you infer my attitude towards science and my world view. That is so unscientific, Woman-who-has-yo-justify-herself-all-the-time and Underappreciated-man-who-has-found-solace-in-grump! Although I don't think it is the only thing worth caring about, I do care about science. A lot. In fact I am beginning to suspect I care about it a great deal more than either of you.

Aw, look at that mean streak surface! I was mostly talking about P3nt, who I am mildly fond of even though he's about as bright as a pile of toenail clippings and twice as rational, but if you want to take my posts to be about you, just go to town, lil' fella. Don't let the fact that I've been grinding along here for months talking to you like a real human being and trying to get everyone to be nice to you slow you down. :lol:

Seriously Nigel, why do you have to yo-justify-herself?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 04:51:25 PM
Seriously Nigel, why do you have to yo-justify-herself?

I've been trying to decipher that. Is yo-justify like yogurt?

I think it was an attempt to jab at my aversion to unsolicited advice, but I am not sure that "justify" means what he thinks it means.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 04:55:35 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 04:51:25 PM
Seriously Nigel, why do you have to yo-justify-herself?

I've been trying to decipher that. Is yo-justify like yogurt?

I think it was an attempt to jab at my aversion to unsolicited advice, but I am not sure that "justify" means what he thinks it means.

He's an interpreter.  It doesn't mean what YOU think it means.  You just grew up speaking the language, so you're WRONG.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 04:30:52 PM

Quote from: EL MAESTRO! on November 28, 2014, 07:09:22 AM
I was interested in the science. I mean if you're gonna fuck around with your headmeats, might as well have an idea of what you're doing to it, right? I've found this thread really helpful in that regard as i've been wondering if a psychedelic experience might be good for me. I have a bunch of negative thought patterns sometimes and I've been thinking that a trip like that might be enough to help rewire some of that fucked up thinking. I've only ever messed with pot, which unless its the right strain, will put me right to sleep, and the one time i took Welbutrin, which just made my head hurt. Salvia looks manageable and might do the trick, though some people tell me all it does is cause ten seconds of pins-and-needles sensation.

Thanks, I'm glad that my effort to participate wasn't universally seen as a worthless derail. As someone who uses drugs as well as studies them I find it fascinating to understand the mechanisms behind the experiences, because that helps inform me in how to get the most out of the experiences. Understanding how a tool works helps us to use it better.

I found salvia kind of boring, honestly, and I've done it a bunch of times. It was just like being me, only more so. :lol: I remember having some epiphany about masturbation, but I forget what it was.

For reducing negative thought patterns, though, mushrooms are awesome IME.

Okay, in the interests of talking about something potentially interesting, I'll back down and apologise for being a dick. I'd promise sincerely that it won't happen again but, well, you know me :oops: I get that the science is interesting, I really do. It supports stuff that I thought I knew but now can be confident that I haven't imagined the whole thing. We're still left with a dilemma - it's been proven that consciousness can be rearranged. Some hallucinogens can help this process but what we don't have is a method for reprogramming. Where do we go for this? How do we develop a system which I strongly suspect is largely bespoke to the individual subjective consciousness?

Leary tried this decades ago but his research with acid was largely shitcanned. The scientific establishment has hit a plateau with this. Is there any chance of it coming out the doldrums or do we carry on trying to mine needles from haystacks of mystical mumbo jumbo in the meantime?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 04:50:13 PM
Don't let the fact that I've been grinding along here for months talking to you like a real human being and trying to get everyone to be nice to you slow you down. :lol:

Well, yanno, you might have been doing that stuff, but you were female when you did it.

you should work on that.

Have you tried not being a woman?

It's the name. Like, you're talking to this dude on the interbutts called Nigel and you're listening to him and, hey, dude talks a lot of sense and you think "hey I've found a cool dude here" and then suddenly you become aware that HE HAS FUCKING OVARIES!!! :argh!:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 05:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 04:55:35 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 04:51:25 PM
Seriously Nigel, why do you have to yo-justify-herself?

I've been trying to decipher that. Is yo-justify like yogurt?

I think it was an attempt to jab at my aversion to unsolicited advice, but I am not sure that "justify" means what he thinks it means.

He's an interpreter.  It doesn't mean what YOU think it means.  You just grew up speaking the language, so you're WRONG.

:lulz:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 28, 2014, 05:00:40 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 04:30:52 PM

Quote from: EL MAESTRO! on November 28, 2014, 07:09:22 AM
I was interested in the science. I mean if you're gonna fuck around with your headmeats, might as well have an idea of what you're doing to it, right? I've found this thread really helpful in that regard as i've been wondering if a psychedelic experience might be good for me. I have a bunch of negative thought patterns sometimes and I've been thinking that a trip like that might be enough to help rewire some of that fucked up thinking. I've only ever messed with pot, which unless its the right strain, will put me right to sleep, and the one time i took Welbutrin, which just made my head hurt. Salvia looks manageable and might do the trick, though some people tell me all it does is cause ten seconds of pins-and-needles sensation.

Thanks, I'm glad that my effort to participate wasn't universally seen as a worthless derail. As someone who uses drugs as well as studies them I find it fascinating to understand the mechanisms behind the experiences, because that helps inform me in how to get the most out of the experiences. Understanding how a tool works helps us to use it better.

I found salvia kind of boring, honestly, and I've done it a bunch of times. It was just like being me, only more so. :lol: I remember having some epiphany about masturbation, but I forget what it was.

For reducing negative thought patterns, though, mushrooms are awesome IME.

Okay, in the interests of talking about something potentially interesting, I'll back down and apologise for being a dick. I'd promise sincerely that it won't happen again but, well, you know me :oops: I get that the science is interesting, I really do. It supports stuff that I thought I knew but now can be confident that I haven't imagined the whole thing. We're still left with a dilemma - it's been proven that consciousness can be rearranged. Some hallucinogens can help this process but what we don't have is a method for reprogramming. Where do we go for this? How do we develop a system which I strongly suspect is largely bespoke to the individual subjective consciousness?

Leary tried this decades ago but his research with acid was largely shitcanned. The scientific establishment has hit a plateau with this. Is there any chance of it coming out the doldrums or do we carry on trying to mine needles from haystacks of mystical mumbo jumbo in the meantime?

Leary paved the way for some really interesting research, and now that we have a somewhat better understanding of what's happening, chemically and mechanically, in the brain, researchers have solid data with which to support additional investigation into the effects of various drugs on the nervous system. NIH is openly funding a lot of this research, some very respected researchers in some of the most renowned institutions are conducting it, it's simply not taboo anymore. I know that my neuro professor is excited about it, but I won't really know much about it until next term -- I literally just don't have time to do much side-investigation this term, but next term the advanced neurophysiology class is research-based and I'll be taking neuropharmacology as well, so I should have a chance to immerse myself in the state of the research.

Here's a not-very-sciency article about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/acid-test-the-case-for-using-psychedelics-to-treat-ptsd-depression/2014/09/04/03c3c222-0e01-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 05:13:15 PM
Have you tried not being a woman?

I did try having a penis once, but the guy who had it first got really upset.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 28, 2014, 05:20:37 PM
It's the name. Like, you're talking to this dude on the interbutts called Nigel and you're listening to him and, hey, dude talks a lot of sense and you think "hey I've found a cool dude here" and then suddenly you become aware that HE HAS FUCKING OVARIES!!! :argh!:

It ruins everything.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 05:50:25 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 05:13:15 PM
Have you tried not being a woman?

I did try having a penis once, but the guy who had it first got really upset.

:horrormirth:

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.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 06:06:17 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 05:50:25 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 05:13:15 PM
Have you tried not being a woman?

I did try having a penis once, but the guy who had it first got really upset.

:horrormirth:

:thanks:

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 28, 2014, 05:09:12 AM
The constant hostility and strawmanbuilding really does grind. I tell you about impressions I gathered during a pretty fucking freaky profound trip, you infer my attitude towards science and my world view. That is so unscientific, Woman-who-has-yo-justify-herself-all-the-time and Underappreciated-man-who-has-found-solace-in-grump! Although I don't think it is the only thing worth caring about, I do care about science. A lot. In fact I am beginning to suspect I care about it a great deal more than either of you.

Just re-quoting this because it amuses me so and I just registered the last line. :lol: That's priceless.

Because nothing says "doesn't care much about science" like going tens of thousands of dollars into debt and committing to nine years of poverty in order to devote one's life to it!

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

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 06:25:03 PM
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?

You truly have a generous spirit.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 06:39:41 PM
You truly have a generous spirit.

:lulz:

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.

Quote from: Demolition Squid on November 28, 2014, 06:40:34 PM
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.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:17:49 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:18:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:17:49 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Well, not that kinda violent.

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

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 06:25:03 PM
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?

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.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
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".

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 07:26:17 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2014, 06:25:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:36:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
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.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:48:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:36:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
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.

We made it through the 1800s, which was the golden age of hucksterism (and for the same reason: the average man knew very little of cause and effect, and nothing of science).

We'll make it through this.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:48:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:36:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
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.

Well, even psychics and horoscopes have to label themselves as "for entertainment only". Seems reasonable that these other ones should too.

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 07:50:45 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:48:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:36:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
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.

Well, even psychics and horoscopes have to label themselves as "for entertainment only". Seems reasonable that these other ones should too.

The interesting thing about that is that a lot of those laws stemmed from anti-witchcraft sentiment, which makes me wonder whether anti-witchcraft sentiment arose as an attempt to protect people from getting huckstered.

I'm curious about the whole "practicing medicine/giving medical advice without a license" thing, because that no longer seems to be a problem, based on sites like NaturalNews.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:50:12 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:48:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:36:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
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.

We made it through the 1800s, which was the golden age of hucksterism (and for the same reason: the average man knew very little of cause and effect, and nothing of science).

We'll make it through this.

I'm not entirely convinced we will, but for different reasons that don't have so much to do with the anti-science hucksters as the big money consumerism mainstream western society is built on.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 08:00:00 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:50:12 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:48:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:36:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
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.

We made it through the 1800s, which was the golden age of hucksterism (and for the same reason: the average man knew very little of cause and effect, and nothing of science).

We'll make it through this.

I'm not entirely convinced we will, but for different reasons that don't have so much to do with the anti-science hucksters as the big money consumerism mainstream western society is built on.

In a society where sitting around for justice is bad, but sitting around for a cheap television is good... What could possibly go wrong?

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 08:07:38 PM
.
In a society where sitting around for justice is bad, but sitting around for a cheap television is good... What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the oceans could turn to acid.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:09:06 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 08:07:38 PM
.
In a society where sitting around for justice is bad, but sitting around for a cheap television is good... What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the oceans could turn to acid.

That's pretty much where my mind was at. And it's the scariest thing I've thought of in a long, long time.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/great-american-oyster-collapse-2014720132433957401.html

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:09:06 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 08:07:38 PM
.
In a society where sitting around for justice is bad, but sitting around for a cheap television is good... What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the oceans could turn to acid.

Optimist.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 08:12:26 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:09:06 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 08:07:38 PM
.
In a society where sitting around for justice is bad, but sitting around for a cheap television is good... What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the oceans could turn to acid.

That's pretty much where my mind was at. And it's the scariest thing I've thought of in a long, long time.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/great-american-oyster-collapse-2014720132433957401.html

As best as I can figure - bear in mind that I am not a climatologist - we're in a race between acid oceans or salvation via ice age.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:13:32 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 08:12:26 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:09:06 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 08:07:38 PM
.
In a society where sitting around for justice is bad, but sitting around for a cheap television is good... What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the oceans could turn to acid.

That's pretty much where my mind was at. And it's the scariest thing I've thought of in a long, long time.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/great-american-oyster-collapse-2014720132433957401.html

As best as I can figure - bear in mind that I am not a climatologist - we're in a race between acid oceans or salvation via ice age.

At least we have Taylor Swift.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:58:23 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 07:50:45 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:48:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:36:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
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.

Well, even psychics and horoscopes have to label themselves as "for entertainment only". Seems reasonable that these other ones should too.

The interesting thing about that is that a lot of those laws stemmed from anti-witchcraft sentiment, which makes me wonder whether anti-witchcraft sentiment arose as an attempt to protect people from getting huckstered.

Nope. The Anti-Witch scares wereare (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/saudi-arabias-war-on-witchcraft/278701/) rooted in very literal fear of evil magic. For perspective, around the same time as the witch hunts there was less popular practice of putting animals on trial that were suspected of being possessed by Satan. Also, most anti-witch sentiment came from the Catholic Church, so I dont think protecting people from hucksters

Thats not to say that occultists didnt get conflated with scam artists a lot. Before the surge in nationalism caused by British Occupation led them to be idolized as paragons of Indian culture, the general Indian consensus was that Yogis were scumbag con artists. And Edward Kelly, an alchemist who had both his ears chopped off as punishment for fraud, and was still able to con the nobility into giving him shitloads of money and a knighthood on the promise of magically producing them Gold.

Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on November 28, 2014, 08:28:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:58:23 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 07:50:45 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:48:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:36:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
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.

Well, even psychics and horoscopes have to label themselves as "for entertainment only". Seems reasonable that these other ones should too.

The interesting thing about that is that a lot of those laws stemmed from anti-witchcraft sentiment, which makes me wonder whether anti-witchcraft sentiment arose as an attempt to protect people from getting huckstered.

Nope. The Anti-Witch scares wereare (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/saudi-arabias-war-on-witchcraft/278701/) rooted in very literal fear of evil magic. For perspective, around the same time as the witch hunts there was less popular practice of putting animals on trial that were suspected of being possessed by Satan. Also, most anti-witch sentiment came from the Catholic Church, so I dont think protecting people from hucksters

Thats not to say that occultists didnt get conflated with scam artists a lot. Before the surge in nationalism caused by British Occupation led them to be idolized as paragons of Indian culture, the general Indian consensus was that Yogis were scumbag con artists. And Edward Kelly, an alchemist who had both his ears chopped off as punishment for fraud, and was still able to con the nobility into giving him shitloads of money and a knighthood on the promise of magically producing them Gold.

Yeah but he talked to angels.

Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on November 28, 2014, 08:28:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:58:23 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 07:50:45 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:48:36 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 07:36:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
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.

Well, even psychics and horoscopes have to label themselves as "for entertainment only". Seems reasonable that these other ones should too.

The interesting thing about that is that a lot of those laws stemmed from anti-witchcraft sentiment, which makes me wonder whether anti-witchcraft sentiment arose as an attempt to protect people from getting huckstered.

Nope. The Anti-Witch scares wereare (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/saudi-arabias-war-on-witchcraft/278701/) rooted in very literal fear of evil magic. For perspective, around the same time as the witch hunts there was less popular practice of putting animals on trial that were suspected of being possessed by Satan. Also, most anti-witch sentiment came from the Catholic Church, so I dont think protecting people from hucksters

Thats not to say that occultists didnt get conflated with scam artists a lot. Before the surge in nationalism caused by British Occupation led them to be idolized as paragons of Indian culture, the general Indian consensus was that Yogis were scumbag con artists. And Edward Kelly, an alchemist who had both his ears chopped off as punishment for fraud, and was still able to con the nobility into giving him shitloads of money and a knighthood on the promise of magically producing them Gold.

Did you just bring the Inquisition into it?  :lol: OK... you took that in a very different direction than where I was coming from. I was thinking more like this: http://books.google.com/books?id=JwUdAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=history+of+anti-divination+laws&source=bl&ots=OQe4huKnLB&sig=vvcZprWO1Y4q7fVbG0Cm1CfoX8E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T_Z4VPvQNMf2iQKh0ICgDA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:13:32 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 08:12:26 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:09:06 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 08:07:38 PM
.
In a society where sitting around for justice is bad, but sitting around for a cheap television is good... What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the oceans could turn to acid.

That's pretty much where my mind was at. And it's the scariest thing I've thought of in a long, long time.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/great-american-oyster-collapse-2014720132433957401.html

As best as I can figure - bear in mind that I am not a climatologist - we're in a race between acid oceans or salvation via ice age.

Cold water sinks even more CO2. :)

I've heard a few people saying that we're past the tipping point now. Even if the whole planet quit burning fossil fuel and dumping shit in the ocean tomorrow, it'd be too late. Maybe science will save us (http://oceanhealth.xprize.org/)

Part of me hopes it doesn't because the inevitable public consensus will then become "See - climate change was a myth after all"  :argh!:

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 29, 2014, 04:46:18 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:13:32 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 08:12:26 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:09:06 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 08:07:38 PM
.
In a society where sitting around for justice is bad, but sitting around for a cheap television is good... What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the oceans could turn to acid.

That's pretty much where my mind was at. And it's the scariest thing I've thought of in a long, long time.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/great-american-oyster-collapse-2014720132433957401.html

As best as I can figure - bear in mind that I am not a climatologist - we're in a race between acid oceans or salvation via ice age.

Cold water sinks even more CO2. :)

Well, yes, and then it goes to the bottom muck and it's someone else's problem after the ice age, right?  I mean, that's why the permafrost is farting CO2 out like it ate lengua the night before.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 29, 2014, 02:30:46 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 29, 2014, 04:46:18 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:13:32 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 08:12:26 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 08:09:06 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on November 28, 2014, 08:07:38 PM
.
In a society where sitting around for justice is bad, but sitting around for a cheap television is good... What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the oceans could turn to acid.

