http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-perils-of-skepticism_b_373788.html
:mad: Deepak Chopra can suck my dick!!!!
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 02, 2009, 07:39:29 AM
:mad: Deepak Chopra can suck my dick!!!!
Old Threepack Chopper can fuck off in general.
SKEPTICISM IS BAD BECAUSE IT MEANS INSTEAD OF PASSING ON POLITICAL GOSSIP OR OPINION PIECES YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS LIKE "FACT-CHECK", WHICH LENGTHENS HOW LONG IT TAKES TO WRITE A BLOG POST TO GO UP ON THE WEBSITE AND SO MAKES ARIANNA HUFFINGTON A SAD PANDA
\
:emily:
QuoteToday, no right-thinking physician (or very few) would trace physical illness to sickness of the soul, or accept that the body is a creation of consciousness, or tell a patient to change the expression of his genes.
W. T. F.
Now, I admit, I ommitted the comment about psychosomatics just prior to this statement, and I do believe that psychosomatic and somatopsychic treatments are an important component to medicine overall, but this statement just boggles the mind. Sickness of the soul? Body is a creation of consciousness? TELL A PATIENT TO CHANGE THE EXPRESSION OF HIS GENES?!? A person /can/ talk about psychosomatics in non metaphysical terms, you don't need masking mumbo jumbo. He could have just as easily said, "Today, there are few who would trace physical illness to a psychological problem [which isn't so true, actually], or accept that physical wellness is highly impacted by psychological wellness, or work with a patient psychosomatically in addition to conventional physical treatment." But of course, he didn't, because he's a pseudoscientific douche.
QuoteNo skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others.
WTF?
"Skeptic" doesn't mean what you think it does, Deeprick.
Ugh.
::reads through paragraph 2 of article::
Yes, yes, the horrible lonely truth of the universe WILL make your heart explode. Lovecraft figured that much out.
Quote from: Kai on December 02, 2009, 11:45:13 AM
Sickness of the soul? Body is a creation of consciousness? TELL A PATIENT TO CHANGE THE EXPRESSION OF HIS GENES?!?
:lulz:
I love this shit.
:lulz:
Agreed - this meme has fucking miles in it!
Next rube that asks my advice on anything - I'ma look all wise and tell him/her to do exactly that :evil:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 02, 2009, 04:15:05 PM
Agreed - this meme has fucking miles in it!
Next rube that asks my advice on anything - I'ma look all wise and tell him/her to do exactly that :evil:
Oh, not just the meme, but the pseudoscience nutjobbery that heralds Western civilization sliding back onto the muck.
TGRR,
Tapdancing as it all falls apart.
Yeah, I suppose it does fall into the Sacred Bull category...
"Fuck em. If they are that stupid, they deserve to stay that way." -Generalissimo E. E. Salazar
Give it time, there'll be real laugh if he tries to maisntream the ayurvedic practice of urine drinking
All he needs to do is to piss in Oprah's mouth on live TV, and we'll be gargling with urine by Tuesday.
:lulz: I love you guys
I'd pay to see that.
Not that he's necessarily going into full traditional yoga practices, but it could get REALLY good... (Nigel will get a kick out of this.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhauti_(Hatha_Yoga) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhauti_(Hatha_Yoga))
Edit for link fix
If Oprah bahiskrita dhauti's on live TV....
(http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7239/deeppack.jpg)
in other news, holy damn, WOMPing might in fact be quikcer than using ROFLbot (this being my first proper MS Paint WOMP, ever)
Quote from: Richter on December 02, 2009, 04:40:39 PM
I'd pay to see that.
Not that he's necessarily going into full traditional yoga practices, but it could get REALLY good... (Nigel will get a kick out of this.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhauti_(Hatha_Yoga) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhauti_(Hatha_Yoga))
Edit for link fix
If Oprah bahiskrita dhauti's on live TV....
Chakshu dauti looks like fun too, especially if Oprah provides the "solution" herself.
Of course, she'd just use saltwater, but one can dream...
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 01:15:03 PM
QuoteNo skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others.
WTF?
"Skeptic" doesn't mean what you think it does, Deeprick.
TITCM. The entire article is one giant Strawman argument. He paints everyone that dares to disagree with him as a mean old fuddy-duddy who hates the universe. Skepticism is about witholding belief until evidence is presented. It's not our fault that the only evidence he has is a very deep misunderstanding of quantum physics.
The only response ever needed to Choprawoo:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/my_response_to_chopras_latest.php
QuoteWoo woo woo woo woo Dawkins woo woo. Woo woo woo woo woo materialists don't understand woo woo. Woo woo woo woo Materialists say evolution is random woo woo woo. Woo woo woo anthropic principle. Woo woo woo consciousness woo woo can't be explained by DNA woo woo. Woo woo consciousness all around woo woo. Woo woo universe is conscious. Woo woo woo quantum theory woo woo. Woo woo woo evolution information theory. Woo woo. Woo woo universal consciousness intelligent design. Woo woo woo. Woo woo woo God woo woo field of consciousness woo woo pervades universe woo woo. Woo woo arrogant skeptics woo woo versus dogmatic fundamentalists woo woo. Woo woo Chopra find middle ground in woo. Woo universe experienced through consciousness woo woo consciousness is God woo woo woo.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 02, 2009, 08:22:36 PM
The only response ever needed to Choprawoo:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/my_response_to_chopras_latest.php
QuoteWoo woo woo woo woo Dawkins woo woo. Woo woo woo woo woo materialists don't understand woo woo. Woo woo woo woo Materialists say evolution is random woo woo woo. Woo woo woo anthropic principle. Woo woo woo consciousness woo woo can't be explained by DNA woo woo. Woo woo consciousness all around woo woo. Woo woo universe is conscious. Woo woo woo quantum theory woo woo. Woo woo woo evolution information theory. Woo woo. Woo woo universal consciousness intelligent design. Woo woo woo. Woo woo woo God woo woo field of consciousness woo woo pervades universe woo woo. Woo woo arrogant skeptics woo woo versus dogmatic fundamentalists woo woo. Woo woo Chopra find middle ground in woo. Woo universe experienced through consciousness woo woo consciousness is God woo woo woo.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Richter on December 02, 2009, 04:40:39 PM
I'd pay to see that.
