You'll come for the moranic ignorance and logical fallacy of the article, you'll stay for the epic pwnage in the comments.

beve: You'll come for the moranic ignorance and logical fallacy of the article, you'll stay for the epic pwnage in the comments.

Favorite so far:

Between this article and the anti-atheist one I can only assume the new agenda is a return the dark ages where scientists can be burned like the witches they are.

- Ben, Winford, Cheshire, 03/11/2009 15:09

shouldn't that be "facts"

This is totally Nutts.

The trouble with beauty of a scientific argument is that it relies solely on empirical facts

FTFReality

She Godwinned herself.

Nicely done, moron.

I almost gave myself a nosebleed I facepalmed so hard.

Wow that is just fail all around. This was written in a way that just screams satire, some of the leaps are giant. The whole thing is a pile of crap.

Daily Fail strikes again.

What's science ever done for us? Science is like a blabbermouth who tells you how the movie ends. Well I say there's some things we don't want to know - important things!

beve: You'll come for the moranic ignorance and logical fallacy of the article, you'll stay for the epic pwnage in the comments.

Subby here, that's exactly why I had to share the article with Farkers, some of those comments are gold, in fact pretty much all of them are! :-)

"Try saying that ecstasy is safe in the sink estates of our big cities, where police, social workers and teachers work to improve the lives of young people at the bottom of the heap. Try saying it to those who see, every single day, the devastation wrought not only on the youngsters themselves, but on whole communities by the casual abuse of drugs."

WOW! What utter foolishness. Because a drug causes problems for youth who abuse it, the drug should be illegal for adults to use? Well the same could be said about alcohol and tobacco. Nobody is advocating to make drugs legal for children. Nice straw man, jackasses.

Science's reliance upon "Empirical Facts" is exactly the reason I trust none of it.

I'm an American, and as such am against empires, be they Roman, Soviet, British... Science should have no truck with empires, no matter how much the empire's facts fit their agenda.

As, Pat Buchanan said, America is a "Republic, not an empire." That's why I trust only Republican facts, not Empirical.

Oh I forgot to add, 5 minutes before I submitted the article it actually had a picture of Hitler in it as well! :D

Leaps of logic, truthiness, and a Godwin to boot? This one has it all!

A++!!! WOULD FACEPALM AGAIN!

I agree with the decision to fire this smartass scientist. The thing about scientists is they are talking about things they study like it's going to be the end-all, be-all answer to everything. Science is always changing and is rarely right. Why should we believe anything that comes from their studies when common sense says something completely opposite? Like global warming, it's fall, it's cold, theory denied.

lettuce99: Science's reliance upon "Empirical Facts" is exactly the reason I trust none of it.

I'm an American, and as such am against empires, be they Roman, Soviet, British... Science should have no truck with empires, no matter how much the empire's facts fit their agenda.

As, Pat Buchanan said, America is a "Republic, not an empire." That's why I trust only Republican facts, not Empirical.

I see no flaws in your logic

Are you sure Colbert didn't write this, Subby?

Good heavens, what in the world would happen if we actually checked actual data before making laws rather than relying on the 'common sense' of the legislators.

A friend who's a software programmer says that all laws should be beta-tested. It's not a perfect technique for weeding out crap but at least it's a step.

And if we forced lawmakers to prove empirically that their work was valuable, the discussion over P-values would be more enlightening than the discussion of "family values", whatever the hell those are.

ftfa:Think of the hoo-ha

Okay, fine. I will.

whourrgarbble.

you know who believed in science?



/hot like atomic energy
//read about 2 paragraphs, skimmed till i saw nazis... and loled

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

The scientific research started off boring and slow with Professor David Nutt trying to bullshiat everyone with a bunch of smart talk: 'Blah blah blah. You gotta believe me!' That part of the speech sucked! But then A N Wilson just went off. He said, 'Man, whatever! The guy's wrong as shiat! We all know that.' And he sentenced his ass to one night of bad press.

FTFA:It is one thing to argue Professor Nutt's case in a university common room or over a Hampstead dining table, [...]

What the author did there... I see it.

lettuce99: Science's reliance upon "Empirical Facts" is exactly the reason I trust none of it.

I'm an American, and as such am against empires, be they Roman, Soviet, British... Science should have no truck with empires, no matter how much the empire's facts fit their agenda.

As, Pat Buchanan said, America is a "Republic, not an empire." That's why I trust only Republican facts, not Empirical.

7

I'm not even facepalming anymore. I'm actively punching myself in the face. I'm like Andrew W.K. without the party.

Science is a good tool, and it is important to be advised by it.

But there is a reason we have boxes for tools: there are many, and no single tool is adequate for all tasks. Science has its own blind spots, and other tools are needed to fill them in. Of course, these other tools have their blind spots too, some of which science fills, others of which are filled by yet other tools.

When did Kerspal start writing for the Daily Fail?

The trouble with a scientific argument is that it relies solely on empirical facts.

No it doesn't.

C0rf: She Godwinned herself.

Nicely done, moron.

This

In fact, it is the arrogant scientific establishment which questions free expression. Think of the hoo-ha which occurred when one hospital doctor dared to question the wisdom of using the MMR vaccine.


Ummm...Dr. Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism (new window)

Yeah it was a bunch of hoo-ha. Sure, the $500,000 that he took to come to that conclusion mad him a child killer, but hey it was all a bunch of hoo-ha.

Tat'dGreaser: Why did I even bother clicking on this thread?

Entertainment, baby. Pure entertainment.

It should, anyway. There have been shortcomings.

Weeners made me LOL
...the literary equivalent of being stuck in a lift with a flatulent gorilla,...

Man, I read the headline and I got excited. I was thinking we'd get an interesting article about either the occasional myopia of scientists when dealing with non-empirical issues, like political issues, or maybe about the philosophical underpinnings of scientific thought. Instead, we got crap.

one of my favorite bits in the comments:

"As it stands this article, the literary equivalent of being stuck in a lift with a flatulent gorilla, only serves to force the opinion of its author into the minds of those naeve or similarly ill-informed people misfortunate enough to read it."

Not sure about the "hooray for science!" but the "Woooh!" was quite refreshing