That's pretty much where my mind was at. And it's the scariest thing I've thought of in a long, long time.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/great-american-oyster-collapse-2014720132433957401.html

As best as I can figure - bear in mind that I am not a climatologist - we're in a race between acid oceans or salvation via ice age.

Cold water sinks even more CO2. :)

Well, yes, and then it goes to the bottom muck and it's someone else's problem after the ice age, right?  I mean, that's why the permafrost is farting CO2 out like it ate lengua the night before.

Not exactly; all that acidified water eventually upwells and wreaks even greater havoc on organisms that require a calcium exoskeleton.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 29, 2014, 08:47:18 AM
I've heard a few people saying that we're past the tipping point now. Even if the whole planet quit burning fossil fuel and dumping shit in the ocean tomorrow, it'd be too late. Maybe science will save us (http://oceanhealth.xprize.org/)

Part of me hopes it doesn't because the inevitable public consensus will then become "See - climate change was a myth after all"  :argh!:

Every ecological projection I've seen in the last year says we're past it. But there's always a chance that the ecologists are wrong!

It's never too late to hope to be wrong.

I don't think they are, though.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10212767/Kai-moana-days-numbered-US-expert

This is actually the thing that freaks me out the most: http://www.princeton.edu/grandchallenges/energy/research-highlights/ocean-acidification/

This is exactly the sort of stuff I was talking about a couple of years ago, in that thread where I said we were all fucked.

We're all fucked, by the way.

Just remove the gluten from the acidic water.

Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2014, 03:48:40 PM
This is exactly the sort of stuff I was talking about a couple of years ago, in that thread where I said we were all fucked.

We're all fucked, by the way.

Yes, I would tend to agree.

Quote from: Metal Bear on November 29, 2014, 03:57:22 PM
Just remove the gluten from the acidic water.

If all the fish just went Vegan there would be no problem.

Why can't the water just remember how to be less acidic?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 29, 2014, 04:49:05 PM
Why can't the water just remember how to be less acidic?

At that level of dilution, we'll just all become immune to acid. Hydrofluoric acid baths for everyone!

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on November 29, 2014, 05:31:59 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 29, 2014, 04:49:05 PM
Why can't the water just remember how to be less acidic?

At that level of dilution, we'll just all become immune to acid. Hydrofluoric acid baths for everyone!

Oysters should be immune to acid by now, then! Maybe we just need to wait a few more years.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 29, 2014, 05:41:36 PM

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on November 29, 2014, 05:31:59 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 29, 2014, 04:49:05 PM
Why can't the water just remember how to be less acidic?

At that level of dilution, we'll just all become immune to acid. Hydrofluoric acid baths for everyone!

Oysters should be immune to acid by now, then! Maybe we just need to wait a few more years.

Don't be ridiculous, oysters don't have the cognitive ability for the placebo effect to take hold.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 29, 2014, 04:49:05 PM
Why can't the water just remember how to be less acidic?

...said it's friends on Facebook.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 29, 2014, 03:59:50 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2014, 03:48:40 PM
This is exactly the sort of stuff I was talking about a couple of years ago, in that thread where I said we were all fucked.

We're all fucked, by the way.

Yes, I would tend to agree.

Found the thread (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=29736.0), by the way.  Has some fairly graphic descriptions of the kind of fallout we could see from 2, 4 and 6 celsius global temperature rises.

Some LOL

http://wundergroundmusic.com/richard-dawkins-renounces-atheism-after-smoking-dmt/ (http://wundergroundmusic.com/richard-dawkins-renounces-atheism-after-smoking-dmt/)

QuoteShrill, anti-theist professor of unnecessary controversy, Richard Dawkins, has reportedly renounced his atheist beliefs after apparently finding existence of a higher power during a recent DMT trip.

----

Describing evolution as "bollocks" and burning his copy of The Origin Of Species Dawkins claims that the "machine elves" showed him a higher plane of existence, called him a supercilious cunt and told him to "stop being such a po-faced and certain dick-rocketeer".

Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2014, 06:43:46 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 29, 2014, 04:49:05 PM
Why can't the water just remember how to be less acidic?

...said it's friends on Facebook.

:lulz:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 28, 2014, 09:54:36 AM
This is why I'm saying we're outside the remit of science. Consciousness is an entirely subjective experience. Your scientific interest is like someone watching people skateboard and then jumping in the conversation with a whole bunch of fancy words that explain how the wheels go round.

That's all good and well but a bunch of skaters were talking about grinding the lip. No we're not scientists but we somehow had still managed to figure out the wheels went round. Of course for a scientist, this claim is preposterous. How could we possibly know this? I bet we didn't know there were four of them, tho, right? Brand new studies have only just discovered this. We couldn't possibly know that.

I like that.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 04:21:15 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on November 28, 2014, 05:09:12 AM
.Although I don't think it is the only thing worth caring about, I do care about science. A lot. In fact I am beginning to suspect I care about it a great deal more than either of you.

:lulz:

You suspect wrong.  Everything you propose is anti-rational.  Not irrational, anti-rational.  Homeopathy.  Trotting out Harmine (Ayauasca) AGAIN (like every other bliss ninny since the 60s) like it's something new...And then Brushing Nigel aside when she mentions that there's an actual component of hallucinagenics that might have an ACTUAL medical application.

Harmine + DMT
I am not trotting it out as something new, I am talking about something I am new to. I am aware of the danger of becoming a bliss ninny (very good term, that!). I was not brushing Nigel aside, merely not responding to someone that I was not interested at the moment.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 04:21:15 PM
Questioning previous scientific conclusions is good, but first you kind of have to learn the science involved.

That's perfectly true.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 28, 2014, 04:21:15 PM
But that takes work, and that's not why you're here.

Bollocks.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
Because nothing says "doesn't care much about science" like going tens of thousands of dollars into debt and committing to nine years of poverty in order to devote one's life to it!

I didn't say you didn't care about science. In fact, you care about it a great deal. Just not enough to examine the foundations, because (I imagine, may well be wrong, but based on what's happened so far) you think that is unscientific, "philosophising", and should be kicked into a lake or somesuch.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 05:46:01 PM
Bollocks.

Hey now, watch the spicy language, this is a family forum, asshole.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

Why she even bothered trying to engage you in conversation is fucking beyond me.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 05:59:45 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
Because nothing says "doesn't care much about science" like going tens of thousands of dollars into debt and committing to nine years of poverty in order to devote one's life to it!

I didn't say you didn't care about science. In fact, you care about it a great deal. Just not enough to examine the foundations, because (I imagine, may well be wrong, but based on what's happened so far) you think that is unscientific, "philosophising", and should be kicked into a lake or somesuch.

Oh dear.

Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 06:01:47 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 05:59:45 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
Because nothing says "doesn't care much about science" like going tens of thousands of dollars into debt and committing to nine years of poverty in order to devote one's life to it!

I didn't say you didn't care about science. In fact, you care about it a great deal. Just not enough to examine the foundations, because (I imagine, may well be wrong, but based on what's happened so far) you think that is unscientific, "philosophising", and should be kicked into a lake or somesuch.

Oh dear.

It's like you can set your watch to it or some shit.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:02:26 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2014, 06:01:47 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 05:59:45 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
Because nothing says "doesn't care much about science" like going tens of thousands of dollars into debt and committing to nine years of poverty in order to devote one's life to it!

I didn't say you didn't care about science. In fact, you care about it a great deal. Just not enough to examine the foundations, because (I imagine, may well be wrong, but based on what's happened so far) you think that is unscientific, "philosophising", and should be kicked into a lake or somesuch.

Oh dear.

It's like you can set your watch to it or some shit.

Someone needs to start charting meltdowns around here. It may yield valuable data.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 05:59:45 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
Because nothing says "doesn't care much about science" like going tens of thousands of dollars into debt and committing to nine years of poverty in order to devote one's life to it!

I didn't say you didn't care about science. In fact, you care about it a great deal. Just not enough to examine the foundations, because (I imagine, may well be wrong, but based on what's happened so far) you think that is unscientific, "philosophising", and should be kicked into a lake or somesuch.

There is so much that's wrong about your post, I don't even know where to begin.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 01, 2014, 06:06:08 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 05:59:45 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
Because nothing says "doesn't care much about science" like going tens of thousands of dollars into debt and committing to nine years of poverty in order to devote one's life to it!

I didn't say you didn't care about science. In fact, you care about it a great deal. Just not enough to examine the foundations, because (I imagine, may well be wrong, but based on what's happened so far) you think that is unscientific, "philosophising", and should be kicked into a lake or somesuch.

There is so much that's wrong about your post, I don't even know where to begin.

It said precisely what he wanted it to say.  Almost.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you. :)

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:23:42 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you. :)

I think you just have a problem with "uppity women".  Fits the rest of your character.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:24:46 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:23:42 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you. :)

I think you just have a problem with "uppity women".  Fits the rest of your character.

Wrong. (sorry about earlier)

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 05:59:45 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
Because nothing says "doesn't care much about science" like going tens of thousands of dollars into debt and committing to nine years of poverty in order to devote one's life to it!

I didn't say you didn't care about science. In fact, you care about it a great deal. Just not enough to examine the foundations, because (I imagine, may well be wrong, but based on what's happened so far) you think that is unscientific, "philosophising", and should be kicked into a lake or somesuch.

Actually, I simply don't think you even understand the words you're using. Like "foundations of science". What do you mean by that?

There's a difference between philosophy and ignorant navelgazing wankery. You seem to be interested in the latter; have at it. I'm done treating you like you deserve to be taken seriously, because you're back to digging in your heels and screeching.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:23:42 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you. :)

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 12:45:57 AM
Like "foundations of science". What do you mean by that?

I'm putting five bucks on alchemy.

Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 01:28:40 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 12:45:57 AM
Like "foundations of science". What do you mean by that?

I'm putting five bucks on alchemy.

Put me down for essential oils.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 02, 2014, 01:33:04 AM

Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 01:28:40 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 12:45:57 AM
Like "foundations of science". What do you mean by that?

I'm putting five bucks on alchemy.

Put me down for essential oils.

Magnets and Tesla Coils

Quote from: Metal Bear on December 02, 2014, 04:01:53 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 02, 2014, 01:33:04 AM

Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 01:28:40 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 12:45:57 AM
Like "foundations of science". What do you mean by that?

I'm putting five bucks on alchemy.

Put me down for essential oils.

Magnets and Tesla Coils

Bad choice.  Holist doesn't use tech.

I'm betting astrology and chakras

Tarot cards and Deepak Chopra style quantum meditation. 10 bucks.

Gonna take an easy stab at this one: Correlation as causation.

He's going to pick something none of us betted on, just to be outlandish.

Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 12:35:53 PM
He's going to pick something none of us betted on, just to be outlandish.

Sneaky fucker, you. Odds are 1-1000 (Enjoy your fraction of a cent victory)  :argh!:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 02, 2014, 12:38:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 12:35:53 PM
He's going to pick something none of us betted on, just to be outlandish.

Sneaky fucker, you. Odds are 1-1000 (Enjoy your fraction of a cent victory)  :argh!:

Naw, my bet was on alchemy... I'm just pointing out that we are betting exactly where he can see.  He's not going to give any of us that satisfaction, even if it is true.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 26, 2014, 01:43:25 PM
I took some and suddenly realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

Didn't like it much. Prefer pot, it makes me giggle at shit that aint that funny.

Was your experience reported on the nightly news?

A fellow Hicks fan? Well met, new guy!

Of course... I'm fortunate in that while Bill Hicks, George Carlin and Lewis Black all started long before my time, I was exposed to them early enough that they pretty heavily influenced who I am today. Love all those guys.

One of my claims to fame is that me and a bunch of folks bombarded him with cigarettes when he announced onstage, during the "smoker with attitude" tour, that he had given up. He was the only one in the theatre that knew he was dying of cancer at the time.  :oops:

Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 01:01:13 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 02, 2014, 12:38:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on December 02, 2014, 12:35:53 PM
He's going to pick something none of us betted on, just to be outlandish.

Sneaky fucker, you. Odds are 1-1000 (Enjoy your fraction of a cent victory)  :argh!:

Naw, my bet was on alchemy... I'm just pointing out that we are betting exactly where he can see.  He's not going to give any of us that satisfaction, even if it is true.

My bet is that he'll ignore the thread for a day or two and then not answer the question at all.

I'm only posting this so that he'll feel compelled to answer the question just to prove me wrong.

Except now I've said so. Oh noes! What can he do now? Perhaps he will post something lengthy and pseudoscientifical that superficially comes off as being deep-thinking.

THOMAS KUHN.

Since we're placing bets and all.

As an aside, I do think there is an argument (https://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/a-fly-in-the-ointment/#rssowlmlink) to be made (http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/back-to-square-one-toward-a-post-intentional-future/) that certain popularizers of science are spectacularly uninterested in the philosophy behind science and unknowledgeable about it in general...but holist really isn't really the most credible person to make those arguments.

Quote from: Cain on December 03, 2014, 04:15:17 AM
THOMAS KUHN.

Since we're placing bets and all.

As an aside, I do think there is an argument (https://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/a-fly-in-the-ointment/#rssowlmlink) to be made (http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/back-to-square-one-toward-a-post-intentional-future/) that certain popularizers of science are spectacularly uninterested in the philosophy behind science and unknowledgeable about it in general...but holist really isn't really the most credible person to make those arguments.

Those were both rather delicious blog posts, thank you.

On the subject of which, it is extremely refreshing to read emerging philosophy, as opposed to the navelgazing disconnected ignorant bullshit that so often passes for philosophical thinking.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 12:53:04 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:23:42 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you. :)

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Excellent! But perhaps you should hang on to your socks. I called you a woman with a constant need to justify yourself. Now that could be wrong, but I don't see how it is insulting. It's an opinion. I can have one, you know. In fact, I can have several. As far as screetching insults and digging in is concerned, perhaps take a peek in a mirror. Thanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping. For someone who demands as much respect as you do, you have a foul temper.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 12:53:04 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:23:42 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you. :)

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Excellent! But perhaps you should hang on to your socks. I called you a woman with a constant need to justify yourself. Now that could be wrong, but I don't see how it is insulting. It's an opinion. I can have one, you know. In fact, I can have several. As far as screetching insults and digging in is concerned, perhaps take a peek in a mirror. Thanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping. For someone who demands as much respect as you do, you have a foul temper.

That goddamn uppity woman just doesn't know her place!

The foundation of science is the human condition. Underneath all the crap we've accumulated, we're all ragged apes: born helpless and.needy, socialised and infected with language in a structure more or less like a family, riding the envelope of a monstrous neocortex, confused by the dual (biological/social) nature of our consciousness, trying to figure out what the fuck is going on and what to do about it. Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable.

Cain: if we're talking philosophy of science, it's worse than Kuhn, really, it's Feyerabend. If we're talking philosophy of mind, it's Dennett, the Churchlands, Davidson, Quine, and zome Wittgenstein. But I believe tueir work is far from finished.

Quote from: N E T on December 03, 2014, 11:07:05 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 12:53:04 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:23:42 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you. :)

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Excellent! But perhaps you should hang on to your socks. I called you a woman with a constant need to justify yourself. Now that could be wrong, but I don't see how it is insulting. It's an opinion. I can have one, you know. In fact, I can have several. As far as screetching insults and digging in is concerned, perhaps take a peek in a mirror. Thanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping. For someone who demands as much respect as you do, you have a foul temper.

That goddamn uppity woman just doesn't know her place!

I am certain that she does, very well. The problem is caused by the fact that she doesn't know my place, but she's totally convinced she does.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 11:23:42 AM

Quote from: N E T on December 03, 2014, 11:07:05 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 12:53:04 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:23:42 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you. :)

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Excellent! But perhaps you should hang on to your socks. I called you a woman with a constant need to justify yourself. Now that could be wrong, but I don't see how it is insulting. It's an opinion. I can have one, you know. In fact, I can have several. As far as screetching insults and digging in is concerned, perhaps take a peek in a mirror. Thanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping. For someone who demands as much respect as you do, you have a foul temper.

That goddamn uppity woman just doesn't know her place!

I am certain that she does, very well. The problem is caused by the fact that she doesn't know my place, but she's totally convinced she does.

Your place being above her, because she doesn't think slowly enough about science?

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 11:19:35 AM
The foundation of science is the human condition. Underneath all the crap we've accumulated, we're all ragged apes: born helpless and.needy, socialised and infected with language in a structure more or less like a family, riding the envelope of a monstrous neocortex, confused by the dual (biological/social) nature of our consciousness, trying to figure out what the fuck is going on and what to do about it. Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable.

Really?

Because the fundamental rule at the heart of the 'Church of Science' (for someone who claims to make their living through linguistics, you sure are prone to choosing the most aggressive phrasing in any given scenario - have you considered that this may be getting in the way of any attempt to communicate in good faith?) seems to me to be the notion that there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it, but that we may come to an understanding of these phenomena by working to minimize the influence that our methods of perception has in biasing our understanding.