Not that he's necessarily going into full traditional yoga practices, but it could get REALLY good... (Nigel will get a kick out of this.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhauti_(Hatha_Yoga) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhauti_(Hatha_Yoga))
Edit for link fix
If Oprah bahiskrita dhauti's on live TV....
:aaa:
Quoted. Moola shodhana (rectal cleansing)
* Moola shodhana, cleaning the rectum with the middle finger or a turmeric root.
* Bahiskrita dhauti, a very difficult technique, involves pushing the rectum out and washing it in the hands.
i hoped deepak chopra was a bollywood star but he isnt and now im sad :cry:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2009, 04:18:25 PMOh, not just the meme, but the pseudoscience nutjobbery that heralds Western civilization sliding back onto the muck.
And that whole "'Western' science is so fucking complicated and difficult to understand, I'll take some fluffy crap from 'The Mysterious East' instead" thing.
I am polite to such people's faces, and throw screwed up balls of paper at them when they're not looking.
And now for the responses:
Steven Novella: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1327
QuoteWhat this article demonstrates is that Chopra is unequivocally anti-science. That is the reason he attacks skeptics and skepticism. He wants his woo to get a free pass. He wants to be able to speculate wildly, without ever having to justify his claims with logic and evidence. Chopra laments being called "the emperor of woo-woo" – probably because he knows that this emperor has no clothes.
Phil Plait: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/01/deepak-chopra-redefining-wrong/
QuoteAnd then he makes his biggest mistake, one that is all-too-common by people who think skepticism is the same thing as cynicism:
Skeptics know in advance — or think they know — what right thought is.
Bzzzzt! WRONG. We don't know necessarily what the right thought is. But we do know when we see a failure in the process of thinking. And in the case of one Deepak Chopra, that failure is lit up like a neon sign and draped in the open for all to see... if they're willing to think about it.
And Orac: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/12/deepak_chopra_and_his_choprawoo_take_my.php
QuoteAnd there's Chopra's problem. He thinks that questioning the status quo is a good thing, and so it often is. However, he does not understand that just questioning is not enough. Anyone can come up with a half-baked "challenge" to the status quo. I could make up a half dozen challenges to various scientific theories in the next couple of minutes without breaking a sweat. Does that mean my speculations should be taken seriously, particularly if I have no evidence to back them up and little understanding of the issues involved? No! But Chopra engages in nothing but special pleading, apparently thinking that his views and those of woo-meisters like him, should be held to a different standard of evidence and taken seriously because they challenge the status quo. He thinks his pseudoscientific or even unscientific views of medicine and science should be considered on par with science-based medicine and existing science because...well...because he does.
Quote from: Jean-Lustine d'Hadamard on December 03, 2009, 09:53:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2009, 04:18:25 PMOh, not just the meme, but the pseudoscience nutjobbery that heralds Western civilization sliding back onto the muck.
And that whole "'Western' science is so fucking complicated and difficult to understand, I'll take some fluffy crap from 'The Mysterious East' instead" thing.
I am polite to such people's faces, and throw screwed up balls of paper at them when they're not looking.
More succinctly: "I wish to be held up as an expert, but do not wish to do the work required to gain that status."
I am not polite to such peoples' faces.
I wish some of these nutwanks would learn the science, so they can be scientists and mystics at the same time. Barbara McClintock showed that damn well, she was both a mystic and the greatest geneticist of the last century. Ever heard of transgenics? That wouldn't be possible without her discovery of transposable elements. Yet she was very much in awe of life and the universe, and couldn't say where most of her discoveries came from, they just sort of appeared in her mind. She was connected to the universe, and that connection did not require being a muddle brained woo.
Quote from: Kai on December 03, 2009, 11:01:26 PM
I wish some of these nutwanks would learn the science, so they can be scientists and mystics at the same time. Barbara McClintock showed that damn well, she was both a mystic and the greatest geneticist of the last century. Ever heard of transgenics? That wouldn't be possible without her discovery of transposable elements. Yet she was very much in awe of life and the universe, and couldn't say where most of her discoveries came from, they just sort of appeared in her mind. She was connected to the universe, and that connection did not require being a muddle brained woo.
But science is hard work, Kai. It's so much easier to make shit up as you go along. The pay is usually better too.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 03, 2009, 11:12:06 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 03, 2009, 11:01:26 PM
I wish some of these nutwanks would learn the science, so they can be scientists and mystics at the same time. Barbara McClintock showed that damn well, she was both a mystic and the greatest geneticist of the last century. Ever heard of transgenics? That wouldn't be possible without her discovery of transposable elements. Yet she was very much in awe of life and the universe, and couldn't say where most of her discoveries came from, they just sort of appeared in her mind. She was connected to the universe, and that connection did not require being a muddle brained woo.
But science is hard work, Kai. It's so much easier to make shit up as you go along. The pay is usually better too.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IrtPpCgvEH4/Sw8wda92O4I/AAAAAAAABtw/y4hm7M8sRcA/s1600/police2.jpg)
Quote from: Kai on December 03, 2009, 11:30:43 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 03, 2009, 11:12:06 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 03, 2009, 11:01:26 PM
I wish some of these nutwanks would learn the science, so they can be scientists and mystics at the same time. Barbara McClintock showed that damn well, she was both a mystic and the greatest geneticist of the last century. Ever heard of transgenics? That wouldn't be possible without her discovery of transposable elements. Yet she was very much in awe of life and the universe, and couldn't say where most of her discoveries came from, they just sort of appeared in her mind. She was connected to the universe, and that connection did not require being a muddle brained woo.
But science is hard work, Kai. It's so much easier to make shit up as you go along. The pay is usually better too.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IrtPpCgvEH4/Sw8wda92O4I/AAAAAAAABtw/y4hm7M8sRcA/s1600/police2.jpg)
:lulz:
Tree Lobsters is fucking awesome!
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 01:15:03 PM
QuoteNo skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others.
WTF?
"Skeptic" doesn't mean what you think it does, Deeprick.
Seems to mean Richard Dawkins to him. That'd be the guy who founded the science of memetics.
