http://bitterlybooks.blogspot.com/2009/07/communicating-with-orcas-reproductive.html
QuoteThis book was written by: Mary J. Getten, who interviewed a number of whales with the help of her friend, Raphaela. Raphaela and Ms. Getten communicate with the whales telepathically, which is not unusual because "all humans are born with this ability, but in the 'civilized' world we have lost these skills through socialization"(p.35). Statements made by the whales are in italics, and Getten notes that "everything in this book is true," even though "I have taken some liberties with the order of these conversations, and who said what to whom, but the words remain intact"(p.ix). It's just like the time I told a police officer that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct, and he called me a stinking fascist and screamed at me to waddle my filthy pig ass back to the donut shop.
:horrormirth:
Hello Mr Orca, how was your trip here? Is the couch comfortable? So, tell me about yourself.
:mind ray:
QuoteBefore reading this book, I would never have entertained the idea that communication with a whale or any other animal for that matter could indeed be possible. One has to be able to accept that things do exist that are not readily proven or explained by Newtonian scientific theories.
That whole "Science can't answer everything therefore my retarded delusions should be given equal weight" bullshit is so overdue for its own Law, along the lines of Godwin.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 07, 2009, 04:58:25 PM
QuoteBefore reading this book, I would never have entertained the idea that communication with a whale or any other animal for that matter could indeed be possible. One has to be able to accept that things do exist that are not readily proven or explained by Newtonian scientific theories.
That whole "Science can't answer everything therefore my retarded delusions should be given equal weight" bullshit is so overdue for its own Law, along the lines of Godwin.
Way ahead of you: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/12/the_appeal_to_s.html
QuoteThe statement "science doesn't know everything" is obviously true. The believer thinks the corollary is that any idea he likes the sound of, that cannot be proven false, is worthy of consideration. This is wrong. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true. Usually that means some evidence.
If you don't restrict yourself to things that are backed by some evidence, or if there is at least some logical reason to suppose they might be true, you will believe in absolutely anything. And I have this really great bridge to sell you.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo
QuoteScience knows that it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it'd stop.
Nice video :-)
I'm not disputing that this issue has been addressed in the past, just not very successfully, otherwise it'd be the one default response to such stupidity.
Along the lines of the success Mike Godwin had:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if.html
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 07, 2009, 05:40:30 PM
Nice video :-)
I'm not disputing that this issue has been addressed in the past, just not very successfully, otherwise it'd be the one default response to such stupidity.
Along the lines of the success Mike Godwin had:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if.html
I never realized that "Godwin's Law" was an intentional act. Hmm, this will have to be considered in O:MF more thoroughly.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 07, 2009, 05:40:30 PM
Nice video :-)
I'm not disputing that this issue has been addressed in the past, just not very successfully, otherwise it'd be the one default response to such stupidity.
Along the lines of the success Mike Godwin had:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if.html
Step 1: Give it a snazzy name.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit
We should probably figure out a way to counteract the "Science was wrong before, therefore it is wrong now" meme at the same time. Those two always seem to go hand-in-hand.
I thought the name was "God of the Gaps"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Quote from: Cain on September 07, 2009, 07:05:39 PM
I thought the name was "God of the Gaps"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Ha! Neat - I hadn't come across that before. It seems to appeal much more to the sceptical-mind though.
My first thought was somewhere along the lines of Godwins Third Law - "For every delusion, there exists at least one internet forum which supports it"
Both the OP and the conversation that mutated out of it in this thread are fucking great.
Quote from: Cain on September 07, 2009, 07:05:39 PM
I thought the name was "God of the Gaps"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
D'oh. Can't believe that I missed that. I think it's because most New Agers appeal to a general supernatural cause other than calling up a deity. You could also say that it is an argument from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Quote from: Nigel on September 08, 2009, 12:38:08 AM
Both the OP and the conversation that mutated out of it in this thread are fucking great.
:thanks: That's why I love this place so much. We can go from whale penises to "name that logical fallacy" in less than one page.
Church of the Whale Penis: http://whalepenis.org/ (http://whalepenis.org/)
(http://whalepenis.org/images/whalepenis.jpg)
I think this has the makings of a horrormirth entry.