Leaving aside the hyperbolic elements in your description of our natural state, I've always taken it to be that the 'metaphysic' (really, more accurately, the epistemological and ontological foundation) of scientific thinking is premised upon identifying those areas of bias - our sociological background, the influence of brain structure, our preconceptions - and then working to achieve a successful understanding of the world as it truly exists.

Now, scientists aren't always successful in that endeavour, because it is very hard. But if we accept your central premise about the state in which we exist, I do not see any other alternative way of moving forward as a species (or as individuals for that matter) than the scientific method. Surely any alternative would be the equivalent of sitting in our own filth, throwing our hands up, and collectively saying 'welp, we can't possibly clean up all this mess, so lets just take another big dump in our pants and wallow around some more instead'. Or am I missing something?

"Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable," Dodo wrote, wisely, using a vast network of microprocessors to transmit his message globally in a matter of seconds.

Quote from: John H Marburger III, "Constructing Reality", Page 4
The central question is: If we agree that life is more than a dream, that our consciousness dwells in a universe that includes things other than itself, then what is the nature of those things?

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 02, 2014, 03:57:10 PM
One of my claims to fame is that me and a bunch of folks bombarded him with cigarettes when he announced onstage, during the "smoker with attitude" tour, that he had given up. He was the only one in the theatre that knew he was dying of cancer at the time.  :oops:

I've always wondered how hard that pill was to swallow given his "I'm a non-smoker" bit.

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 03, 2014, 11:52:13 AM
Surely any alternative would be the equivalent of sitting in our own filth, throwing our hands up, and collectively saying 'welp, we can't possibly clean up all this mess, so lets just take another big dump in our pants and wallow around some more instead'. Or am I missing something?

Here's what you're missing: Dodo's head is crammed so far up his ass that his mouth and anus are actually on the same non-orientable plane like a fleshy Klein bottle that speaks in polished turds.

 :lol:

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 07:10:37 AM
On the subject of which, it is extremely refreshing to read emerging philosophy, as opposed to the navelgazing disconnected ignorant bullshit that so often passes for philosophical thinking.

I'm not overly familiar with much emerging philosophy.  Can you recommend any?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 07:08:48 AM

Quote from: Cain on December 03, 2014, 04:15:17 AM
THOMAS KUHN.

Since we're placing bets and all.

As an aside, I do think there is an argument (https://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/a-fly-in-the-ointment/#rssowlmlink) to be made (http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/back-to-square-one-toward-a-post-intentional-future/) that certain popularizers of science are spectacularly uninterested in the philosophy behind science and unknowledgeable about it in general...but holist really isn't really the most credible person to make those arguments.

Those were both rather delicious blog posts, thank you.

No problem.  And yes.  I like classical philosophy, ancient Greeks, Aquina, Spinoza etc.  But after Nietzsche/Wittgenstein, it's mostly crap by second rate minds.  Pointlessly arcane or convoluted, with a specialist language set as bad as local government bureaucrats, with all the tonal delivery of Academic German.

I'll admit, I can't follow much of Bakker's arguments, but I can grasp the implications of Blind Brain Theory well enough (his fiction is of course somewhat helpful in this regard).

Quote from: Hoopla on December 03, 2014, 12:50:04 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 07:10:37 AM
On the subject of which, it is extremely refreshing to read emerging philosophy, as opposed to the navelgazing disconnected ignorant bullshit that so often passes for philosophical thinking.

I'm not overly familiar with much emerging philosophy.  Can you recommend any?

The links that Cain posted. Almost any new nonfiction that isn't shelved under philosophy, and a great deal that's shelved in science, which is a branch of philosophy. I've been reading Donella Meadows and Margaret Wheatley recently, along with Carol Tavris, Dan Ariely, Katherine Schultz. I've heard that Noam Chomsky is good, never read him though. David and Christine Franzen Orr (no idea whether they're related).

Cain is probably a better person to ask.

You could also check out Paul Glimcher, I wasn't that impressed but a lot of people are.

Quote from: N E T on December 03, 2014, 12:02:16 PM
"Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable," Dodo wrote, wisely, using a vast network of microprocessors to transmit his message globally in a matter of seconds.

I'm guessing he fancies himself a bit of a Philosopher.  :lol:

I am fascinated that for a person with no grasp on science and no apparent desire to form a grasp on it, he nonetheless is full of opinions about it.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 04:39:34 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on December 03, 2014, 12:50:04 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 07:10:37 AM
On the subject of which, it is extremely refreshing to read emerging philosophy, as opposed to the navelgazing disconnected ignorant bullshit that so often passes for philosophical thinking.

I'm not overly familiar with much emerging philosophy.  Can you recommend any?

The links that Cain posted. Almost any new nonfiction that isn't shelved under philosophy, and a great deal that's shelved in science, which is a branch of philosophy. I've been reading Donella Meadows and Margaret Wheatley recently, along with Carol Tavris, Dan Ariely, Katherine Schultz. I've heard that Noam Chomsky is good, never read him though. David and Christine Franzen Orr (no idea whether they're related).

Cain is probably a better person to ask.

Eh, I don't read much modern philosophy to be honest.  I've not got that high an opinion of Chomsky either - his politics seem fundamentally decent, but he's hardly an inspired writer or thinker, though his linguistics stuff might be a bit more interesting (my understanding was that it was mostly considered obsolete, theory wise, at this point, but I've not read into it much).

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 11:23:42 AM

Quote from: N E T on December 03, 2014, 11:07:05 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 12:53:04 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:23:42 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you. :)

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Excellent! But perhaps you should hang on to your socks. I called you a woman with a constant need to justify yourself. Now that could be wrong, but I don't see how it is insulting. It's an opinion. I can have one, you know. In fact, I can have several. As far as screetching insults and digging in is concerned, perhaps take a peek in a mirror. Thanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping. For someone who demands as much respect as you do, you have a foul temper.

That goddamn uppity woman just doesn't know her place!

I am certain that she does, very well. The problem is caused by the fact that she doesn't know my place, but she's totally convinced she does.

Oh, I know... expecting you to treat me with the same basic decency and respect I've been painstakingly treating you with despite your communication deficits was really just too much to ask of a man in your position.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AMThanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping.

:lulz: It's my fault nobody likes him.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 04:56:26 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AMThanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping.

:lulz: It's my fault nobody likes him.

:lulz:

Quote from: N E T on December 03, 2014, 11:45:48 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 11:23:42 AM

Quote from: N E T on December 03, 2014, 11:07:05 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 02, 2014, 12:53:04 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:23:42 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 01, 2014, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 01, 2014, 06:00:21 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 28, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
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.

Yes, do. It didn't happen this time, though.

Sure as fuck did.  Not once but twice.

It did not. And neither is it a mean streak. It is plain frustration. But I called her names and you names in the same breath, you defender of the faith, you. :)

You're a socially retarded shitheel with the internet equivalent of bad breath and bad manners.

You don't even have the basic human decency and maturity to address the fact that you dumped insults at me despite the fact that I wasn't even replying to you or your posts, I was talking to and about P3nt.

And now you go to that crown jewel of all shitheel excuses: "I was frustrated". Not "I was frustrated and I got mixed up, I'm sorry". Just "I was frustrated", as if that absolves you.

"Look what you MADE me do".

I'm all done trying to facilitate your inclusion on the board or replying to you as if you deserve to be conversed with as an adult.

Excellent! But perhaps you should hang on to your socks. I called you a woman with a constant need to justify yourself. Now that could be wrong, but I don't see how it is insulting. It's an opinion. I can have one, you know. In fact, I can have several. As far as screetching insults and digging in is concerned, perhaps take a peek in a mirror. Thanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping. For someone who demands as much respect as you do, you have a foul temper.

That goddamn uppity woman just doesn't know her place!

I am certain that she does, very well. The problem is caused by the fact that she doesn't know my place, but she's totally convinced she does.

Your place being above her, because she doesn't think slowly enough about science?

:mittens:

Victory.  Thread very orver.

Cain, would Yudkowski, Dennet, Alexander, et al be considered philosophy?

Yeah, mostly his mathematical and epistemological stuff in Yudowsky's case (though most of what he said was said better, if more incomprehensibly, by Taversky.  Not that he's ever said otherwise).

I should get me some Taversky.

Unless it was in the last book dump you did, in which case it's somewhere in the metric fuckton of books on my computer.

There might've been, I can't remember.

It also helps if I spell his name right - Tversky.  Also, unfortunately most of his books are published by academic publishers, and you know what that means...

It's easier and cheaper to get earlier editions online?

:|

Oh yeah.  Or you can pay $60+ dollars for his cheapest books on their current print runs.

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 03, 2014, 11:52:13 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 11:19:35 AM
The foundation of science is the human condition. Underneath all the crap we've accumulated, we're all ragged apes: born helpless and.needy, socialised and infected with language in a structure more or less like a family, riding the envelope of a monstrous neocortex, confused by the dual (biological/social) nature of our consciousness, trying to figure out what the fuck is going on and what to do about it. Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable.

Really?

Because the fundamental rule at the heart of the 'Church of Science' (for someone who claims to make their living through linguistics, you sure are prone to choosing the most aggressive phrasing in any given scenario - have you considered that this may be getting in the way of any attempt to communicate in good faith?) seems to me to be the notion that there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it, but that we may come to an understanding of these phenomena by working to minimize the influence that our methods of perception has in biasing our understanding.

Leaving aside the hyperbolic elements in your description of our natural state, I've always taken it to be that the 'metaphysic' (really, more accurately, the epistemological and ontological foundation) of scientific thinking is premised upon identifying those areas of bias - our sociological background, the influence of brain structure, our preconceptions - and then working to achieve a successful understanding of the world as it truly exists.

Now, scientists aren't always successful in that endeavour, because it is very hard. But if we accept your central premise about the state in which we exist, I do not see any other alternative way of moving forward as a species (or as individuals for that matter) than the scientific method. Surely any alternative would be the equivalent of sitting in our own filth, throwing our hands up, and collectively saying 'welp, we can't possibly clean up all this mess, so lets just take another big dump in our pants and wallow around some more instead'. Or am I missing something?

First of all, I don't claim to make my living through linguistics. I make my living through speaking two languages and being able to translate between them. Quite different. Communication in good faith - well, you are quite right there. But I do believe in tit-for-tat. With you, for instance, I aim to be a great deal more respectful, and apologize in advance for any failure on my part to be so.

I think you are quite correct in your statement of the fundamental claims at the heart of science (I don't see how they are rules, but I put that down to sloppy phrasing). The first one, that "there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it" - requires an act of faith from most who believe it. Kant demonstrated quite well that this is not the sort of thing we can have reasonable cause to believe. I think Wittgenstein's private language argument represents a somewhat conditional way to bootstrap ourselves out of the sceptic's pit, but I think it is pretty clear that most people, including most scientists, just accept that tenet as the best possible assumption to make. It could be otherwise, but assuming otherwise just robs us of motivation to do anything at all.

The second basic statement: "we may come to an understanding of these phenomena by working to minimize the influence that our methods of perception has in biasing our understanding" is again, an act of faith for most who believe in it, and it is probably false. As Spinoza and no doubt people before him already noted, there is every reason to believe that any understanding we do achieve is going to be partial. We are finite beings in an infinite (or much less finite) universe. Sphexishness is exhibited at all levels of cognitive development. Assuming that we are immune to it, or can work hard enough to make ourselves immune to it, is presumptuous speciesist nonsense. Not to mention the fact that we have no idea, and can have no idea, of the type of thing that would count as an indication that we got there - that we eliminated all our biases.

And yes, you are missing something. It is quite possible to continue the scientific endeavour (really, just a bunch of clever monkeys extending the marvellous curiosity they inherited from ancestors who were arboreal creatures and opportunistic feeders on most anything that didn't kill them) without naive faith in empiricism and rationalism. It is humbling. Most great scientists did get that far. Most fair-to-middling scientists don't. And the Church sure don't preach it: which may be partly responsible for all the awful shenanigans that go on at research institutions and universities and in particular corporate research facilities.

At university, I had a friend who was an excellent organic chemist. After graduation, he had no problem finding a job with a massive food conglomerate. It was only two weeks later that he rang at midnight, literally crying: that afternoon, he had been handed his first research assignment, along with the results.

Now that is not an "unfortunate mistake" (a phrase most Eastern-bloc communist parties were quite fond of when mentioning the systematic destruction of people and society that they engaged in), it is endemic. Dealing with it requires giving up the naive dream.

Another thing that internalising the limitations that are intrinsic to our condition, to our existence as unique though sadly predictable points of view is useful for is realising that science is currently acting like a cancer on human society: it seems to want to turn everything that is not science into science. Explaining, scientifically understanding to the extent possible, things like religion, art, interpersonal relationships etc. is a fine thing to do. Explaining them out of existence is awful. It is an intellectual monoculture that goes hand in hand with the consumerist ethic, and unless we stop it, it will kill us all.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 11:19:35 AM
The first one, that "there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it" - requires an act of faith from most who believe it. Kant demonstrated quite well that this is not the sort of thing we can have reasonable cause to believe.

That's easy to say, until you bloody your nose after walking into an objective wall. And Kant was a philosopher, not a scientist. It might be a wise move to start basing your scientific theories on... you know... scientists.

Have you read the Barstool Experiment thread? Or do you only read threads about homeopathy and ayahuaska?

I just read the rest of your rant. I had forgotten how much you hated science.

Forget what I said above, please continue sniffing your own flatulence.

QuoteIt is quite possible to continue the scientific endeavour without naive faith in empiricism and rationalism.

wut

QuoteAt university, I had a friend who was an excellent organic chemist. After graduation, he had no problem finding a job with a massive food conglomerate. It was only two weeks later that he rang at midnight, literally crying: that afternoon, he had been handed his first research assignment, along with the results.

that's not science

Quotescience is currently acting like a cancer on human society

wut

Quoteit seems to want to turn everything that is not science into science

that's not science

QuoteExplaining, scientifically understanding to the extent possible, things like religion, art, interpersonal relationships etc. is a fine thing to do. Explaining them out of existence is awful.

1. wut

2. http://lesswrong.com/lw/oo/explaining_vs_explaining_away/

In summation:

(http://piryow.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pVrY8EK8Uxda0V5PFRNS8jHeYKndM8nwLsGwMcKAhs0QsEYvhAzPzub3FWrPKdv8M_XSUtZDtAWGFFwXTCgXYvQ/lol%20wut%20in%20hands.png)

Dodo, any chance we could convince you to change your screen name to Dildo?

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 11, 2014, 10:18:36 AM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 03, 2014, 11:52:13 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 11:19:35 AM
The foundation of science is the human condition. Underneath all the crap we've accumulated, we're all ragged apes: born helpless and.needy, socialised and infected with language in a structure more or less like a family, riding the envelope of a monstrous neocortex, confused by the dual (biological/social) nature of our consciousness, trying to figure out what the fuck is going on and what to do about it. Now all it takes (which is quite a lot, really) is to think carefully and slowly about that situation to realise that the naive metaphysic embraced by the faithful of the Church of Science is unworkable.

Really?

Because the fundamental rule at the heart of the 'Church of Science' (for someone who claims to make their living through linguistics, you sure are prone to choosing the most aggressive phrasing in any given scenario - have you considered that this may be getting in the way of any attempt to communicate in good faith?) seems to me to be the notion that there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it, but that we may come to an understanding of these phenomena by working to minimize the influence that our methods of perception has in biasing our understanding.

Leaving aside the hyperbolic elements in your description of our natural state, I've always taken it to be that the 'metaphysic' (really, more accurately, the epistemological and ontological foundation) of scientific thinking is premised upon identifying those areas of bias - our sociological background, the influence of brain structure, our preconceptions - and then working to achieve a successful understanding of the world as it truly exists.

Now, scientists aren't always successful in that endeavour, because it is very hard. But if we accept your central premise about the state in which we exist, I do not see any other alternative way of moving forward as a species (or as individuals for that matter) than the scientific method. Surely any alternative would be the equivalent of sitting in our own filth, throwing our hands up, and collectively saying 'welp, we can't possibly clean up all this mess, so lets just take another big dump in our pants and wallow around some more instead'. Or am I missing something?

First of all, I don't claim to make my living through linguistics. I make my living through speaking two languages and being able to translate between them. Quite different. Communication in good faith - well, you are quite right there. But I do believe in tit-for-tat. With you, for instance, I aim to be a great deal more respectful, and apologize in advance for any failure on my part to be so.

I think you are quite correct in your statement of the fundamental claims at the heart of science (I don't see how they are rules, but I put that down to sloppy phrasing). The first one, that "there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it" - requires an act of faith from most who believe it. Kant demonstrated quite well that this is not the sort of thing we can have reasonable cause to believe. I think Wittgenstein's private language argument represents a somewhat conditional way to bootstrap ourselves out of the sceptic's pit, but I think it is pretty clear that most people, including most scientists, just accept that tenet as the best possible assumption to make. It could be otherwise, but assuming otherwise just robs us of motivation to do anything at all.