Memetics ain't exactly on clear scientific ground here, lets not kid ourselves.
And besides, Dawkins made a far more massive breakthrough in biology.
Quote from: Cain on December 08, 2009, 08:53:30 PM
Memetics ain't exactly on clear scientific ground here, lets not kid ourselves.
And besides, Dawkins made a far more massive breakthrough in biology.
well yeah, I may have been using the word science a little loosely. I jut think it is funny that Dawkins and Chopra have it in so hard for one another when they are both responsible for a lot of pretty fru fru stuff.
Quote from: Cain on December 08, 2009, 08:53:30 PM
Memetics ain't exactly on clear scientific ground here, lets not kid ourselves.
And besides, Dawkins made a far more massive breakthrough in biology.
Eh....he popularized gene driven evolution for sure, but I wouldn't say he made any significant scientific breakthroughs. I can't recall any writing of his off the top of my head besides the popular nonfiction. He did quite a bit of work with animal behavior in poultry, bees and wasps back in the day (which is probably where he got his ideas on altruism and extended phenotype), but I admit I didn't know that till I checked his CV.
I would also argue that Dawkins does not write as a skeptic... at least not what I have read. He doesn't believe in the supernatural, but that does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.
http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html (http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html)
"Deepak" on the other hand is just "Deepshit" as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 08, 2009, 09:56:45 PMthat does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.
Please explain further...
Quote from: Hoopla on December 08, 2009, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 08, 2009, 09:56:45 PMthat does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.
Please explain further...
The difference lies in being skeptical, or in holding a negative position. While it "Could Be" confirmation bias, without evidence to prove that "It Is"confirmation bias a skeptic would not hold that position. A skeptic shouldn't have conclusions without evidence, neither positive nor negative. Many individuals, however, will conclude in the negative without strong evidence for the positive.
So rather than saying
"I see a flaw in your experiment, variable P also needs controlled before we can determine if this is evidence that supports "
they say
"I see a flaw in your experiment. X is False."
Its a problem that many scientificcally minded people seem to fall into (Royal Society in the 1700's re: meteorites and bats using sonar for example. Or Dawkins debate with Sheldrake).
Quote"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans"
Is not a skeptical statement.
Well, I'm going to post this link again...
From
http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html
:
Quote
Pyrrhonian Skepticism
2004 W. Beaty
I learned a new word!
Pyrrhonian. Pyrrrrhoooooooooooo-nian.
I'm coming to think that my difficulty with Skeptics on JREF, PhACT, SCI.SKEPTIC, etc., is that I am a Pyrrhonian, and most Skeptics are not. Pyrrhonian Skeptics think that all other skeptics are unabashed dogmatists... and see that dogmatism is the worst sin possible for any follower of Reason.
From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Three types of Skepticism:
"Academic" or "Cartesian" Skeptics: followers of Plato's Academy.
Reason is paramount. We cannot know anything about the future, or anything about the contents of someone else's mind, or anything about the past, or anything at all about the "external world."
"Epistemist" Skeptics
We CAN know about the future, we can know about the contents of someone else's mind, or about the past, or about the "external world."
"Pyrrhonian" Skeptics
Inquiry is paramount, and a skeptic is an inquirer. Our position is not doubt or denial or disbelief, but continual inquiry. For example, We do not believe in the reality of a god, but neither do we deny it. Nor do we say that nobody could ever know for certain one way or the other, as agnostics do. Instead we say of god, "I personally do not know at the moment but I am trying to find out."
And like Science in general, Pyrrhonian Skepticism is based on bend-over-backwards honesty, and on tenativeness, neither of which figures largely in other forms of skepticism.
Truzzi's word "Zetectic" is the same as "Pyrrhonian Skeptic."
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED:
More about Pyrrhonian Skepticism: Dr. P. Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/skept.htm
More about Academic Skepticism: Stanford Encyc. of Philos
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
Heh. I think we should add a fourth type: Kurtzian Skepticism.
Old school CSICOP skepticism doesn't seem to fall under any of the above three classifications. Kurtzian Skepticism is more based on a battle between light and darkness, where Skeptics know the truth about religion, about the paranormal, cryptozoology, etc., and they must fight against hoards of credulous people who 'worship' ignorance, and who threaten to bring down civilization and trigger a new dark age.
A Kurtzian Skeptic knows that UFOs are crap. But if a skeptic insists that alien spaceships AREN'T visiting Earth, then that person certainly isn't a Pyrrhonian Skeptic. After all, a portion of the alien encounter reports could be true, yet we'd have little chance of separating them out from a larger number of delusions and fabrications. A Pyrrhonian Skeptic won't deny alien spaceships.
But if a skeptic insists that alien spaceships ARE visiting Earth, then again, that person wouldn't be a Pyrrhonian Skeptic. The evidence for alien visitation is too weak, so we cannot assume that aliens are visiting. (Strong evidence is more along the lines of, say, the existence of cars and computers, or even the existence of the rare Giant Squid. We need a few dead Alien bodies washed up on shore.)
Both sides of the UFO/Paranormal debate seem to hate the Pyrrhonian Skeptics. For example, JREF and online CSICOP people instantly assume that Pyrrhonians are the enemy, and then they leap to attack (after all, Pyrrhonians don't deny Yeti or alien visitation or PSI, so we're obviously on the side of the disgusting "woo-woos.") At the same time, the UFO-believers usually see Pyrrhonians as closed minded debunkers who insist on questioning all their evidence!
:)
On the other hand, most scientists seem to be Pyrrhonians. That's why the typical member of a skeptical organization is NOT a professional scientist. That's why large numbers of scientists do NOT flock to Kurtzian-dominated skeptic organizations (and why Truzzi loudly objected to skeptical disbelief when was CSICOP first was forming, then dropped out in disgust.)
So... we have dogmatists who are sure that we're being visited by aliens, versus dogmatists who are certain that we're not: it appears to me that neither side witholds their belief before studying the evidence (or witholds their disbelief.) Neither side is genuinely curious about whether we're being visited or not. Neither side takes an unprejudiced look at the evidence, since first they'd have to admit that they don't already know the truth.
(The original had bolding/italics, but those are gone. All emphasis here is mine.)
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 08, 2009, 10:39:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 08, 2009, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 08, 2009, 09:56:45 PMthat does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.
Please explain further...
The difference lies in being skeptical, or in holding a negative position. While it "Could Be" confirmation bias, without evidence to prove that "It Is"confirmation bias a skeptic would not hold that position. A skeptic shouldn't have conclusions without evidence, neither positive nor negative. Many individuals, however, will conclude in the negative without strong evidence for the positive.
So rather than saying
"I see a flaw in your experiment, variable P also needs controlled before we can determine if this is evidence that supports "
they say
"I see a flaw in your experiment. X is False."
Its a problem that many scientificcally minded people seem to fall into (Royal Society in the 1700's re: meteorites and bats using sonar for example. Or Dawkins debate with Sheldrake).
Quote"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans"
Is not a skeptical statement.
I see that more as a artifact of being a science educator/populizer. If you use too much e-prime and speculative language while trying to teach science you lose people's attention very quickly. You come off sounding "stuffy", "nerdy", and "academical". People don't like it when you sound like a scientist. They want declarative statements. They want an authoritative voice. They want r-prime, dammit!!!
For what it's worth, Dawkins' language seems to change between his writing and when he does interviews. He uses more e-prime type language when asked if there is a god or aliens. I've heard him several times say that there is a possibility that a god of sometype exists but that it definitely isn't the God of the Bible.
The paranormal is bunk though.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 08, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 08, 2009, 10:39:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 08, 2009, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 08, 2009, 09:56:45 PMthat does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.
Please explain further...
The difference lies in being skeptical, or in holding a negative position. While it "Could Be" confirmation bias, without evidence to prove that "It Is"confirmation bias a skeptic would not hold that position. A skeptic shouldn't have conclusions without evidence, neither positive nor negative. Many individuals, however, will conclude in the negative without strong evidence for the positive.
So rather than saying
"I see a flaw in your experiment, variable P also needs controlled before we can determine if this is evidence that supports "
they say
"I see a flaw in your experiment. X is False."
Its a problem that many scientificcally minded people seem to fall into (Royal Society in the 1700's re: meteorites and bats using sonar for example. Or Dawkins debate with Sheldrake).
Quote"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans"
Is not a skeptical statement.
I see that more as a artifact of being a science educator/populizer. If you use too much e-prime and speculative language while trying to teach science you lose people's attention very quickly. You come off sounding "stuffy", "nerdy", and "academical". People don't like it when you sound like a scientist. They want declarative statements. They want an authoritative voice. They want r-prime, dammit!!!
For what it's worth, Dawkins' language seems to change between his writing and when he does interviews. He uses more e-prime type language when asked if there is a god or aliens. I've heard him several times say that there is a possibility that a god of sometype exists but that it definitely isn't the God of the Bible.
The paranormal is bunk though.
I'd just like to point out that E-Prime does not necessitate a timid, stuffy tone.
That sort of limp wristed approach typifies noobs failure to grapple with "is" properly.
Instead of just translating "to be" elements into "seems," people ought to think of the idea of "is" as an indicator of stagnant thought. An active voice describing
procesess, operations, and agency should emerge from E-Prime rather than surface substitutions.
Reconstruct how you formulate your thoughts and sentences, or GTFO of E-Prime.
Well, I knew fuck-all about Deepak Chopra before I read this thread, except for the fact that his books are all over the Spirituality section of chain bookstores. Nice to know I shouldn't waste my time with his stuff.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on December 08, 2009, 11:58:20 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 08, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 08, 2009, 10:39:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 08, 2009, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 08, 2009, 09:56:45 PMthat does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.
Please explain further...
The difference lies in being skeptical, or in holding a negative position. While it "Could Be" confirmation bias, without evidence to prove that "It Is"confirmation bias a skeptic would not hold that position. A skeptic shouldn't have conclusions without evidence, neither positive nor negative. Many individuals, however, will conclude in the negative without strong evidence for the positive.
So rather than saying
"I see a flaw in your experiment, variable P also needs controlled before we can determine if this is evidence that supports "
they say
"I see a flaw in your experiment. X is False."
Its a problem that many scientificcally minded people seem to fall into (Royal Society in the 1700's re: meteorites and bats using sonar for example. Or Dawkins debate with Sheldrake).
Quote"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans"
Is not a skeptical statement.
I see that more as a artifact of being a science educator/populizer. If you use too much e-prime and speculative language while trying to teach science you lose people's attention very quickly. You come off sounding "stuffy", "nerdy", and "academical". People don't like it when you sound like a scientist. They want declarative statements. They want an authoritative voice. They want r-prime, dammit!!!
For what it's worth, Dawkins' language seems to change between his writing and when he does interviews. He uses more e-prime type language when asked if there is a god or aliens. I've heard him several times say that there is a possibility that a god of sometype exists but that it definitely isn't the God of the Bible.
The paranormal is bunk though.
I'd just like to point out that E-Prime does not necessitate a timid, stuffy tone.
That sort of limp wristed approach typifies noobs failure to grapple with "is" properly.
Instead of just translating "to be" elements into "seems," people ought to think of the idea of "is" as an indicator of stagnant thought. An active voice describing procesess, operations, and agency should emerge from E-Prime rather than surface substitutions.
Reconstruct how you formulate your thoughts and sentences, or GTFO of E-Prime.
Nothing in the phrase, "Fuck You," violates E-Prime. At least one paper on the topic used that very example.
Doesn't mean e-prime doesn't multiply stupidity. Educate or immolate.
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 09, 2009, 12:06:51 AM
Nothing in the phrase, "Fuck You," violates E-Prime. At least one paper on the topic used that very example.
Doesn't mean e-prime doesn't multiply stupidity. Educate or immolate.
Word.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 08, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
The paranormal is bunk though.
Joke statement, or actual opinion?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on December 08, 2009, 11:58:20 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 08, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 08, 2009, 10:39:08 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 08, 2009, 10:03:24 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 08, 2009, 09:56:45 PMthat does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.
Please explain further...