The second basic statement: "we may come to an understanding of these phenomena by working to minimize the influence that our methods of perception has in biasing our understanding" is again, an act of faith for most who believe in it, and it is probably false. As Spinoza and no doubt people before him already noted, there is every reason to believe that any understanding we do achieve is going to be partial. We are finite beings in an infinite (or much less finite) universe. Sphexishness is exhibited at all levels of cognitive development. Assuming that we are immune to it, or can work hard enough to make ourselves immune to it, is presumptuous speciesist nonsense. Not to mention the fact that we have no idea, and can have no idea, of the type of thing that would count as an indication that we got there - that we eliminated all our biases.

And yes, you are missing something. It is quite possible to continue the scientific endeavour (really, just a bunch of clever monkeys extending the marvellous curiosity they inherited from ancestors who were arboreal creatures and opportunistic feeders on most anything that didn't kill them) without naive faith in empiricism and rationalism. It is humbling. Most great scientists did get that far. Most fair-to-middling scientists don't. And the Church sure don't preach it: which may be partly responsible for all the awful shenanigans that go on at research institutions and universities and in particular corporate research facilities.

At university, I had a friend who was an excellent organic chemist. After graduation, he had no problem finding a job with a massive food conglomerate. It was only two weeks later that he rang at midnight, literally crying: that afternoon, he had been handed his first research assignment, along with the results.

Now that is not an "unfortunate mistake" (a phrase most Eastern-bloc communist parties were quite fond of when mentioning the systematic destruction of people and society that they engaged in), it is endemic. Dealing with it requires giving up the naive dream.

Another thing that internalising the limitations that are intrinsic to our condition, to our existence as unique though sadly predictable points of view is useful for is realising that science is currently acting like a cancer on human society: it seems to want to turn everything that is not science into science. Explaining, scientifically understanding to the extent possible, things like religion, art, interpersonal relationships etc. is a fine thing to do. Explaining them out of existence is awful. It is an intellectual monoculture that goes hand in hand with the consumerist ethic, and unless we stop it, it will kill us all.

(http://s27.postimg.org/i3a6sx3g3/2014_12_11_14_21_14.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-S_JkulbIchE/UPI7BINcetI/AAAAAAAAAPE/g7N6cho-wGM/s1600/Dildoes+in+Colors+medium_101593367.JPG)

 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

Likewise, my overindulgence on Tuesday night was the result of the invention of beer, not the fact that I overdid it.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 13, 2014, 12:00:21 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

Likewise, my overindulgence on Tuesday night was the result of the invention of beer, not the fact that I overdid it.

You can't blame yourself. Any more than I can blame myself for my weakness for baseball-cap-wearing bros.

Obviously, it's the fault of the existence of frosted tips.

Science caused WWII :(

Science has been known to cause blindness when in the hands of a woman.

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 13, 2014, 04:34:36 PM
Science has been known to cause blindness when in the hands of a woman.

:lulz:

weird

FUCK YOU, MY FATHER DIED FROM USING SCIENCE (he was trying to resurrect a dead meme when it exploded in his face :()

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 11, 2014, 10:18:36 AMI do believe in tit-for-tat.

This bit caught my eye as I skimmed over the quote. Oh, the hilarious, immature hypocrisy! It perfectly explains his random ad-hominem.

Oh wait. No, actually it just explains that he's a huge hypocrite with a vicious temper.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 11, 2014, 10:18:36 AM
naive faith in empiricism and rationalism.

What the fuck does this even mean?  :lol:

Something something a priori knowledge something.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 13, 2014, 03:16:34 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 13, 2014, 12:00:21 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

Likewise, my overindulgence on Tuesday night was the result of the invention of beer, not the fact that I overdid it.

You can't blame yourself. Any more than I can blame myself for my weakness for baseball-cap-wearing bros.

Personal responsibility offends my White American exceptionalism.  If I had to take responsibility for shit, then what's the fucking POINT of having privilege?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 14, 2014, 04:30:36 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 13, 2014, 03:16:34 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 13, 2014, 12:00:21 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

Likewise, my overindulgence on Tuesday night was the result of the invention of beer, not the fact that I overdid it.

You can't blame yourself. Any more than I can blame myself for my weakness for baseball-cap-wearing bros.

Personal responsibility offends my White American exceptionalism.  If I had to take responsibility for shit, then what's the fucking POINT of having privilege?

My hangover agrees with you.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 14, 2014, 07:36:03 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 14, 2014, 04:30:36 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 13, 2014, 03:16:34 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 13, 2014, 12:00:21 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

Likewise, my overindulgence on Tuesday night was the result of the invention of beer, not the fact that I overdid it.

You can't blame yourself. Any more than I can blame myself for my weakness for baseball-cap-wearing bros.

Personal responsibility offends my White American exceptionalism.  If I had to take responsibility for shit, then what's the fucking POINT of having privilege?

My hangover agrees with you.

But you are an Orkadian.  They're BORN hung over.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 14, 2014, 09:08:19 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 14, 2014, 07:36:03 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 14, 2014, 04:30:36 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 13, 2014, 03:16:34 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 13, 2014, 12:00:21 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

Likewise, my overindulgence on Tuesday night was the result of the invention of beer, not the fact that I overdid it.

You can't blame yourself. Any more than I can blame myself for my weakness for baseball-cap-wearing bros.

Personal responsibility offends my White American exceptionalism.  If I had to take responsibility for shit, then what's the fucking POINT of having privilege?

My hangover agrees with you.

But you are an Orkadian.  They're BORN hung over.

That explains why we exit our mother's womb via nontraditional avenues.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 13, 2014, 03:17:10 PM
Obviously, it's the fault of the existence of frosted tips.

This gave me an actual willy. Slight nausea as well.

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 15, 2014, 05:22:54 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 13, 2014, 03:17:10 PM
Obviously, it's the fault of the existence of frosted tips.

This gave me an actual willy. Slight nausea as well.

:lulz:

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 04:53:39 PM
Oh, I know... expecting you to treat me with the same basic decency and respect I've been painstakingly treating you with despite your communication deficits was really just too much to ask of a man in your position.

You have some weird ideas about basic decency and about respect.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 04:56:26 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AMThanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping.

:lulz: It's my fault nobody likes him.

It's not your fault. And it isn't true, either. :)

Oh look, the Hungarian Know It All Douchebag returns for another round.

Quote from: Hoopla on December 11, 2014, 11:52:37 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 11:19:35 AM
The first one, that "there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it" - requires an act of faith from most who believe it. Kant demonstrated quite well that this is not the sort of thing we can have reasonable cause to believe.

That's easy to say, until you bloody your nose after walking into an objective wall.

It's not all that hard to say afterwards, either.

Quote from: Hoopla on December 11, 2014, 11:52:37 AM
And Kant was a philosopher, not a scientist. It might be a wise move to start basing your scientific theories on... you know... scientists.

Maybe you should try to think a little more carefully. This proposition: "there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it" - is not a scientific theory, because it is unfalsifiable, and so is the opposite claim. The dire situation you find yourself in with science, if you actually try to be thorough about it, is that you need to have an opinion about that sort of deeply unscientific matter before you can engage in science. Most scientists choose to ignore this problem, which is fine if they do it consciously, but really pretty unfine if they just fail to notice it in the first place: because then the scientific endeavour gets mixed up with a lot or religious or quasi-religious ideology. And that does harm in the long run.

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 01:58:00 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 04:53:39 PM
Oh, I know... expecting you to treat me with the same basic decency and respect I've been painstakingly treating you with despite your communication deficits was really just too much to ask of a man in your position.

You have some weird ideas about basic decency and about respect.

Well there won't be any worries about that from here on out. Not as far as you're concerned.

Quote from: Hoopla on December 11, 2014, 11:57:19 AM
I just read the rest of your rant. I had forgotten how much you hated science.

Forget what I said above, please continue sniffing your own flatulence.

I don't hate science, in fact I like it a lot. I do dislike the science delusion, but that's not the same thing as science.

Try this (http://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg).

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 01:58:48 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 04:56:26 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AMThanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping.

:lulz: It's my fault nobody likes him.

It's not your fault. And it isn't true, either. :)

Liking your own posts doesn't count here any more than it does on Facebook.

Quote from: Hoopla on December 11, 2014, 12:59:01 PM
Dodo, any chance we could convince you to change your screen name to Dildo?

no problem, all you gotta do is ask. :)

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:04:21 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on December 11, 2014, 11:52:37 AM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 11:19:35 AM
The first one, that "there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it" - requires an act of faith from most who believe it. Kant demonstrated quite well that this is not the sort of thing we can have reasonable cause to believe.

That's easy to say, until you bloody your nose after walking into an objective wall.

It's not all that hard to say afterwards, either.

Quote from: Hoopla on December 11, 2014, 11:52:37 AM
And Kant was a philosopher, not a scientist. It might be a wise move to start basing your scientific theories on... you know... scientists.

Maybe you should try to think a little more carefully. This proposition: "there exists a real physical world independent of our sensory impressions of it" - is not a scientific theory, because it is unfalsifiable, and so is the opposite claim. The dire situation you find yourself in with science, if you actually try to be thorough about it, is that you need to have an opinion about that sort of deeply unscientific matter before you can engage in science. Most scientists choose to ignore this problem, which is fine if they do it consciously, but really pretty unfine if they just fail to notice it in the first place: because then the scientific endeavour gets mixed up with a lot or religious or quasi-religious ideology. And that does harm in the long run.

Way to pick a strawman argument apart WHILE being insulting toward yet another person who hasn't done anything to deserve it, and at the same time conflating someone else's words with theirs.  :lol: Have you considered taking your own advice, Mr. Slow Thinker?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

In the first line, you talk about the science cult. In the second one, science. Not the same.

I like how this backwater yahoo simultaneously thinks he has some kind of insight into the scientific community's views on perception while simultaneously demonstrating his complete lack of education on scientific views of perception, and attributing one person's somewhat erroneous views of what "science is" to everyone else. Just because, apparently.

Holist, I don't think they did a very good job of teaching you critical thinking at whatever third-world boarding school you went to for your philosophy "degree".

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

In the first line, you talk about the science cult. In the second one, science. Not the same.

Wow, look at you reading actual words. In English and everything!

Yay, it's like a Yule wish come true!  :lulz:

I bet he's all dressed up in stained sweatpants and beer belly, looking for an uppity educated woman to belittle on the internet.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
Oh look, the Hungarian Know It All Douchebag returns for another round.

Uh-oh, you missed me that much??

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:06:52 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 01:58:48 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 03, 2014, 04:56:26 PM

Quote from: Dodo Argentino on December 03, 2014, 10:56:57 AMThanks for your valiant efforts aimed at "facilitating my fitting in", but I am glad you are stopping, because it wasn't helping.

:lulz: It's my fault nobody likes him.

It's not your fault. And it isn't true, either. :)

Liking your own posts doesn't count here any more than it does on Facebook.

I know that.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:17:22 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
Oh look, the Hungarian Know It All Douchebag returns for another round.

Uh-oh, you missed me that much??

Only this morning, my dumpy little princess.

Be a good little girl now and see if you can't keep track of who said what, this time around. I know it's hard for you but I believe, I really believe you can do it.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:16:38 PM
I bet he's all dressed up in stained sweatpants and beer belly, looking for an uppity educated woman to belittle on the internet.

You are not even trying, are you? Or are you? I am, however, putting you on ignore.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:20:24 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:16:38 PM
I bet he's all dressed up in stained sweatpants and beer belly, looking for an uppity educated woman to belittle on the internet.

You are not even trying, are you? Or are you? I am, however, putting you on ignore.

Ooooh, are you really? Promise?  :lol:

Pretty soon it will just be you and your secret admirer, talking to yourself.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

In the first line, you talk about the science cult. In the second one, science. Not the same.

The science cult, you say?  Tell me more.

Number of scientific books and/or articles Holist has read about perception: 0. I'd put money on it. :lol:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:22:54 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

In the first line, you talk about the science cult. In the second one, science. Not the same.

The science cult, you say?  Tell me more.

No.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:25:18 PM
Number of scientific books and/or articles Holist has read about perception: 0. I'd put money on it. :lol:

He doesn't want to get snared by the cult, maybe?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:22:34 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:20:24 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:16:38 PM
I bet he's all dressed up in stained sweatpants and beer belly, looking for an uppity educated woman to belittle on the internet.

You are not even trying, are you? Or are you? I am, however, putting you on ignore.

Ooooh, are you really? Promise?  :lol:

Pretty soon it will just be you and your secret admirer, talking to yourself.

Really. But no promise! :D

He also clearly missed out on taking a Philosophy of Science course at University, or whatever kind of school it is he claims to have gone to.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:26:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:22:54 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

In the first line, you talk about the science cult. In the second one, science. Not the same.

The science cult, you say?  Tell me more.

No.

Why not?  Are you afraid of waking up at night with your house surrounded in guys wearing lab coats?

"INTEGRATE X/e^3 dx or DIE!" they yell.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:27:33 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:25:18 PM
Number of scientific books and/or articles Holist has read about perception: 0. I'd put money on it. :lol:

He doesn't want to get snared by the cult, maybe?

It's dangerous knowing too much about that kind of thing. Just like meddling around with viruses.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:29:08 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:26:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:22:54 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

In the first line, you talk about the science cult. In the second one, science. Not the same.

The science cult, you say?  Tell me more.

No.

Why not?  Are you afraid of waking up at night with your house surrounded in guys wearing lab coats?

"INTEGRATE X/e^3 dx or DIE!" they yell.

:lulz:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:29:08 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:26:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:22:54 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

In the first line, you talk about the science cult. In the second one, science. Not the same.

The science cult, you say?  Tell me more.

No.

Why not?  Are you afraid of waking up at night with your house surrounded in guys wearing lab coats?

"INTEGRATE X/e^3 dx or DIE!" they yell.

No, it's because I have no intention of communicating with you beyond insults.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:29:21 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:27:33 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:25:18 PM
Number of scientific books and/or articles Holist has read about perception: 0. I'd put money on it. :lol:

He doesn't want to get snared by the cult, maybe?

It's dangerous knowing too much about that kind of thing. Just like meddling around with viruses.

Yeah, where they just throw random shit at it.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:30:02 PM

No, it's because I have no intention of communicating with you beyond insults.

Oki doke.

Bookmarking this for the next time you whimper.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:29:46 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:29:08 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:26:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:22:54 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
The science cult is the demon that will kill us all.

Not the overuse of carbon resources that scientific inquiry taught us about. Just science. Itself.

In the first line, you talk about the science cult. In the second one, science. Not the same.

The science cult, you say?  Tell me more.

No.

Why not?  Are you afraid of waking up at night with your house surrounded in guys wearing lab coats?

"INTEGRATE X/e^3 dx or DIE!" they yell.

:lulz:

Hell's Physicists.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:30:55 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:30:02 PM

No, it's because I have no intention of communicating with you beyond insults.

Oki doke.

Bookmarking this for the next time you whimper.

Good.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:30:55 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:30:02 PM

No, it's because I have no intention of communicating with you beyond insults.

Oki doke.

Bookmarking this for the next time you whimper.

It's not like it's anything new, given that that's how he's been "communicating" with almost everyone here since day one.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:32:10 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:30:55 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:30:02 PM

No, it's because I have no intention of communicating with you beyond insults.

Oki doke.

Bookmarking this for the next time you whimper.

It's not like it's anything new, given that that's how he's been "communicating" with almost everyone here since day one.

I know.  It's just that he also tends to snivel about how he's treated.

I wonder why even bothers coming here.  Everyone hates him.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:30:06 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:29:21 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:27:33 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:25:18 PM
Number of scientific books and/or articles Holist has read about perception: 0. I'd put money on it. :lol:

He doesn't want to get snared by the cult, maybe?

It's dangerous knowing too much about that kind of thing. Just like meddling around with viruses.

Yeah, where they just throw random shit at it.

Well, you know. Scientists. Bunch of brainwashed know-nothings with their "empiricism", mucking about with forces beyond their ken.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:33:08 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:32:10 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:30:55 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:30:02 PM

No, it's because I have no intention of communicating with you beyond insults.

Oki doke.

Bookmarking this for the next time you whimper.

It's not like it's anything new, given that that's how he's been "communicating" with almost everyone here since day one.

I know.  It's just that he also tends to snivel about how he's treated.

I wonder why even bothers coming here.  Everyone hates him.

He seems to be under the impression that there are people here who like him. Maybe he got a supportive PM from RWHN. Or Babs.  :lol:

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:34:20 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:33:08 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:32:10 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:30:55 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:30:02 PM

No, it's because I have no intention of communicating with you beyond insults.

Oki doke.

Bookmarking this for the next time you whimper.

It's not like it's anything new, given that that's how he's been "communicating" with almost everyone here since day one.

I know.  It's just that he also tends to snivel about how he's treated.

I wonder why even bothers coming here.  Everyone hates him.

He seems to be under the impression that there are people here who like him. Maybe he got a supportive PM from RWHN. Or Babs.  :lol:

I'm betting RWHN.  Babs was a sick fuck, but RWHN is a bitter & hateful misogynist.

This whole thing about whether the physical universe exists or not is pissing me off.

It comes down to one thing: replication.  If I do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If Roger does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Nigel does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Hoopla does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If you do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If one proposes that everything on the opposite side of our eyeballs is an illusion, then it turns out that proposed illusion has demonstrable rules, and those rules are true for everyone.  And those rules have an effect on our bodies, and those effects are the same on every body.  So the proposed illusion has exactly the same characteristics as an objective external universe. 