The difference lies in being skeptical, or in holding a negative position. While it "Could Be" confirmation bias, without evidence to prove that "It Is"confirmation bias a skeptic would not hold that position. A skeptic shouldn't have conclusions without evidence, neither positive nor negative. Many individuals, however, will conclude in the negative without strong evidence for the positive.
So rather than saying
"I see a flaw in your experiment, variable P also needs controlled before we can determine if this is evidence that supports "
they say
"I see a flaw in your experiment. X is False."
Its a problem that many scientificcally minded people seem to fall into (Royal Society in the 1700's re: meteorites and bats using sonar for example. Or Dawkins debate with Sheldrake).
Quote"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans"
Is not a skeptical statement.
I see that more as a artifact of being a science educator/populizer. If you use too much e-prime and speculative language while trying to teach science you lose people's attention very quickly. You come off sounding "stuffy", "nerdy", and "academical". People don't like it when you sound like a scientist. They want declarative statements. They want an authoritative voice. They want r-prime, dammit!!!
For what it's worth, Dawkins' language seems to change between his writing and when he does interviews. He uses more e-prime type language when asked if there is a god or aliens. I've heard him several times say that there is a possibility that a god of sometype exists but that it definitely isn't the God of the Bible.
The paranormal is bunk though.
I'd just like to point out that E-Prime does not necessitate a timid, stuffy tone.
That sort of limp wristed approach typifies noobs failure to grapple with "is" properly.
Instead of just translating "to be" elements into "seems," people ought to think of the idea of "is" as an indicator of stagnant thought. An active voice describing procesess, operations, and agency should emerge from E-Prime rather than surface substitutions.
Reconstruct how you formulate your thoughts and sentences, or GTFO of E-Prime.
I like where you're going with this, but I'm not certain I understand fully. Would you mind expanding some?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 09, 2009, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 08, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
The paranormal is bunk though.
Joke statement, or actual opinion?
Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.
I think its fair to speculate, as long as you admit that that is what it is, and nothing more.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 09, 2009, 01:34:56 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 09, 2009, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 08, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
The paranormal is bunk though.
Joke statement, or actual opinion?
Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.
I can explain it.
Quote from: Kai on December 09, 2009, 02:00:05 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 09, 2009, 01:34:56 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 09, 2009, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 08, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
The paranormal is bunk though.
Joke statement, or actual opinion?
Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.
I can explain it.
Where are you going with this?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on December 08, 2009, 11:58:20 PM
I'd just like to point out that E-Prime does not necessitate a timid, stuffy tone.
That sort of limp wristed approach typifies noobs failure to grapple with "is" properly.
Instead of just translating "to be" elements into "seems," people ought to think of the idea of "is" as an indicator of stagnant thought. An active voice describing procesess, operations, and agency should emerge from E-Prime rather than surface substitutions.
Reconstruct how you formulate your thoughts and sentences, or GTFO of E-Prime.
This. Motherfucking loads of this. One can and should use R-prime and E-prime together (compare the previous to, "
R-prime and E-prime are compatible"... really, "
are" they? Only if you use your brain hard enough, monkey.)
Excessive use of
IS makes the person come off as passive, submissive, limp, and buffeted by the forces of the world (and remember how language structures our thought patterns). It indicates a passive acceptance of the authority of language and those who have rammed that language down your throats. It indicates that one thinks that the words used actually identify concrete, unchanging
things. Fuck that. All 'things' exists as transitory processes in some form of flux. We call 'it' a 'chair' when we sit on it, or think about sitting on it, or consider its purpose as "something to sit on". Should we really call it a 'chair' when we have set it afire? When we stand upon it to rant at the passers-by? When we hurl it across the bar to settle a silly philosophical argument? Really? Does the word 'chair' capture any of the set and setting of those situations? Then why use that word..... because you've been conditioned to. Conditioned to think of the world as 'things' isolated from each other that interact in limited or obvious ways. Bullshit.
Before E-prime, these concepts found crude expression in such esotericisms as:
All
is Transitory (maya, illusion).
and
Nothing
is True, All
is Permissible.
But these remain crude translations into English by those who have not quite grasped the seed of this knowledge. For better allusions, look into good translations of Rumi (Sufi mystic), Oscar Wilde, and Ezra Pound.
I have underlined every use of "
to be" in my reply. I haven't used the word 'seem' at all. Go back and look at the passive/active quality of the sentences.
Do you see how much THEY have used language to brainwash you? Now fuck off and practice what you've learned.
Or Kill Me.
(p.s. +5 tons of flax for bringing up Pyrrhonian /Zetetic/ Skepticism )
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 09, 2009, 02:18:57 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 09, 2009, 02:00:05 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 09, 2009, 01:34:56 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 09, 2009, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 08, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
The paranormal is bunk though.
Joke statement, or actual opinion?
Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.
I can explain it.
Where are you going with this?
What do you mean? I just want to share the joy I have of Jesus my savior with you all. Life is so much better when you let Him your God lead the way.
Quote from: Kai on December 09, 2009, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 09, 2009, 02:18:57 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 09, 2009, 02:00:05 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 09, 2009, 01:34:56 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 09, 2009, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 08, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
The paranormal is bunk though.
Joke statement, or actual opinion?
Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.
I can explain it.
Where are you going with this?
What do you mean? I just want to share the joy I have of Jesus my savior with you all. Life is so much better when you let Him your God lead the way.
I'm dissappointed.
Quote from: Kai on December 09, 2009, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 09, 2009, 02:18:57 AM
Quote from: Kai on December 09, 2009, 02:00:05 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 09, 2009, 01:34:56 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 09, 2009, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 08, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
The paranormal is bunk though.
Joke statement, or actual opinion?
Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.
I can explain it.
Where are you going with this?
What do you mean? I just want to share the joy I have of Jesus my savior with you all. Life is so much better when you let Him your God lead the way.
OUTTA NOWHERE, DA LEFT HOOK!
Also, I think I'm starting to have trouble with the word "paranormal". To me, there are a few categories that this word covers, which can be incompatible with each other:
1) Things that science has not explained yet (i.e. more data is needed).
2) Things that science has not
explored yet (i.e. no one has done the research).
3) Things that science will never be able to explain (e.g. the existence of god; so-called "scientifically meaningless" questions).