So, to call that an Illusion is inserting a meaningless term into our understanding of these effects. It can be easily removed without changing the nature of the effects, nor the observed rules.

Unless, unless... your claim is that the proposed Illusion is mutable, and is open to subjective change.  IS that what you're saying?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 02:41:23 PM
This whole thing about whether the physical universe exists or not is pissing me off.

It comes down to one things: replication.  If I do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If Roger does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Nigel does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Hoopla does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If you do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If one proposes that everything on the opposite side of our eyeballs is an illusion, then it turns out that proposed illusion has demonstrable rules, and those rules are true for everyone.  And those rules have an effect on our bodies, and those effects are the same on every body.  So the proposed illusion has exactly the same characteristics as an objective external universe. 

So, to call that an Illusion is inserting a meaningless term into our understanding of these effects. It can be easily removed without changing the nature of the effects, nor the observed rules.

Unless, unless... your claim is that the proposed Illusion is mutable, and is open to subjective change.  IS that what you're saying?

He's saying "Math is hard."   :sad:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:42:17 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 02:41:23 PM
This whole thing about whether the physical universe exists or not is pissing me off.

It comes down to one things: replication.  If I do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If Roger does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Nigel does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Hoopla does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If you do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If one proposes that everything on the opposite side of our eyeballs is an illusion, then it turns out that proposed illusion has demonstrable rules, and those rules are true for everyone.  And those rules have an effect on our bodies, and those effects are the same on every body.  So the proposed illusion has exactly the same characteristics as an objective external universe. 

So, to call that an Illusion is inserting a meaningless term into our understanding of these effects. It can be easily removed without changing the nature of the effects, nor the observed rules.

Unless, unless... your claim is that the proposed Illusion is mutable, and is open to subjective change.  IS that what you're saying?

He's saying "Math is hard."   :sad:

It's a lot easier if you can just take a lot of drugs and pretend that there are no rules, yanno?

"What really happened to the Malaysian airliner is that everyone on the plane collectively stopped believing in covalent bonding."

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 02:41:23 PM

Unless, unless... your claim is that the proposed Illusion is mutable, and is open to subjective change.  IS that what you're saying?

:batman:

We can solve for it algebraically.

"In the Illusionary Universe: The Illusion of Force equals the Illusion of Mass times the Illusion of Acceleration."

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)
I     I        I      I

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)
I     I        I      I

U: f=m*a

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 03:00:32 PM
"What really happened to the Malaysian airliner is that everyone on the plane collectively stopped believing in covalent bonding."

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 03:30:08 PM
We can solve for it algebraically.

"In the Illusionary Universe: The Illusion of Force equals the Illusion of Mass times the Illusion of Acceleration."

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)
I     I        I      I

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)
I     I        I      I

U: f=m*a

Psh. This equation relies on the assumption that I=I. SUCH HUBRIS!

I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

I don't know, but he had a friend at university who was an organic chemist, but his first job made him cry and he quit science, which is how Holist knows all the things there are to know about science, and my best bet is that it's something along those lines.

Much like I have a friend who has a PhD in British History from Oxford, which is how I know all about it and can answer pretty much any question about it, except that I never studied it and don't really know anything about it at all.

That is how much Holist knows about science, and also how much people like him.

The funny thing about this thread is that the parts where Holist isn't are quite good.

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 22, 2014, 03:47:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 03:30:08 PM
We can solve for it algebraically.

"In the Illusionary Universe: The Illusion of Force equals the Illusion of Mass times the Illusion of Acceleration."

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)
I     I        I      I

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)
I     I        I      I

U: f=m*a

Psh. This equation relies on the assumption that I=I. SUCH HUBRIS!

Indeed. I must have forgotten that in some instances, force equals mass times vindaloo.

My proof is Roger's ass.

QED, bitches.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 04:17:47 PM

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 22, 2014, 03:47:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 03:30:08 PM
We can solve for it algebraically.

"In the Illusionary Universe: The Illusion of Force equals the Illusion of Mass times the Illusion of Acceleration."

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)
I     I        I      I

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)
I     I        I      I

U: f=m*a

Psh. This equation relies on the assumption that I=I. SUCH HUBRIS!

Indeed. I must have forgotten that in some instances, force equals mass times vindaloo.

My proof is Roger's ass.

QED, bitches.

:lol:

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on December 11, 2014, 11:57:19 AM
I just read the rest of your rant. I had forgotten how much you hated science.

Forget what I said above, please continue sniffing your own flatulence.

I don't hate science, in fact I like it a lot. I do dislike the science delusion, but that's not the same thing as science.

Try this (http://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg).

:lulz: I just noticed that he linked to the "banned" (ie. Rupert Sheldrake's a whiny drama bitch with entitlement issues and delusions of grandeur) TEDx (different from an actual TED talk, BTW) talk that was removed from the TED site because it's shit.

TEDx are independent community-organized talks that are allowed to freely organize under the TEDx name but are not endorsed or vetted by TED at all. Most of them never get linked on the TED website at all. Sheldrake had a loud public hissy fit because his was, briefly, linked on the TED site, and then TED took the link down because they didn't feel it met their standards..

Which it shouldn't, because it's woo-woo gobshite. But then he pitched a wobbler right up to and including accusations of conspiracy to hide the truth because it "threatens the establishment", so they posted this: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/

Of course, Holist is exactly the kind of rube who would buy it, hook line and sinker.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 02:41:23 PM
This whole thing about whether the physical universe exists or not is pissing me off.

It comes down to one thing: replication.  If I do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If Roger does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Nigel does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Hoopla does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If you do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If one proposes that everything on the opposite side of our eyeballs is an illusion, then it turns out that proposed illusion has demonstrable rules, and those rules are true for everyone.  And those rules have an effect on our bodies, and those effects are the same on every body.  So the proposed illusion has exactly the same characteristics as an objective external universe. 

So, to call that an Illusion is inserting a meaningless term into our understanding of these effects. It can be easily removed without changing the nature of the effects, nor the observed rules.

Unless, unless... your claim is that the proposed Illusion is mutable, and is open to subjective change.  IS that what you're saying?

Dildo can try to prett it up as much as he likes, it still all ends in bloody noses.

A little background: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

He claims, among other things, that telepathy is real, that the speed of light is decreasing, and that species are not defined by their DNA but by a type of cosmic vibrations. I believe he is also a fan of the "water has memory" ideas that homeopathy is based on, and that there is a huge global science conspiracy to conceal evidence of all of these things.

He's about one step away from reptilian shapeshifter overlords.

And now I know where Holist gets his ideas. :lulz:

Oh lord.  I remember this now.

And this is where the majority of his responses in this thread come from:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Skeptical_conspiracy

QuoteIn June 2013, Sheldrake began endorsing the opinion of Spiritualist crank Robert McLuhan that a group called Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia‎ (GSoW) were coordinating the actions of editors at the online encyclopedia to unfairly label subjects as pseudoscience and promote a skeptical point of view about psychic phenomena. He also came to believe they unfairly targeted his own Wikipedia biography article for special abuse.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 05:23:31 PM
Oh lord.  I remember this now.

And this is where the majority of his responses in this thread come from:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Skeptical_conspiracy

QuoteIn June 2013, Sheldrake began endorsing the opinion of Spiritualist crank Robert McLuhan that a group called Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia‎ (GSoW) were coordinating the actions of editors at the online encyclopedia to unfairly label subjects as pseudoscience and promote a skeptical point of view about psychic phenomena. He also came to believe they unfairly targeted his own Wikipedia biography article for special abuse.

:lulz: Wow, that's a whole raft of crazy.

I wonder if Holist actually read one of Sheldrake's books, or if he's basing his fanboi faith entirely on blogs (ie. what woo experts like to call "research")?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 05:23:31 PM
Oh lord.  I remember this now.

And this is where the majority of his responses in this thread come from:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Skeptical_conspiracy

QuoteIn June 2013, Sheldrake began endorsing the opinion of Spiritualist crank Robert McLuhan that a group called Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia‎ (GSoW) were coordinating the actions of editors at the online encyclopedia to unfairly label subjects as pseudoscience and promote a skeptical point of view about psychic phenomena. He also came to believe they unfairly targeted his own Wikipedia biography article for special abuse.

Yup. I love how it all boiled over into this MASSIVE CONSPIRACY OF SKEPTICS. This is made especially hilarious considering the GSoW bring all the froth and flame of the lady at a church bazaar who thinks that knit shawl would really look better in a nice lavender.

This video is one of the dumbest things I have ever been subjected to.

Each one of these 'dogmas' has an immediate, obvious and glaring flaw which even I - as very much an amateur - can identify immediately. Lets go through them because lol. (Disclaimer: as an amateur I am fully prepared to admit I may be wrong about what 'most scientists' think but this is what I've gathered from a vague interest)

1) Nature is mechanical or machinelike - well, no. I think the most that biologists would claim is that there are some mechanical processes underlying the natural world. Not that the natural world runs 'like a machine'.

2) Matter is unconscious, and therefore much of the philosophy of the mind has been trying to prove we're not really conscious at all - this is a pointless claim to make without defining the term 'consciousness', but I think it is fair to say that most scientists believe that consciousness arises from and is rooted in matter, not that matter cannot be conscious; that would be a ludicrous claim.

3) The Laws of Nature are Fixed and the Constants never change - well, yes, but they don't claim that we know what those laws are.

4) The total amount of matter and energy is always the same and it 'sprang out of nowhere' in the big bang - pretty sure scientists don't claim the big bang 'came out of nowhere' but was in fact everything in one place. So it was all there already.

5) Nature is purposeless and there is no purpose in evolution - nnnnno, the purpose of evolution is to spread genes from one generation to the next. It isn't a conscious direction, but it definitely has a point.

6) Biological heredity is material - everything you inherit is in your genes. - Again, this is a 'yes, but'. You can inherit traits which predispose you towards taking advantage of environmental factors, but inheritance isn't a perfect art and it doesn't necessarily guarantee things. There's a lot of fuzziness around nature/nurture right now.

7) Memories are stored inside your brain in material processes but nobody knows how it works - we know quite a lot about short term/long term memory encoding and the physical processes behind them. We don't know EVERYTHING, and I certainly don't know a lot, but even 10 years ago when I was taking Psychology in high school, memory and the physical format it took in the brain was a part of the curriculum. It wasn't just a 'nobody knows'

8) All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more - Well, no. Consciousness is again a difficult term to define, but nerves are spread throughout the body and the effect that different glands, hormones and so forth have on your mood is well documented.

9) Psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible - a lot of research has been done in this field, and in fact, I believe there has been some success with brain-to-brain communication recently. It is fucking hard work requiring expensive specialist tools, and not done by waving your hand and going 'woo' though.

10) Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works - nope, vast amounts of research have been done on the placebo effect. These produce real, genuine effects - just not always over long periods.

In conclusion: video is dildos.

They are the Tyrants of Aaaactually.

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 22, 2014, 05:31:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 05:23:31 PM
Oh lord.  I remember this now.

And this is where the majority of his responses in this thread come from:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Skeptical_conspiracy

QuoteIn June 2013, Sheldrake began endorsing the opinion of Spiritualist crank Robert McLuhan that a group called Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia‎ (GSoW) were coordinating the actions of editors at the online encyclopedia to unfairly label subjects as pseudoscience and promote a skeptical point of view about psychic phenomena. He also came to believe they unfairly targeted his own Wikipedia biography article for special abuse.

Yup. I love how it all boiled over into this MASSIVE CONSPIRACY OF SKEPTICS. This is made especially hilarious considering the GSoW bring all the froth and flame of the lady at a church bazaar who thinks that knit shawl would really look better in a nice lavender.

QuoteI really need you to footnote that, young man! Citation needed!

\
(http://zelmalaceyhouse.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/nice-old-lady.jpg)

Wait a second...


RAW's The New Inquisition speaks of Sheldrake.  The connection becomes clear. 

I don't have the book in front of me right now.  I may remember to look it up when I get home.

Also,

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 22, 2014, 05:35:27 PM
They are the Tyrants of Aaaactually.

:mittens:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 05:38:31 PM
Wait a second...


RAW's The New Inquisition speaks of Sheldrake.  The connection becomes clear. 

I don't have the book in front of me right now.  I may remember to look it up when I get home.

Oh, that's going to be interesting... I look forward to hearing more context. :lulz: The unfolding of Holist's profound gullibility has certainly made for a more amusing morning that I expected, what with the sleep deprivation.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 04:17:47 PM

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 22, 2014, 03:47:39 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 03:30:08 PM
We can solve for it algebraically.

"In the Illusionary Universe: The Illusion of Force equals the Illusion of Mass times the Illusion of Acceleration."

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)
I     I        I      I

IU: I(f) = I(m)*I(a)
I     I        I      I

U: f=m*a

Psh. This equation relies on the assumption that I=I. SUCH HUBRIS!

Indeed. I must have forgotten that in some instances, force equals mass times vindaloo.

My proof is Roger's ass.

QED, bitches.

I have recently become addicted to Thai food.  Which is like going from a fission bomb to a hydrogen bomb.

force = pad thai times Roger's intestinal flora.  Which are big and hairy and have tattoos that say "Mom" on their cilia.

Oh, it's really all coming together now:

QuoteAfter due diligence, including a survey of published scientific research and recommendations from our Science Board and our community, we have decided that Graham Hancock's and Rupert Sheldrake's talks from TEDxWhitechapel should be removed from distribution on the TEDx YouTube channel.

We're not censoring the talks. Instead we're placing them here, where they can be framed to highlight both their provocative ideas and the factual problems with their arguments. See both talks after the jump.
http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/

QuoteAt TEDxWhitechapel on January 13, 2013, Graham Hancock gave a passionately argued talk in which he described the transformative impact that ayahuasca (containing the drug DMT) had had on him and argued that responsible adult usage of such drugs was a fundamental right. The talk was viewed more than 130,000 times on YouTube.

TED's scientific advisors who viewed the talk expressed to us grave concerns about it. For example, it suggests a world view in which DMT can connect users directly to "seemingly intelligent entities which communicate with us telepathically." Graham Hancock does state he makes no claim to the reality status of these entities, but he also argues that they can teach and heal us, claims that are well outside orthodox scientific thinking.
http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-graham-hancocks-talk/

What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

I found an imaged copy of The New Inquisition on Scribd.  I had forgotten what the main thrust of the book is, to wit:

The Scientific Method is flawed and unreliable, and people who rely on it at the exclusion of all else are Idolators.

He then goes on to speak of perception psychology, General Semantics, and poor interpretations of Quantum.

Oh, and he uses the word SUMBUNALL. 

Found the Sheldrake part.  It seems that the problem here, as we have well discussed, is that RAW was speaking, first and foremost, not about Science being flawed, but that scientists were being overly dogmatic and dismissve of new ideas.

And RAW's conclusion was that the case for Darwinism is strong, but not airtight, because Weird Shit happens; and that Sheldrake has a lot to prove before his ideas can be considered true, but still: Weird Shit happens.

It doesn't take much for an Acolyte to treat a Guru's Pure Agnosticism as Proven Truth.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 05:37:07 PM

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 22, 2014, 05:31:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 05:23:31 PM
Oh lord.  I remember this now.

And this is where the majority of his responses in this thread come from:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Skeptical_conspiracy

QuoteIn June 2013, Sheldrake began endorsing the opinion of Spiritualist crank Robert McLuhan that a group called Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia‎ (GSoW) were coordinating the actions of editors at the online encyclopedia to unfairly label subjects as pseudoscience and promote a skeptical point of view about psychic phenomena. He also came to believe they unfairly targeted his own Wikipedia biography article for special abuse.

Yup. I love how it all boiled over into this MASSIVE CONSPIRACY OF SKEPTICS. This is made especially hilarious considering the GSoW bring all the froth and flame of the lady at a church bazaar who thinks that knit shawl would really look better in a nice lavender.

QuoteI really need you to footnote that, young man! Citation needed!

\
(http://zelmalaceyhouse.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/nice-old-lady.jpg)

:lulz:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 05:38:31 PM
Wait a second...


RAW's The New Inquisition speaks of Sheldrake.  The connection becomes clear. 

I don't have the book in front of me right now.  I may remember to look it up when I get home.

Also,

Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on December 22, 2014, 05:35:27 PM
They are the Tyrants of Aaaactually.

:mittens:

:thanks:

Read on a bit more.  The Sheldrake section wasn't about Sheldrake being right.

The point RAW was making was that Darwin is seemingly held up as TRUTH™, and dismisses other theories.

RAW then brings up Sheldrake, Kroptokin, de Chardin, Lovelock, Smuts and Dreisch (neo-Lamarckians), Bateson, Bergson, McDougal... Even Neitzche, Jung, and Reich; and points out that most people haven't even heard those names before, and therefore have no grounds to refute them, apart from what the Experts with the biggest megaphones have to say.

What he doesn't point out is twofold: First, while Kai was still around, she clearly was updating her priors about Darwinism, to the point that "Darwinism" wasn't even a thing anymore.  The understanding of Evolution itself is evolving, as new information comes to light.  Secondly, while no one person has refuted all of them, all of them have been examined and been found wanting, so the collective understanding refutes most of the ideas; and the ones that aren't refuted are folded into the common current understanding.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 06:22:34 PM
I found an imaged copy of The New Inquisition on Scribd.  I had forgotten what the main thrust of the book is, to wit:

The Scientific Method is flawed and unreliable, and people who rely on it at the exclusion of all else are Idolators.

He then goes on to speak of perception psychology, General Semantics, and poor interpretations of Quantum.

Oh, and he uses the word SUMBUNALL. 

Found the Sheldrake part.  It seems that the problem here, as we have well discussed, is that RAW was speaking, first and foremost, not about Science being flawed, but that scientists were being overly dogmatic and dismissve of new ideas.

And RAW's conclusion was that the case for Darwinism is strong, but not airtight, because Weird Shit happens; and that Sheldrake has a lot to prove before his ideas can be considered true, but still: Weird Shit happens.

It doesn't take much for an Acolyte to treat a Guru's Pure Agnosticism as Proven Truth.

:lol: Oh dear.

I'm not a big fan of RAW and find most of  his writing rather tedious, but I agree with him that old, established scientists tend to be overly dogmatic and dismissive of new ideas. Further, they tend to be deeply entrenched in their own disciplines and rarely look out from inside them, which leads to all kinds of fascinating crossed wires when one discipline "discovers" a phenomenon that has been well-described and researched in another discipline for decades (economics in particular comes to mind; they seem to love to re-invent the wheel).

The stereotype of science being dominated by old white men has a very solid foundation in truth, but the funny thing is that it isn't renegades, outsiders, or fringe elements that butt up against this issue most fiercely; it's new scientists just beginning their careers, who don't yet have reputations, seats, or grants to protect and can afford to take risks in their research. It is particularly new researchers who come from "nontraditional" backgrounds, ie. low income, older students, women and people of color who butt up against the rigidity of the old school.

I am fond of a rather famous saying by the great scientist Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If the scientific method was perfect it wouldn't be science, it would be a law, such as gravity. The practitioners of science are constantly missing or overshooting their goals, adjusting, and trying again. Often it's the mistakes and the failures, not the successes, that lead to the most interesting or important discoveries. Science is self-correcting, but it takes time and repetition. The irony of Holist arguing with me about the dogmatism present in science is that he's not the one who has to hammer away at it simply in order to run experiments or write research papers that tenured researchers can't see the value in: I am. Yet he is convinced that because he watched a couple of TEDx talks, read a book or two, and took ayahuasca and saw fairies that he's an enlightened forward-thinker, fighting the good fight to free science from its chains of dogma, and that because I'm part of the monolithic Scientific Establishment as a student, that my eyes are blinkered and I can only think within my academic box.

He's wrong. But he'll never see it, because that's not how his world works. And people like him are how we end up with measles epidemics and babies dying of pertussis in fucking 2014.

I can't remember who said it, but:

"If a young scientist tells you it's possible, he's likely right.  If an old scientist tells you it's impossible, he's likely wrong."

Which isn't really accurate, but still.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 06:44:17 PM
Read on a bit more.  The Sheldrake section wasn't about Sheldrake being right.

The point RAW was making was that Darwin is seemingly held up as TRUTH™, and dismisses other theories.

RAW then brings up Sheldrake, Kroptokin, de Chardin, Lovelock, Smuts and Dreisch (neo-Lamarckians), Bateson, Bergson, McDougal... Even Neitzche, Jung, and Reich; and points out that most people haven't even heard those names before, and therefore have no grounds to refute them, apart from what the Experts with the biggest megaphones have to say.

What he doesn't point out is twofold: First, while Kai was still around, she clearly was updating her priors about Darwinism, to the point that "Darwinism" wasn't even a thing anymore.  The understanding of Evolution itself is evolving, as new information comes to light.  Secondly, while no one person has refuted all of them, all of them have been examined and been found wanting, so the collective understanding refutes most of the ideas; and the ones that aren't refuted are folded into the common current understanding.

The problem with old white men writing books is that they can only write from the perspective they know, which is based on their experiences, and if their experiences don't include being in school learning biology in the twenty-teens, then they have no way of knowing WHAT is held up as TRUTH™, especially if they're dead. It is relatively safe to say that most of RAW's assumptions about "what is believed about the world" were at least 40 years out of date when he wrote them, partly because I can guarantee you that there is no less than a 20-year lag time between a new understanding being embraced by the new wave of working scientists and it making its way into public school textbooks and from there into the popular lexicon... and from there, how long before someone like RAW writes about it, and from then, how long before someone reads it and believes it to be an accurate current representation?

That is one of the dangers of anyone writing about the way the world is; they can only write about what they know about the way the world is. The irony being, of course, that that's one of the things RAW wrote about.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 07:03:29 PM
I can't remember who said it, but:

"If a young scientist tells you it's possible, he's likely right.  If an old scientist tells you it's impossible, he's likely wrong."

Which isn't really accurate, but still.

This is a good quote, and it seems familiar... maybe I can dig it up.

Found it! Arthur C. Clarke.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 02:41:23 PM
This whole thing about whether the physical universe exists or not is pissing me off.

It comes down to one thing: replication.  If I do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If Roger does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Nigel does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Hoopla does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If you do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If one proposes that everything on the opposite side of our eyeballs is an illusion, then it turns out that proposed illusion has demonstrable rules, and those rules are true for everyone.  And those rules have an effect on our bodies, and those effects are the same on every body.  So the proposed illusion has exactly the same characteristics as an objective external universe. 

So, to call that an Illusion is inserting a meaningless term into our understanding of these effects. It can be easily removed without changing the nature of the effects, nor the observed rules.

Unless, unless... your claim is that the proposed Illusion is mutable, and is open to subjective change.  IS that what you're saying?

No, I am not claiming that. But that's not the only unless. I refer you to Descartes' evil demon. The chicken, after all, is convinced all it's life that the benevolent master is there to supply it with food and shelter... until the day it stops believing things altogether.

The other thing that occurred to me is that as in fact the doer is unavoidably a part of the context of an action, it is in fact not possible for two different people to do X in context Y. Contexts get sorted and narrowed for relevancy (unavoidably, really, ungroomed contexts are just too large).

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

What I want to know, Nigel, is why you keep talking to me if, as you previously claimed, you are glad I have decided to ignore you.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 06:44:17 PM
Read on a bit more.  The Sheldrake section wasn't about Sheldrake being right.

The point RAW was making was that Darwin is seemingly held up as TRUTH™, and dismisses other theories.

RAW then brings up Sheldrake, Kroptokin, de Chardin, Lovelock, Smuts and Dreisch (neo-Lamarckians), Bateson, Bergson, McDougal... Even Neitzche, Jung, and Reich; and points out that most people haven't even heard those names before, and therefore have no grounds to refute them, apart from what the Experts with the biggest megaphones have to say.

What he doesn't point out is twofold: First, while Kai was still around, she clearly was updating her priors about Darwinism, to the point that "Darwinism" wasn't even a thing anymore.  The understanding of Evolution itself is evolving, as new information comes to light.  Secondly, while no one person has refuted all of them, all of them have been examined and been found wanting, so the collective understanding refutes most of the ideas; and the ones that aren't refuted are folded into the common current understanding.

"Collective understanding" is a contradiction in terms.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:29:41 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

What I want to know, Nigel, is why you keep talking to me if, as you previously claimed, you are glad I have decided to ignore you.

Holist doesn't like the uppity females.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:29:41 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

What I want to know, Nigel, is why you keep talking to me if, as you previously claimed, you are glad I have decided to ignore you.

Holist doesn't like the uppity females.

No, I do! It's the lying bastards like you that get me all het up. :D

(http://i.imgur.com/DadqCDd.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/yRbkwJW.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/Ydjabuq.jpg)

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:45:25 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:29:41 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

What I want to know, Nigel, is why you keep talking to me if, as you previously claimed, you are glad I have decided to ignore you.

Holist doesn't like the uppity females.

No, I do! It's the lying bastards like you that get me all het up. :D

Nope.  I've seen your behavior over the years, and you hate women that speak their mind.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:29:41 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

What I want to know, Nigel, is why you keep talking to me if, as you previously claimed, you are glad I have decided to ignore you.

1. I consider your declaration of ignoring me to be a personal victory.

2. I consider every time you click on "show post" and frantically, sweatily, shamefully read it despite the fact that you've put me on ignore another personal victory, and I know that because your ego is fragile, constantly addressing you directly is a great way to ensure that happens.

Hey, what can I say... I'm out of school, in a bad mood, and there you are.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:29:41 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

What I want to know, Nigel, is why you keep talking to me if, as you previously claimed, you are glad I have decided to ignore you.

Holist doesn't like the uppity females.

He doesn't like being asked questions that are too hard for him to answer, either. It's extra convenient to just claim to be ignoring me, while cherrypicking what to respond to because somehow he doesn't understand that it's obvious to everyone just how intellectually over his head he is.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 09:05:12 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:29:41 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

What I want to know, Nigel, is why you keep talking to me if, as you previously claimed, you are glad I have decided to ignore you.

1. I consider your declaration of ignoring me to be a personal victory.

2. I consider every time you click on "show post" and frantically, sweatily, shamefully read it despite the fact that you've put me on ignore another personal victory, and I know that because your ego is fragile, constantly addressing you directly is a great way to ensure that happens.

Hey, what can I say... I'm out of school, in a bad mood, and there you are.

It's like watching someone get beaten with a gila monster.   :lulz:

You are not a very bright man, Holist. You are, at best, on the slow side of average.

That doesn't HAVE to be a character defect, you know.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 09:07:10 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:29:41 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

What I want to know, Nigel, is why you keep talking to me if, as you previously claimed, you are glad I have decided to ignore you.

Holist doesn't like the uppity females.

He doesn't like being asked questions that are too hard for him to answer, either. It's extra convenient to just claim to be ignoring me, while cherrypicking what to respond to because somehow he doesn't understand that it's obvious to everyone just how intellectually over his head he is.

Again, it's the same as paganism (of the mahdjgicle variety):  If you aren't really GOOD at anything, spew bullshit and make shit up.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 09:09:58 PM
You are not a very bright man, Holist. You are, at best, on the slow side of average.

That doesn't HAVE to be a character defect, you know.

Naw.  But being a mean-spirited, preachy misogynist IS.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 09:08:59 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 09:05:12 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:29:41 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

What I want to know, Nigel, is why you keep talking to me if, as you previously claimed, you are glad I have decided to ignore you.

1. I consider your declaration of ignoring me to be a personal victory.

2. I consider every time you click on "show post" and frantically, sweatily, shamefully read it despite the fact that you've put me on ignore another personal victory, and I know that because your ego is fragile, constantly addressing you directly is a great way to ensure that happens.

Hey, what can I say... I'm out of school, in a bad mood, and there you are.

It's like watching someone get beaten with a gila monster.   :lulz:

:lol: I almost feel bad, because he's a little on the stupid side so I wanted to give him a chance. I have a soft spot for the intellectually challenged. But he's also just a relentlessly nasty little crapweasel, so, hey.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 09:10:06 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 09:07:10 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:29:41 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
What I want to know is, Holist, if you want to believe so badly, why can't you just go ahead and be religious, instead of trying to shoehorn your religion into science, or trying to distort science so it can comfortably accommodate your religion?

Frankly, I don't understand why you and your ilk want to make the world smaller with hand-waving and magic, but it's your prerogative to believe in the supernatural if you want to. What's not your prerogative is the corruption of science in an attempt to give your beliefs legitimacy.

The beauty of science is that every answer raises a thousand new questions. That may be too big and scary for you to cope with, but that doesn't give you the right to try to diminish the vast wondrousness of the natural world for everyone else by explaining it away with superficial ideas about special magic science vibrations that work outside of the realm of all the other science.

What I want to know, Nigel, is why you keep talking to me if, as you previously claimed, you are glad I have decided to ignore you.

Holist doesn't like the uppity females.

He doesn't like being asked questions that are too hard for him to answer, either. It's extra convenient to just claim to be ignoring me, while cherrypicking what to respond to because somehow he doesn't understand that it's obvious to everyone just how intellectually over his head he is.

Again, it's the same as paganism (of the mahdjgicle variety):  If you aren't really GOOD at anything, spew bullshit and make shit up.

I bet he's frantically scanning his collection of bookmarked pseudoscience blogs in the hopes of finding something he can paraphrase that will make people think he sounds smart.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 09:16:41 PM
I bet he's frantically scanning his collection of bookmarked pseudoscience blogs in the hopes of finding something he can paraphrase that will make people think he sounds smart.

Maybe Faust could make a bot that would listen to his shit and respond in an awed manner.

Everyone would be happy.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 09:17:52 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 09:16:41 PM
I bet he's frantically scanning his collection of bookmarked pseudoscience blogs in the hopes of finding something he can paraphrase that will make people think he sounds smart.

Maybe Faust could make a bot that would listen to his shit and respond in an awed manner.

Everyone would be happy.

:lulz: That would be perfect.

If Holist bloviates in a sub, and only a bot is around to see it, is it still trite and obnoxious?

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:22:53 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 02:41:23 PM
This whole thing about whether the physical universe exists or not is pissing me off.

It comes down to one thing: replication.  If I do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If Roger does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Nigel does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Hoopla does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If you do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If one proposes that everything on the opposite side of our eyeballs is an illusion, then it turns out that proposed illusion has demonstrable rules, and those rules are true for everyone.  And those rules have an effect on our bodies, and those effects are the same on every body.  So the proposed illusion has exactly the same characteristics as an objective external universe. 

So, to call that an Illusion is inserting a meaningless term into our understanding of these effects. It can be easily removed without changing the nature of the effects, nor the observed rules.

Unless, unless... your claim is that the proposed Illusion is mutable, and is open to subjective change.  IS that what you're saying?

No, I am not claiming that. But that's not the only unless. I refer you to Descartes' evil demon. The chicken, after all, is convinced all it's life that the benevolent master is there to supply it with food and shelter... until the day it stops believing things altogether.

The other thing that occurred to me is that as in fact the doer is unavoidably a part of the context of an action, it is in fact not possible for two different people to do X in context Y. Contexts get sorted and narrowed for relevancy (unavoidably, really, ungroomed contexts are just too large).

The implications of what you just said is that you believe that f=ma has varying values of truth, and is subjective.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:56:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 06:22:34 PM
I found an imaged copy of The New Inquisition on Scribd.  I had forgotten what the main thrust of the book is, to wit:

The Scientific Method is flawed and unreliable, and people who rely on it at the exclusion of all else are Idolators.

He then goes on to speak of perception psychology, General Semantics, and poor interpretations of Quantum.

Oh, and he uses the word SUMBUNALL. 

Found the Sheldrake part.  It seems that the problem here, as we have well discussed, is that RAW was speaking, first and foremost, not about Science being flawed, but that scientists were being overly dogmatic and dismissve of new ideas.

And RAW's conclusion was that the case for Darwinism is strong, but not airtight, because Weird Shit happens; and that Sheldrake has a lot to prove before his ideas can be considered true, but still: Weird Shit happens.

It doesn't take much for an Acolyte to treat a Guru's Pure Agnosticism as Proven Truth.

:lol: Oh dear.

I'm not a big fan of RAW and find most of  his writing rather tedious, but I agree with him that old, established scientists tend to be overly dogmatic and dismissive of new ideas. Further, they tend to be deeply entrenched in their own disciplines and rarely look out from inside them, which leads to all kinds of fascinating crossed wires when one discipline "discovers" a phenomenon that has been well-described and researched in another discipline for decades (economics in particular comes to mind; they seem to love to re-invent the wheel).

The stereotype of science being dominated by old white men has a very solid foundation in truth, but the funny thing is that it isn't renegades, outsiders, or fringe elements that butt up against this issue most fiercely; it's new scientists just beginning their careers, who don't yet have reputations, seats, or grants to protect and can afford to take risks in their research. It is particularly new researchers who come from "nontraditional" backgrounds, ie. low income, older students, women and people of color who butt up against the rigidity of the old school.

I am fond of a rather famous saying by the great scientist Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If the scientific method was perfect it wouldn't be science, it would be a law, such as gravity. The practitioners of science are constantly missing or overshooting their goals, adjusting, and trying again. Often it's the mistakes and the failures, not the successes, that lead to the most interesting or important discoveries. Science is self-correcting, but it takes time and repetition. The irony of Holist arguing with me about the dogmatism present in science is that he's not the one who has to hammer away at it simply in order to run experiments or write research papers that tenured researchers can't see the value in: I am. Yet he is convinced that because he watched a couple of TEDx talks, read a book or two, and took ayahuasca and saw fairies that he's an enlightened forward-thinker, fighting the good fight to free science from its chains of dogma, and that because I'm part of the monolithic Scientific Establishment as a student, that my eyes are blinkered and I can only think within my academic box.

He's wrong. But he'll never see it, because that's not how his world works. And people like him are how we end up with measles epidemics and babies dying of pertussis in fucking 2014.

Holist isn't ignoring all of my posts, but he is ignoring this post in particular.  :lulz:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 09:55:27 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 22, 2014, 08:22:53 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 02:41:23 PM
This whole thing about whether the physical universe exists or not is pissing me off.