4) Things that
have scientific explanations, yet are not accepted by "believers" (e.g. Madjyeek, et al).
All of the above are valid, yet it looks to me like a lot of people mix up which term they're using, and then stubbornly shut down. Furthermore, many tend to talk about points one and two in terms of, "Science will never be able to figure this out," rather than, "Science hasn't figured this out yet."
I'm happy to talk about The Weird Shit. I'm even happy to talk about ways to possibly manipulate The Weird Shit. I just have problems when people think they "
know" what The Weird Shit is, without evidence or proof.
Word.
Hrmmm... well that went in a different direction than I thought it would.
I do note that my examples were e-primish, but that wasn't the point.
The position of a skeptic is an agnostic position (not just sometimes agnostic). If the skeptic requires evidence in support of an explanation of phenomenon X which sounds like woojoo, they should also require evidence to accept the mundane explanation of phenomenon X. Taking the negative position is not skepticism.
So if Mr. Teaparty says "I don't accept your evidence of anthropomorphic global warming, its obviously from the sun spot activity." He isn't being a skeptic... he's being skeptical about one claaim, but then simply accept what appears to him as the more rational claim. A skeptic should accept no claim without evidence.
Recently, one of the MLA courses focused on Rupert Sheldrake and his theories about Morphogenetic fields. Personally, based on my review of the material and the experiments etc. I remain unconvinced. However, Sheldrake has done experiments, he has followed the scientific method and he has published his work so that other people can repeat the experiment. When he was asked to debate the topic with Dawkins though, there wasn't a discussion of the experiments and evidence. Dawkins holds the belief that Sheldrake is wrong... even though Sheldrake claims to have evidence, Dawkins said something along the lines of "I'm not interested in your evidence".* He said the purpose of the videotaped interview was to debunk Sheldrake.
Now, I am not saying that Sheldrake shouldn't be debunked... I'm not saying that its bad to be a White Knight in Science... but I am saying that such a position is not the position of a skeptic.
*Obviously I wasn't there so who knows how precise this is...
At the same time, there are still plenty of experiments going around that "prove" the earth is flat.
There has to be some point at which you can say, "enough already".
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 03:37:40 PM
At the same time, there are still plenty of experiments going around that "prove" the earth is flat.
Think about all the perfectly rational phenomena that were dumped on by the scientific community for years... decades... centuries. For example, in the 1700's there was a theory that bats used some kind of hearing to perceive the area around them. This was a guy named Lazzaro. He noted that bats could fly in the dark, and he even did experiments where he stopped up bat ears with wax and documented how they collided with objects versus the bats he blinded which still flew just fine. He was ridiculed, his work was rejected and sonar stayed undiscovered for another century or so.
Evidence is key.
Quote
There has to be some point at which you can say, "enough already".
Sure... that point is called evidence... Do you have evidence collected through an objective, repeatable process? Yes, cool show me. No, sorry thats the line you gotta cross so... STFU Flat Earther".
If we say "Enough Already" then we fall victim to the same flaws of the past, thinking that what we "know" now... or that our current models are True... rather than our current best guess.
After all, if the holographic universe theory ever gets some real evidence from experiments, round earthers and flat earhers would both be wrong.... :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 03:37:40 PM
At the same time, there are still plenty of experiments going around that "prove" the earth is flat.
Well, yes. Because it is. I can prove this conclusively, in one short paragraph.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 09, 2009, 03:49:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 03:37:40 PM
At the same time, there are still plenty of experiments going around that "prove" the earth is flat.
Think about all the perfectly rational phenomena that were dumped on by the scientific community for years... decades... centuries. For example, in the 1700's there was a theory that bats used some kind of hearing to perceive the area around them. This was a guy named Lazzaro. He noted that bats could fly in the dark, and he even did experiments where he stopped up bat ears with wax and documented how they collided with objects versus the bats he blinded which still flew just fine. He was ridiculed, his work was rejected and sonar stayed undiscovered for another century or so.
Evidence is key.
Quote
There has to be some point at which you can say, "enough already".
Sure... that point is called evidence... Do you have evidence collected through an objective, repeatable process? Yes, cool show me. No, sorry thats the line you gotta cross so... STFU Flat Earther".
If we say "Enough Already" then we fall victim to the same flaws of the past, thinking that what we "know" now... or that our current models are True... rather than our current best guess.
After all, if the holographic universe theory ever gets some real evidence from experiments, round earthers and flat earhers would both be wrong.... :lulz:
So, you agree with the Birthers, then. Good to know.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 02, 2009, 07:39:29 AM
:mad: Deepak Chopra can suck my dick!!!!
Chopra has to support anti-skepticism.
Trust me I've actually read one of his books. It's like reading The Secret without all the promises of wealth. And he's an ID supporter. If people we're more skeptical he'd be out of business.
Everyone KNOWS the Earth is NOT flat; it's spherical.
And, hollow.
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 04:00:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 09, 2009, 03:49:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 03:37:40 PM
At the same time, there are still plenty of experiments going around that "prove" the earth is flat.
Think about all the perfectly rational phenomena that were dumped on by the scientific community for years... decades... centuries. For example, in the 1700's there was a theory that bats used some kind of hearing to perceive the area around them. This was a guy named Lazzaro. He noted that bats could fly in the dark, and he even did experiments where he stopped up bat ears with wax and documented how they collided with objects versus the bats he blinded which still flew just fine. He was ridiculed, his work was rejected and sonar stayed undiscovered for another century or so.
Evidence is key.
Quote
There has to be some point at which you can say, "enough already".
Sure... that point is called evidence... Do you have evidence collected through an objective, repeatable process? Yes, cool show me. No, sorry thats the line you gotta cross so... STFU Flat Earther".
If we say "Enough Already" then we fall victim to the same flaws of the past, thinking that what we "know" now... or that our current models are True... rather than our current best guess.
After all, if the holographic universe theory ever gets some real evidence from experiments, round earthers and flat earhers would both be wrong.... :lulz:
So, you agree with the Birthers, then. Good to know.
No, the Birthers would be another example of pseudoskeptics. There is no evidence to support their position, but they claim to be
skeptical of Obama's legitimacy. There
is evidence (official legal documents) which supports the position that our President is an American.
Skeptics simply need to weigh the evidence: Strong Evidence For vs. No Evidence Against
Pretty simple.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 09, 2009, 04:05:14 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 02, 2009, 07:39:29 AM
:mad: Deepak Chopra can suck my dick!!!!
Chopra has to support anti-skepticism.
Trust me I've actually read one of his books. It's like reading The Secret without all the promises of wealth. And he's an ID supporter. If people we're more skeptical he'd be out of business.
Snerk, troof there!
Quote from: Hoopla on December 09, 2009, 04:07:20 PM
Everyone KNOWS the Earth is NOT flat; it's spherical.
And, hollow.
FLAT. I have proof.
ETA: I even know where the edge is.
Ok, ok.
Do tell, Roger.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2009, 04:36:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 09, 2009, 04:07:20 PM
Everyone KNOWS the Earth is NOT flat; it's spherical.
And, hollow.
FLAT. I have proof.
ETA: I even know where the edge is.
Arizona, eh? I always suspected.
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 04:37:57 PM
Ok, ok.
Do tell, Roger.
The edge of the world is about 3 miles outside of the Tucson City limits. When people leave town, they fall off, because they never, ever come back.
QED.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2009, 04:44:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 04:37:57 PM
Ok, ok.
Do tell, Roger.
The edge of the world is about 3 miles outside of the Tucson City limits. When people leave town, they fall off, because they never, ever come back.
QED.
Hm. NO one gave them a Leonides-type push off the edge, hm?
Jenne, suspects otherwise.
Quote from: Jenne on December 09, 2009, 04:49:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2009, 04:44:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 04:37:57 PM
Ok, ok.
Do tell, Roger.
The edge of the world is about 3 miles outside of the Tucson City limits. When people leave town, they fall off, because they never, ever come back.
QED.
Hm. NO one gave them a Leonides-type push off the edge, hm?
Jenne, suspects otherwise.
THEY GO 90 MILES AN HOUR TO THE CITY LIMIT SIGN PUT THE PEDAL TO THE METAL BEFORE THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2009, 04:50:45 PM
THEY GO 90 MILES AN HOUR TO THE CITY LIMIT SIGN PUT THE PEDAL TO THE METAL BEFORE THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND.
This seems like a possible case of plausible deniability to me.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable application of physics.
You're totally ignoring the Roger EffectTM, LMNO.
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 04:53:45 PM
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable application of physics.
I can only judge based on the data I observe.
Actually the world's edge is in Thunder Bay
I know this cause every weekend we toss off virgins as a sacrifice to Charles Kenneth Johnson
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2009, 04:50:45 PM
THEY GO 90 MILES AN HOUR TO THE CITY LIMIT SIGN PUT THE PEDAL TO THE METAL BEFORE THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND.
I never thought I would see the day when we'd have a Hal Ketchum reference here. Well done, Roger.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 09, 2009, 05:59:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2009, 04:50:45 PM
THEY GO 90 MILES AN HOUR TO THE CITY LIMIT SIGN PUT THE PEDAL TO THE METAL BEFORE THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND.
I never thought I would see the day when we'd have a Hal Ketchum reference here. Well done, Roger.
Woot! I was betting someone would catch that.
Semi-re-jacking fread.
LMNO, I think "paranormal" should apply to numbers 1 and 2 of your list, because both of those sort of work together (being different degrees of the same idea) and I'm one of those freakish people who thinks everything can be explained with enough science, even people who take Glenn Beck seriously.
Science cannot answer things which are not scientific.
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 04:57:09 PM
Science cannot answer things which are not scientific.
What's not scientific? The universe is composed of "stuff". Stuff can be observed. And it better NOT FUCKING CHANGE when we observe it, or I'm filing a complaint.
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 04:57:09 PM
Science cannot answer things which are not scientific.
You sure? I heard of this scientific field of study called abnormal psychology. I think that covers everything that isn't already covered by other science.
Quote from: Cait M. R. on December 10, 2009, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 04:57:09 PM
Science cannot answer things which are not scientific.
You sure? I heard of this scientific field of study called abnormal psychology. I think that covers everything that isn't already covered by other science.
I think what he means (and I may very well be wrong) is that science can't assess metaphysical questions because A) science relies on physical evidence, ie that which can be detected by our (augmented) senses B) science requires repeatable repeatable evidence and C) only falsifiable hypotheses are scientifically meaningful.
Quote from: Kai on December 10, 2009, 05:28:40 PM
Quote from: Cait M. R. on December 10, 2009, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 04:57:09 PM
Science cannot answer things which are not scientific.
You sure? I heard of this scientific field of study called abnormal psychology. I think that covers everything that isn't already covered by other science.
I think what he means (and I may very well be wrong) is that science can't assess metaphysical questions because A) science relies on physical evidence, ie that which can be detected by our (augmented) senses B) science requires repeatable repeatable evidence and C) only falsifiable hypotheses are scientifically meaningful.
There's this word that concisely sums up my opinion of metaphysics.
"Sharkdongs."
Quote from: Kai on December 10, 2009, 05:28:40 PM
Quote from: Cait M. R. on December 10, 2009, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 04:57:09 PM
Science cannot answer things which are not scientific.
You sure? I heard of this scientific field of study called abnormal psychology. I think that covers everything that isn't already covered by other science.
I think what he means (and I may very well be wrong) is that science can't assess metaphysical questions because A) science relies on physical evidence, ie that which can be detected by our (augmented) senses B) science requires repeatable repeatable evidence and C) only falsifiable hypotheses are scientifically meaningful.
If it's not falsifiable, it's not a hypothesis, it's religion.
Can you scientifically prove "green is pretty"?
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 05:58:32 PM
Can you scientifically prove "green is pretty"?
No, but you can scientifically prove that anyone who tries to put that forth as a fact instead of an opinion is a dumbass.
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 05:58:32 PM
Can you scientifically prove "green is pretty"?
Yep. Jam probes into people's pleasure centers, and then show them different colors.
It's hard on the test subjects, of course, but we do this shit for science.
The second part is important because it leads to a scientific proof that no colors are pretty.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 10, 2009, 06:01:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 05:58:32 PM
Can you scientifically prove "green is pretty"?