It comes down to one thing: replication.  If I do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If Roger does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Nigel does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Hoopla does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If you do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If one proposes that everything on the opposite side of our eyeballs is an illusion, then it turns out that proposed illusion has demonstrable rules, and those rules are true for everyone.  And those rules have an effect on our bodies, and those effects are the same on every body.  So the proposed illusion has exactly the same characteristics as an objective external universe. 

So, to call that an Illusion is inserting a meaningless term into our understanding of these effects. It can be easily removed without changing the nature of the effects, nor the observed rules.

Unless, unless... your claim is that the proposed Illusion is mutable, and is open to subjective change.  IS that what you're saying?

No, I am not claiming that. But that's not the only unless. I refer you to Descartes' evil demon. The chicken, after all, is convinced all it's life that the benevolent master is there to supply it with food and shelter... until the day it stops believing things altogether.

The other thing that occurred to me is that as in fact the doer is unavoidably a part of the context of an action, it is in fact not possible for two different people to do X in context Y. Contexts get sorted and narrowed for relevancy (unavoidably, really, ungroomed contexts are just too large).

The implications of what you just said is that you believe that f=ma has varying values of truth, and is subjective.

He's also completely ignoring everything that anyone with informed opinions about science should know about scientific method and what we do about the messy fact that every time you run an experiment the conditions are a little bit different.

Which heavily implies one thing rather specifically.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 10:10:50 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:56:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 06:22:34 PM
I found an imaged copy of The New Inquisition on Scribd.  I had forgotten what the main thrust of the book is, to wit:

The Scientific Method is flawed and unreliable, and people who rely on it at the exclusion of all else are Idolators.

He then goes on to speak of perception psychology, General Semantics, and poor interpretations of Quantum.

Oh, and he uses the word SUMBUNALL. 

Found the Sheldrake part.  It seems that the problem here, as we have well discussed, is that RAW was speaking, first and foremost, not about Science being flawed, but that scientists were being overly dogmatic and dismissve of new ideas.

And RAW's conclusion was that the case for Darwinism is strong, but not airtight, because Weird Shit happens; and that Sheldrake has a lot to prove before his ideas can be considered true, but still: Weird Shit happens.

It doesn't take much for an Acolyte to treat a Guru's Pure Agnosticism as Proven Truth.

:lol: Oh dear.

I'm not a big fan of RAW and find most of  his writing rather tedious, but I agree with him that old, established scientists tend to be overly dogmatic and dismissive of new ideas. Further, they tend to be deeply entrenched in their own disciplines and rarely look out from inside them, which leads to all kinds of fascinating crossed wires when one discipline "discovers" a phenomenon that has been well-described and researched in another discipline for decades (economics in particular comes to mind; they seem to love to re-invent the wheel).

The stereotype of science being dominated by old white men has a very solid foundation in truth, but the funny thing is that it isn't renegades, outsiders, or fringe elements that butt up against this issue most fiercely; it's new scientists just beginning their careers, who don't yet have reputations, seats, or grants to protect and can afford to take risks in their research. It is particularly new researchers who come from "nontraditional" backgrounds, ie. low income, older students, women and people of color who butt up against the rigidity of the old school.

I am fond of a rather famous saying by the great scientist Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If the scientific method was perfect it wouldn't be science, it would be a law, such as gravity. The practitioners of science are constantly missing or overshooting their goals, adjusting, and trying again. Often it's the mistakes and the failures, not the successes, that lead to the most interesting or important discoveries. Science is self-correcting, but it takes time and repetition. The irony of Holist arguing with me about the dogmatism present in science is that he's not the one who has to hammer away at it simply in order to run experiments or write research papers that tenured researchers can't see the value in: I am. Yet he is convinced that because he watched a couple of TEDx talks, read a book or two, and took ayahuasca and saw fairies that he's an enlightened forward-thinker, fighting the good fight to free science from its chains of dogma, and that because I'm part of the monolithic Scientific Establishment as a student, that my eyes are blinkered and I can only think within my academic box.

He's wrong. But he'll never see it, because that's not how his world works. And people like him are how we end up with measles epidemics and babies dying of pertussis in fucking 2014.

Holist isn't ignoring all of my posts, but he is ignoring this post in particular.  :lulz:

You keep being Nigel.  :rogpipe:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 10:13:19 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 10:10:50 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 06:56:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 06:22:34 PM
I found an imaged copy of The New Inquisition on Scribd.  I had forgotten what the main thrust of the book is, to wit:

The Scientific Method is flawed and unreliable, and people who rely on it at the exclusion of all else are Idolators.

He then goes on to speak of perception psychology, General Semantics, and poor interpretations of Quantum.

Oh, and he uses the word SUMBUNALL. 

Found the Sheldrake part.  It seems that the problem here, as we have well discussed, is that RAW was speaking, first and foremost, not about Science being flawed, but that scientists were being overly dogmatic and dismissve of new ideas.

And RAW's conclusion was that the case for Darwinism is strong, but not airtight, because Weird Shit happens; and that Sheldrake has a lot to prove before his ideas can be considered true, but still: Weird Shit happens.

It doesn't take much for an Acolyte to treat a Guru's Pure Agnosticism as Proven Truth.

:lol: Oh dear.

I'm not a big fan of RAW and find most of  his writing rather tedious, but I agree with him that old, established scientists tend to be overly dogmatic and dismissive of new ideas. Further, they tend to be deeply entrenched in their own disciplines and rarely look out from inside them, which leads to all kinds of fascinating crossed wires when one discipline "discovers" a phenomenon that has been well-described and researched in another discipline for decades (economics in particular comes to mind; they seem to love to re-invent the wheel).

The stereotype of science being dominated by old white men has a very solid foundation in truth, but the funny thing is that it isn't renegades, outsiders, or fringe elements that butt up against this issue most fiercely; it's new scientists just beginning their careers, who don't yet have reputations, seats, or grants to protect and can afford to take risks in their research. It is particularly new researchers who come from "nontraditional" backgrounds, ie. low income, older students, women and people of color who butt up against the rigidity of the old school.

I am fond of a rather famous saying by the great scientist Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If the scientific method was perfect it wouldn't be science, it would be a law, such as gravity. The practitioners of science are constantly missing or overshooting their goals, adjusting, and trying again. Often it's the mistakes and the failures, not the successes, that lead to the most interesting or important discoveries. Science is self-correcting, but it takes time and repetition. The irony of Holist arguing with me about the dogmatism present in science is that he's not the one who has to hammer away at it simply in order to run experiments or write research papers that tenured researchers can't see the value in: I am. Yet he is convinced that because he watched a couple of TEDx talks, read a book or two, and took ayahuasca and saw fairies that he's an enlightened forward-thinker, fighting the good fight to free science from its chains of dogma, and that because I'm part of the monolithic Scientific Establishment as a student, that my eyes are blinkered and I can only think within my academic box.

He's wrong. But he'll never see it, because that's not how his world works. And people like him are how we end up with measles epidemics and babies dying of pertussis in fucking 2014.

Holist isn't ignoring all of my posts, but he is ignoring this post in particular.  :lulz:

You keep being Nigel.  :rogpipe:

I know, it's so hard. Maybe if I sniff enough glue he'll start seeming more on my level.

I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 10:23:19 PM
I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 10:24:35 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 10:23:19 PM
I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

:lulz:

:winning:

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 11:02:18 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 10:24:35 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 10:23:19 PM
I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

:lulz:

:winning:

I am off to find an emote for that.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 23, 2014, 12:14:14 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 11:02:18 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 10:24:35 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 10:23:19 PM
I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

:lulz:

:winning:

I am off to find an emote for that.

EXCELLENT.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 23, 2014, 12:14:14 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 11:02:18 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 10:24:35 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 10:23:19 PM
I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

:lulz:

:winning:

I am off to find an emote for that.

Annnnnnd...DONE.   :lulz:

 :lulz:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 23, 2014, 01:08:22 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 23, 2014, 12:14:14 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 11:02:18 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 10:24:35 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 10:23:19 PM
I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

:lulz:

:winning:

I am off to find an emote for that.

Annnnnnd...DONE.   :lulz:

Oh god that's PERFECT!  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Rest easy.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 05:04:38 PM
A little background: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

He claims, among other things, that telepathy is real, that the speed of light is decreasing, and that species are not defined by their DNA but by a type of cosmic vibrations. I believe he is also a fan of the "water has memory" ideas that homeopathy is based on, and that there is a huge global science conspiracy to conceal evidence of all of these things.

He's about one step away from reptilian shapeshifter overlords.

And now I know where Holist gets his ideas. :lulz:

This is what is called "ad hominem" argument. Don't get me started on Isaac Newton's bizarre views.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 05:23:31 PM
Oh lord.  I remember this now.

And this is where the majority of his responses in this thread come from:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Skeptical_conspiracy

Nope. Actually, I named my sources before...

I see.  So, it's total coincidence that the tone and bent to your posts are so incredibly similar to Sheldrake's ranting?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 24, 2014, 07:29:46 PM
I see.  So, it's total coincidence that the tone and bent to your posts are so incredibly similar to Sheldrake's ranting?

It must be. I read Sheldrake's first book (A New Science of Life) a few years after it was published, still in the eighties. Since then, I have not kept in touch much with what he was doing.

Hang on, there's another explanation: you could be ascribing similarity where there actually isn't any. :)

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:24:21 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Rest easy.

It is apparently someone who will remain unnamed, and who does not care to publicly state that they enjoy Holist's posts. The classic "I have supporters who are totally real people and not my imagination, but I can't reveal their names because they fear retribution". :lol:

The really funny thing is that his hero Sheldrake used the exact same line on his blog, claiming to have received letters of support from prominent mainstream scientists, but he dare not speak their names because they fear shunning.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:33:55 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 24, 2014, 07:29:46 PM
I see.  So, it's total coincidence that the tone and bent to your posts are so incredibly similar to Sheldrake's ranting?

It must be. I read Sheldrake's first book (A New Science of Life) a few years after it was published, still in the eighties. Since then, I have not kept in touch much with what he was doing.

Hang on, there's another explanation: you could be ascribing similarity where there actually isn't any. :)

So you're just an unconsciously derivative schmuck?  :lulz: Not to mention a liar, because you posted the link to his talk. You complete idiot.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:35:03 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:24:21 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Rest easy.

It is apparently someone who will remain unnamed, and who does not care to publicly state that they enjoy Holist's posts. The classic "I have supporters who are totally real people and not my imagination, but I can't reveal their names because they fear retribution". :lol:

The really funny thing is that his hero Sheldrake used the exact same line on his blog, claiming to have received letters of support from prominent mainstream scientists, but he dare not speak their names because they fear shunning.

Given the way he was shunned after a great early career for proposing a testable hypothesis, that's not all that unreasonable. He is not my hero though.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:36:31 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:33:55 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 24, 2014, 07:29:46 PM
I see.  So, it's total coincidence that the tone and bent to your posts are so incredibly similar to Sheldrake's ranting?

It must be. I read Sheldrake's first book (A New Science of Life) a few years after it was published, still in the eighties. Since then, I have not kept in touch much with what he was doing.

Hang on, there's another explanation: you could be ascribing similarity where there actually isn't any. :)

So you're just an unconsciously derivative schmuck?  :lulz: Not to mention a liar, because you posted the link to his talk. You complete idiot.

What's with the reading skills? "I have not kept in touch much", right? Not "not at all", but, rather, "not much". I found the video by searching for terms like "critique of scientific dogmatism" or some such, shortly before posting it here.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:25:43 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 05:04:38 PM
A little background: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

He claims, among other things, that telepathy is real, that the speed of light is decreasing, and that species are not defined by their DNA but by a type of cosmic vibrations. I believe he is also a fan of the "water has memory" ideas that homeopathy is based on, and that there is a huge global science conspiracy to conceal evidence of all of these things.

He's about one step away from reptilian shapeshifter overlords.

And now I know where Holist gets his ideas. :lulz:

This is what is called "ad hominem" argument. Don't get me started on Isaac Newton's bizarre views.

It's the core of his proposition about the nature of the world. The man's ideas are fundamentally wrong, and he believes that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to discredit him. How is that ad hominem? I think that perhaps once again you are using words you don't understand.  :lol:

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:38:53 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:36:31 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:33:55 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 24, 2014, 07:29:46 PM
I see.  So, it's total coincidence that the tone and bent to your posts are so incredibly similar to Sheldrake's ranting?

It must be. I read Sheldrake's first book (A New Science of Life) a few years after it was published, still in the eighties. Since then, I have not kept in touch much with what he was doing.

Hang on, there's another explanation: you could be ascribing similarity where there actually isn't any. :)

So you're just an unconsciously derivative schmuck?  :lulz: Not to mention a liar, because you posted the link to his talk. You complete idiot.

What's with the reading skills? "I have not kept in touch much", right? Not "not at all", but, rather, "not much". I found the video by searching for terms like "critique of scientific dogmatism" or some such, shortly before posting it here.

So you're saying that you don't vet your sources carefully? So much for thinking carefully and slowly.  :lol:

Are you drunk, Holist?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:39:25 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:25:43 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 05:04:38 PM
A little background: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

He claims, among other things, that telepathy is real, that the speed of light is decreasing, and that species are not defined by their DNA but by a type of cosmic vibrations. I believe he is also a fan of the "water has memory" ideas that homeopathy is based on, and that there is a huge global science conspiracy to conceal evidence of all of these things.

He's about one step away from reptilian shapeshifter overlords.

And now I know where Holist gets his ideas. :lulz:

This is what is called "ad hominem" argument. Don't get me started on Isaac Newton's bizarre views.

It's the core of his proposition about the nature of the world. The man's ideas are fundamentally wrong, and he believes that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to discredit him. How is that ad hominem? I think that perhaps once again you are using words you don't understand.  :lol:

I present a roughly 20-minute lecture by a man. The lecture is about very specific things. You don't bother to discuss those, you just give a general gloss of what you think that person is generally about, and use that to discredit anything he might have said in that, specific lecture. Ad hominem.

As for being a backwater rube: we Hungarians robbed the land we now live on from other folks over a thousand years ago. We let most of them live and in fact genetic research shows we interbred with them a great deal. When did you steal the land you currently occupy, and how many of the previous occupiers survived the job?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:41:03 PM
Are you drunk, Holist?

Nope. Somewhat overfed,but not drunk. Are you?

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:37:26 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:35:03 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:24:21 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Rest easy.

It is apparently someone who will remain unnamed, and who does not care to publicly state that they enjoy Holist's posts. The classic "I have supporters who are totally real people and not my imagination, but I can't reveal their names because they fear retribution". :lol:

The really funny thing is that his hero Sheldrake used the exact same line on his blog, claiming to have received letters of support from prominent mainstream scientists, but he dare not speak their names because they fear shunning.

Given the way he was shunned after a great early career for proposing a testable hypothesis, that's not all that unreasonable. He is not my hero though.

Please, O Science Master, acquaint me with this testable hypothesis of your guru's.  :lol:

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:43:19 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:37:26 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:35:03 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:24:21 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Rest easy.

It is apparently someone who will remain unnamed, and who does not care to publicly state that they enjoy Holist's posts. The classic "I have supporters who are totally real people and not my imagination, but I can't reveal their names because they fear retribution". :lol:

The really funny thing is that his hero Sheldrake used the exact same line on his blog, claiming to have received letters of support from prominent mainstream scientists, but he dare not speak their names because they fear shunning.

Given the way he was shunned after a great early career for proposing a testable hypothesis, that's not all that unreasonable. He is not my hero though.

Please, O Science Master, acquaint me with this testable hypothesis of your guru's.  :lol:

Read the book.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:43:17 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:41:03 PM
Are you drunk, Holist?

Nope. Somewhat overfed,but not drunk. Are you?

Not yet, but I have two weeks off and I might get that way if I go to the store this afternoon.

Your grasp of English is great for a Hungarian, but still not that good. BTW.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:44:19 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:43:19 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:37:26 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:35:03 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:24:21 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Rest easy.

It is apparently someone who will remain unnamed, and who does not care to publicly state that they enjoy Holist's posts. The classic "I have supporters who are totally real people and not my imagination, but I can't reveal their names because they fear retribution". :lol:

The really funny thing is that his hero Sheldrake used the exact same line on his blog, claiming to have received letters of support from prominent mainstream scientists, but he dare not speak their names because they fear shunning.

Given the way he was shunned after a great early career for proposing a testable hypothesis, that's not all that unreasonable. He is not my hero though.

Please, O Science Master, acquaint me with this testable hypothesis of your guru's.  :lol:

Read the book.

Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm not going to try to summarize it, because I know that will make me look like the ignorant fool I am."

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:44:21 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:43:17 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:41:03 PM
Are you drunk, Holist?

Nope. Somewhat overfed,but not drunk. Are you?

Not yet, but I have two weeks off and I might get that way if I go to the store this afternoon.

Your grasp of English is great for a Hungarian, but still not that good. BTW.

Yours is not bad for an American, but it could be improved. BTW.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:45:17 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:44:19 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:43:19 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:37:26 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:35:03 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:24:21 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Rest easy.