Yep. Jam probes into people's pleasure centers, and then show them different colors.
It's hard on the test subjects, of course, but we do this shit for science.
QED, my ass.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 10, 2009, 06:01:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 05:58:32 PM
Can you scientifically prove "green is pretty"?
Yep. Jam probes into people's pleasure centers, and then show them different colors.
It's hard on the test subjects, of course, but we do this shit for science.
You could also set out a waiting room in identical chairs, painted different colours and see which ones most people sat in but I like your method better.
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 05:58:32 PM
Can you scientifically prove "green is pretty"?
Scientifically prove what the word "pretty" means and the problem becomes trivial.
:roflcake:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 10, 2009, 06:10:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 05:58:32 PM
Can you scientifically prove "green is pretty"?
Scientifically prove what the word "pretty" means and the problem becomes trivial.
:roflcake:
Nice dodge. :wink:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 10, 2009, 06:06:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 10, 2009, 06:01:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 05:58:32 PM
Can you scientifically prove "green is pretty"?
Yep. Jam probes into people's pleasure centers, and then show them different colors.
It's hard on the test subjects, of course, but we do this shit for science.
You could also set out a waiting room in identical chairs, painted different colours and see which ones most people sat in but I like your method better.
We'll need hammers, of course.
Chopra decided to tell us again that Western science is doooooomed...
http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/dec/28/western-science-is-frozen-says-deepak-chopra.htm
QuoteThe essential nature of the material world is not material; the essential nature of the physical world is not physical; the essential stuff of the universe is non-stuff.
Western science is still frozen in an obsolete, Newtonian worldview that is based literally on superstition -- and we can call it the superstition of materialism -- which says you and I are physical entities of the physical universe.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding that perception is in the brain. It's not in the brain; perception is in consciousness. All our thoughts are in consciousness, all our imagination is in consciousness, all our cognition is in consciousness. Everything that we call reality is in consciousness. Everything! There's nothing outside consciousness. And no one can find this consciousness. And the reason they can't find consciousness is because they are looking in the wrong place.
Past, present and future are actually one phenomenon, one picture, one reality, one consciousness.
Every cell instantly knows what is happening in every other cell, in fact, in the whole universe.
BTW, he said all of this at an astrology conference! :lulz:
Deepak Chopra: like getting high and talking about "deep stuff, man" with your mates, only without the fun of getting high.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 02, 2010, 11:07:49 PM
Chopra decided to tell us again that Western science is doooooomed...
http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/dec/28/western-science-is-frozen-says-deepak-chopra.htm
QuoteThe essential nature of the material world is not material; the essential nature of the physical world is not physical; the essential stuff of the universe is non-stuff.
Western science is still frozen in an obsolete, Newtonian worldview that is based literally on superstition -- and we can call it the superstition of materialism -- which says you and I are physical entities of the physical universe.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding that perception is in the brain. It's not in the brain; perception is in consciousness. All our thoughts are in consciousness, all our imagination is in consciousness, all our cognition is in consciousness. Everything that we call reality is in consciousness. Everything! There's nothing outside consciousness. And no one can find this consciousness. And the reason they can't find consciousness is because they are looking in the wrong place.
Past, present and future are actually one phenomenon, one picture, one reality, one consciousness.
Every cell instantly knows what is happening in every other cell, in fact, in the whole universe.
BTW, he said all of this at an astrology conference! :lulz:
I don't know, that materialism has brought about the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the computer revolution, and all the technology that came along with. It's done pretty good at describing the universe too, certainly better than ASTROLOGY.
I think the real reason he despises science is because the more people learn about the universe, the harder it is for him to peddle whatever brand of woo strikes his momentary fancy. The universe is fantastic without the woo. In the words of Tim Minchin, "Isn't this world enough?"
Quote from: Kai on January 03, 2010, 02:58:13 AM
I think the real reason he despises science is because the more people learn about the universe, the harder it is for him to peddle whatever brand of woo strikes his momentary fancy.
:lulz:
You said it, man.
If I hear one more misconstrual of quantum theory used to justify the doctrine that reality is silly putty in the hand of your mind, so help me, I'll... :argh!:
Quote from: Kai on January 03, 2010, 02:58:13 AMI think the real reason he despises science is because the more people learn about the universe, the harder it is for him to peddle whatever brand of woo strikes his momentary fancy.
David Icke is currently taking a slightly different approach it seems. He's blaming the left hemisphere of the brain for our part in aiding and abetting the conspiracy, by way of creating meaningful structure out of our perception. :lulz:
He also uses Jill Bolte Taylor's description of her experience with temporary loss of function in that hemisphere from a stroke, to illustrate that brain damage is amazing, or something.
Man, Chopra doesn't know what he's missing out on. Goldmine.
Quote from: Xooxe on January 03, 2010, 03:37:09 AM
Quote from: Kai on January 03, 2010, 02:58:13 AMI think the real reason he despises science is because the more people learn about the universe, the harder it is for him to peddle whatever brand of woo strikes his momentary fancy.
David Icke is currently taking a slightly different approach it seems. He's blaming the left hemisphere of the brain for our part in aiding and abetting the conspiracy, by way of creating meaningful structure out of our perception. :lulz:
He also uses Jill Bolte Taylor's description of her experience with temporary loss of function in that hemisphere from a stroke, to illustrate that brain damage is amazing, or something.
Man, Chopra doesn't know what he's missing out on. Goldmine.
It really SUCKS that Icke is taking Taylor's, IMO, amazing speech about first hand experience with what happens when your reality filters malfuction and turning it into bullshit. :x
Icke is all about absorbing anything and everything that goes against the mainstream. If academics seem to be using a hemisphere, he's going to do his damnedest to try and illustrate that it needs purging.
Fuck, I'm sure he's been reading RAW or something, too. If he starts publicly talking about discordia any time soon, then maybe it's time to infiltrate and break things.
QuoteEvery cell instantly knows what is happening in every other cell, in fact, in the whole universe.
:lol: That's my favourite bit.
The entirety of life on Earth is going to be so pissed when it finds out that it wasted millions of years developing complex protein signaling mechanisms for nothing.