It is apparently someone who will remain unnamed, and who does not care to publicly state that they enjoy Holist's posts. The classic "I have supporters who are totally real people and not my imagination, but I can't reveal their names because they fear retribution". :lol:

The really funny thing is that his hero Sheldrake used the exact same line on his blog, claiming to have received letters of support from prominent mainstream scientists, but he dare not speak their names because they fear shunning.

Given the way he was shunned after a great early career for proposing a testable hypothesis, that's not all that unreasonable. He is not my hero though.

Please, O Science Master, acquaint me with this testable hypothesis of your guru's.  :lol:

Read the book.

Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm not going to try to summarize it, because I know that will make me look like the ignorant fool I am."

Sorry, correction, that comment I made about your English? I take it back. It is pretty bad, even for an American.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:42:30 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:39:25 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:25:43 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 05:04:38 PM
A little background: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

He claims, among other things, that telepathy is real, that the speed of light is decreasing, and that species are not defined by their DNA but by a type of cosmic vibrations. I believe he is also a fan of the "water has memory" ideas that homeopathy is based on, and that there is a huge global science conspiracy to conceal evidence of all of these things.

He's about one step away from reptilian shapeshifter overlords.

And now I know where Holist gets his ideas. :lulz:

This is what is called "ad hominem" argument. Don't get me started on Isaac Newton's bizarre views.

It's the core of his proposition about the nature of the world. The man's ideas are fundamentally wrong, and he believes that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to discredit him. How is that ad hominem? I think that perhaps once again you are using words you don't understand.  :lol:

I present a roughly 20-minute lecture by a man. The lecture is about very specific things. You don't bother to discuss those, you just give a general gloss of what you think that person is generally about, and use that to discredit anything he might have said in that, specific lecture. Ad hominem.

As for being a backwater rube: we Hungarians robbed the land we now live on from other folks over a thousand years ago. We let most of them live and in fact genetic research shows we interbred with them a great deal. When did you steal the land you currently occupy, and how many of the previous occupiers survived the job?

I'm mostly Native American, you blithering moron.  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: Jesus, do they teach you anything in your communist schools?

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:46:26 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:45:17 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:44:19 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:43:19 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:37:26 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:35:03 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:24:21 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Rest easy.

It is apparently someone who will remain unnamed, and who does not care to publicly state that they enjoy Holist's posts. The classic "I have supporters who are totally real people and not my imagination, but I can't reveal their names because they fear retribution". :lol:

The really funny thing is that his hero Sheldrake used the exact same line on his blog, claiming to have received letters of support from prominent mainstream scientists, but he dare not speak their names because they fear shunning.

Given the way he was shunned after a great early career for proposing a testable hypothesis, that's not all that unreasonable. He is not my hero though.

Please, O Science Master, acquaint me with this testable hypothesis of your guru's.  :lol:

Read the book.

Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm not going to try to summarize it, because I know that will make me look like the ignorant fool I am."

Sorry, correction, that comment I made about your English? I take it back. It is pretty bad, even for an American.

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: Comedy gold.

I watched your fundraising video, so now I'm hearing everything you type in that halting stilted accent.

Holist is like a Dunning-Kruger case study. I almost feel guilty, it's like the intellectual equivalent of getting into a fistfight with a 3-year-old.

His fundamental thesis is "morphogenic fields."  That is to say, memory exists in nature, and telepathy is possible. And he DID design and carry out experiments. And so did others, which is exactly the opposite of what you just posted. 

QuoteFollowing the publication of A New Science of Life, New Scientist sponsored a competition to devise empirical tests for morphic resonance.[57] The winning idea involved learning Turkish nursery rhymes, with psychologist and broadcaster Sue Blackmore's entry involving babies' behaviour coming second.[22] Blackmore found the results did not support the theory.

Do you do ANY source-checking before you post?

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:25:43 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 05:04:38 PM
A little background: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

He claims, among other things, that telepathy is real, that the speed of light is decreasing, and that species are not defined by their DNA but by a type of cosmic vibrations. I believe he is also a fan of the "water has memory" ideas that homeopathy is based on, and that there is a huge global science conspiracy to conceal evidence of all of these things.

He's about one step away from reptilian shapeshifter overlords.

And now I know where Holist gets his ideas. :lulz:

This is what is called "ad hominem" argument. Don't get me started on Isaac Newton's bizarre views.

Newton had incorrect views about a lot of things, and we do laugh about that now.

There's still a unit of force named after him though, because he wasn't incorrect about that.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:37:26 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:35:03 PM

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:24:21 PM

Quote from: Demolition Squid on December 22, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Rest easy.

It is apparently someone who will remain unnamed, and who does not care to publicly state that they enjoy Holist's posts. The classic "I have supporters who are totally real people and not my imagination, but I can't reveal their names because they fear retribution". :lol:

The really funny thing is that his hero Sheldrake used the exact same line on his blog, claiming to have received letters of support from prominent mainstream scientists, but he dare not speak their names because they fear shunning.

Given the way he was shunned after a great early career for proposing a testable hypothesis, that's not all that unreasonable. He is not my hero though.

Oh man, you're talking about morphic resonance, aren't you?  :lol: Wow.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ruperts-resonance/

I would have to say that it's not so much that he "was shunned" as that he chose to marginalize himself by relentlessly promoting pseudoscience as science. Many scientists have wacky personal views with no harm done to their careers, but insisting that they're science is usually not well-received.

This brings me back to the question Holist refuses to answer; if he wants to be religious, why doesn't he just go ahead and be religious? Why must he insist on distorting science to accommodate his religious views?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 07:49:07 PM
I watched your fundraising video, so now I'm hearing everything you type in that halting stilted accent.

FYI Holist, THIS is ad-hominem.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 24, 2014, 08:08:25 PM
His fundamental thesis is "morphogenic fields."  That is to say, memory exists in nature, and telepathy is possible. And he DID design and carry out experiments. And so did others, which is exactly the opposite of what you just posted. 

QuoteFollowing the publication of A New Science of Life, New Scientist sponsored a competition to devise empirical tests for morphic resonance.[57] The winning idea involved learning Turkish nursery rhymes, with psychologist and broadcaster Sue Blackmore's entry involving babies' behaviour coming second.[22] Blackmore found the results did not support the theory.

Do you do ANY source-checking before you post?

I think we all know the answer to that.  :lol:

Yeah, Morphic Resonance.

And by the way, in case you didn't feel like reading that SA article (because you apparently shun source material),

QuoteThird, in 2000 John Colwell of Middlesex University in London conducted a formal test using Sheldrake's experimental protocol. Twelve volunteers participated in 12 sequences of 20 stare or no-stare trials each and received accuracy feedback for the final nine sessions. Results: subjects could detect being stared at only when accuracy feedback was provided, which Colwell attributed to the subjects learning what was, in fact, a nonrandom presentation of the trials. When University of Hertfordshire psychologist Richard Wiseman also attempted to replicate Sheldrake's research, he found that subjects detected stares at rates no better than chance.

So, again, he designed a test, and a scientist conducted it, and found no evidence for morphic fields.

Unlike what you said.

Scientists are supposed to change their hypotheses to reflect the evidence, not shoehorn the evidence to fit the hypotheses.

Maybe it's homeopathic evidence.  You know, when the amount of evidence is so small as to be undetectable, and therefore it's effectively true.

Sheldrake's response that "skeptics dampen the morphic resonance field" is priceless. OMG. :lulz:

SUPPRESSIVE PERSONS!

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 24, 2014, 08:48:32 PM
Maybe it's homeopathic evidence.  You know, when the amount of evidence is so small as to be undetectable, and therefore it's effectively true.

:lulz:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 24, 2014, 08:48:32 PM
Maybe it's homeopathic evidence.  You know, when the amount of evidence is so small as to be undetectable, and therefore it's effectively true.

Is homeopathic research what you do when you reduce the sample size to below .00001?

I can't wait for Holist to come back and not actually address any points. I'm still dying over his most recent attempts at insulting me.  :lol:

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 09:43:40 PM
I can't wait for Holist to come back and not actually address any points. I'm still dying over his most recent attempts at insulting me.  :lol:

Maybe he'll say your points aren't that good because they're wicked out of tune.

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 24, 2014, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 09:43:40 PM
I can't wait for Holist to come back and not actually address any points. I'm still dying over his most recent attempts at insulting me.  :lol:

Maybe he'll say your points aren't that good because they're wicked out of tune.

:lulz: I forgot about that. My, but he's a sour one, isn't he, with nary a good word to say about anyone.

Rest assured though, Twid, that his ability to assess musical skills seems to be on par with his ability to assess English skills.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 24, 2014, 07:42:30 PM
I present a roughly 20-minute lecture by a man. The lecture is about very specific things. You don't bother to discuss those, you just give a general gloss of what you think that person is generally about, and use that to discredit anything he might have said in that, specific lecture. Ad hominem.

As for this, Demo Squid wrote a point-by-point rebuttal, which you ignored. I too wrote a couple of lengthy and thoughtful posts about his critique of the scientific establishment, which you ignored. Since you refuse to participate in reasonable discourse and simply ignore anything that you find too hard to address, my conclusion is that there's no point in trying to have a conversation with  you, which is why at this point I'm just making fun of you for entertainment.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 24, 2014, 08:48:32 PM
Maybe it's homeopathic evidence.  You know, when the amount of evidence is so small as to be undetectable, and therefore it's effectively true.

:potd:

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 10:28:44 PM

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 24, 2014, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 09:43:40 PM
I can't wait for Holist to come back and not actually address any points. I'm still dying over his most recent attempts at insulting me.  :lol:

Maybe he'll say your points aren't that good because they're wicked out of tune.

:lulz: I forgot about that. My, but he's a sour one, isn't he, with nary a good word to say about anyone.

Rest assured though, Twid, that his ability to assess musical skills seems to be on par with his ability to assess English skills.

My absolute favorite part was where he gave a link to a perfect pitch test, and he did in fact score higher than me. But Coyote scored higher than both of us and he said he didn't hear one bit of dissonance.

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 24, 2014, 11:13:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 10:28:44 PM

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 24, 2014, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 09:43:40 PM
I can't wait for Holist to come back and not actually address any points. I'm still dying over his most recent attempts at insulting me.  :lol:

Maybe he'll say your points aren't that good because they're wicked out of tune.

:lulz: I forgot about that. My, but he's a sour one, isn't he, with nary a good word to say about anyone.

Rest assured though, Twid, that his ability to assess musical skills seems to be on par with his ability to assess English skills.

My absolute favorite part was where he gave a link to a perfect pitch test, and he did in fact score higher than me. But Coyote scored higher than both of us and he said he didn't hear one bit of dissonance.

He doesn't have any room to talk, anyway. The live performances on his Youtube channel are proof of that. The only reason I didn't say anything negative about them is because his bandmates are children and I'm not about to make fun of children.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 02:24:03 AM

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 24, 2014, 11:13:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 10:28:44 PM

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 24, 2014, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 09:43:40 PM
I can't wait for Holist to come back and not actually address any points. I'm still dying over his most recent attempts at insulting me.  :lol:

Maybe he'll say your points aren't that good because they're wicked out of tune.

:lulz: I forgot about that. My, but he's a sour one, isn't he, with nary a good word to say about anyone.

Rest assured though, Twid, that his ability to assess musical skills seems to be on par with his ability to assess English skills.

My absolute favorite part was where he gave a link to a perfect pitch test, and he did in fact score higher than me. But Coyote scored higher than both of us and he said he didn't hear one bit of dissonance.

He doesn't have any room to talk, anyway. The live performances on his Youtube channel are proof of that. The only reason I didn't say anything negative about them is because his bandmates are children and I'm not about to make fun of children.

:lulz:

You're one click more... forgiving.... than I am.

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 25, 2014, 03:22:26 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 02:24:03 AM

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 24, 2014, 11:13:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 10:28:44 PM

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 24, 2014, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 09:43:40 PM
I can't wait for Holist to come back and not actually address any points. I'm still dying over his most recent attempts at insulting me.  :lol:

Maybe he'll say your points aren't that good because they're wicked out of tune.

:lulz: I forgot about that. My, but he's a sour one, isn't he, with nary a good word to say about anyone.

Rest assured though, Twid, that his ability to assess musical skills seems to be on par with his ability to assess English skills.

My absolute favorite part was where he gave a link to a perfect pitch test, and he did in fact score higher than me. But Coyote scored higher than both of us and he said he didn't hear one bit of dissonance.

He doesn't have any room to talk, anyway. The live performances on his Youtube channel are proof of that. The only reason I didn't say anything negative about them is because his bandmates are children and I'm not about to make fun of children.

:lulz:

You're one click more... forgiving.... than I am.

I also refrained from inquiring why all his bandmates are children. I'm sure he has a totally legitimate reason.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 03:27:02 AM

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 25, 2014, 03:22:26 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 02:24:03 AM

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 24, 2014, 11:13:56 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 10:28:44 PM

Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 24, 2014, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 09:43:40 PM
I can't wait for Holist to come back and not actually address any points. I'm still dying over his most recent attempts at insulting me.  :lol:

Maybe he'll say your points aren't that good because they're wicked out of tune.

:lulz: I forgot about that. My, but he's a sour one, isn't he, with nary a good word to say about anyone.

Rest assured though, Twid, that his ability to assess musical skills seems to be on par with his ability to assess English skills.

My absolute favorite part was where he gave a link to a perfect pitch test, and he did in fact score higher than me. But Coyote scored higher than both of us and he said he didn't hear one bit of dissonance.

He doesn't have any room to talk, anyway. The live performances on his Youtube channel are proof of that. The only reason I didn't say anything negative about them is because his bandmates are children and I'm not about to make fun of children.

:lulz:

You're one click more... forgiving.... than I am.

I also refrained from inquiring why all his bandmates are children. I'm sure he has a totally legitimate reason.

Well, when you're climbing up a ladder, you gotta start with the bottom rung, right?

Holist is just giving the future successful ones a leg up.

I mean, he'll mercilessly and unfairly mock them for their relative proficiency in the meantime, but what does that matter?

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 08:38:44 PM
I would have to say that it's not so much that he "was shunned" as that he chose to marginalize himself by relentlessly promoting pseudoscience as science. Many scientists have wacky personal views with no harm done to their careers, but insisting that they're science is usually not well-received.

This brings me back to the question Holist refuses to answer; if he wants to be religious, why doesn't he just go ahead and be religious? Why must he insist on distorting science to accommodate his religious views?

But I am religious. Discordian.

Quote from: Dildo Argentino on December 25, 2014, 08:13:02 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 08:38:44 PM
I would have to say that it's not so much that he "was shunned" as that he chose to marginalize himself by relentlessly promoting pseudoscience as science. Many scientists have wacky personal views with no harm done to their careers, but insisting that they're science is usually not well-received.

This brings me back to the question Holist refuses to answer; if he wants to be religious, why doesn't he just go ahead and be religious? Why must he insist on distorting science to accommodate his religious views?

But I am religious. Discordian.

Uh oh. Willing sacrifice to the crazy lady.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 24, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
Yeah, Morphic Resonance.

And by the way, in case you didn't feel like reading that SA article (because you apparently shun source material),

QuoteThird, in 2000 John Colwell of Middlesex University in London conducted a formal test using Sheldrake's experimental protocol. Twelve volunteers participated in 12 sequences of 20 stare or no-stare trials each and received accuracy feedback for the final nine sessions. Results: subjects could detect being stared at only when accuracy feedback was provided, which Colwell attributed to the subjects learning what was, in fact, a nonrandom presentation of the trials. When University of Hertfordshire psychologist Richard Wiseman also attempted to replicate Sheldrake's research, he found that subjects detected stares at rates no better than chance.

So, again, he designed a test, and a scientist conducted it, and found no evidence for morphic fields.

Unlike what you said.

That tested the "people can telepathically detect being stared at hypothesis", though, which is distinct from the morphic resonance one. Thanks for the links.

Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 08:48:52 PM
Sheldrake's response that "skeptics dampen the morphic resonance field" is priceless. OMG. :lulz:

What if... skepticism killed off the unicorns  :horrormirth:

The telepathy described is supposedly a DIRECT RESULT of the morphic fields, though.  Since it didn't work, then IF the morphic fields existed, they'd have to work in a different way.

The fact that Sheldrake didn't bother updating his hypothesis in light of this says volumes.


Incidentally, my autocorrect keeps trying to change "morphic" to "moronic".  Correlation?

Causation. Definitely causation

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1287945120_rainman.jpg)

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 25, 2014, 04:08:23 PM
Causation. Definitely causation

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1287945120_rainman.jpg)

:lulz:

To be honest, i thought morphogenic fields were something Terry Pratchett made up for Discworld, so the last few pages have been quite whimsical for me  :lulz:

it's like coming across someone who thinks Tolkien was European history.

MIDDLE EARTH IS REAL!
     /
:joshua:

Quote from: EL MAESTRO! on December 26, 2014, 06:31:08 AM
To be honest, i thought morphogenic fields were something Terry Pratchett made up for Discworld, so the last few pages have been quite whimsical for me  :lulz:

it's like coming across someone who thinks Tolkien was European history.

YOU BOUGHT INTO THE CONSPIRACY, MAN. ALL OF THIS IS JUST THE ESTABLISHMENT TRYING TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH.