Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   "Six percent of Americans believe in unicorns. Twenty four percent believe dinosaurs and man hung out together. Eighteen percent believe the sun revolves around the Earth. Nearly 30% believe cloud computing involves actual clouds"   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

14413 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2013 at 10:29 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



521 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-14 01:32:32 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other


Not all frames of reference are created equal.  Inertial frames of reference have the property that you can actually apply the laws of physics to them.  There is no inertial reference frame in which the sun goes around the Earth.
 
2013-03-14 01:32:37 PM  

heypete: midigod: Nope.  Gun ownership has been falling since the 70's, and so has violent crime.  Interesting.

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

Since more people are living in cities and not doing as much outdoor living, it doesn't really surprise me that fewer households contain guns (though the number of guns-per-capita is certainly increasing, as is the amount of people with concealed carry permits). Five Thirty Eight has an interesting analysis of the same surveys.

That said, I wonder if people are truthfully answering those surveys: I realize that its anecdotal, but all the gun owners I know are rather skeptical of telling a random telephone caller if they do or don't own guns. I wonder how one could take that into consideration?

In my personal experience, every time I'd go to the local ranges in the SF Bay Area (CA), Phoenix, Casa Grande, and Tucson (AZ) area they were quite full, often with lots younger shooters (in their 20s-30s, rather than old guys).

Yeah, I know the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data", but that doesn't really jive with my personal experience. I admit I could definitely be wrong though. :)


Actually, there is some evidence that the GSS data might be wrong.

Look at this graph from GSS data:

www.washingtonpost.com

Look at the "% with pistol or shotgun in home (GSS)".

If you read that, the number of households with a rifle or pistol in the home *DOUBLED* in the space of a handful of years, and it appears to have dropped by nearly *HALF* in what appears to be just the span of a  year or two.

That would be tens of millions of guns flooding the market back then.  Something like that would have been noticed.

I think there is something else going on here, and it's a reason why we will *NEVER* get an accurate count of the number of people who own guns:  It's a politically charged question, and people are far more likely to falsely answer "NO" then they would be to falsely answer "YES".

Consider many nations with very strict gun laws:  Even they don't have an accurate count on the number of guns and gun owners because of defiance to the laws enacted.

This is a very informative law review article that touches on that subject:
IMAGINING GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA:  THE REMAINDER PROBLEM.
 
2013-03-14 01:33:41 PM  
Looks like someone was watching The Newsroom....

http://youtu.be/16K6m3Ua2nw
 
2013-03-14 01:34:12 PM  

balisane: SquiggsIN: balisane: Usually, you only get to rock someone's world like that when they're under the age of six.

You should meet my wife.  She's not stupid but as ditzy as they come.  She gets that bewildered / glazed look in her eyes far more often than i'd like to see.

Not a lot of vectors for new information in her life? Or, I'm sure she just deeply processes what she does hear and hasn't lost her sense of wonder. Yeah, that's the ticket.

stonicus: shoegaze99: SquiggsIN: ghettodwarf: I don't think you can discredit anyone who believes in a religion as dumb.

I'll just go ahead and ignore you now.

Some of the most brilliant minds in history were also religious and/or spiritual people , people who both subscribed to a religion and/or spirituality of one kind or another and who also broke new ground and/or changed the world with their intellect pretended to be religious so they wouldn't be killed.

FTFY


hey it works for two-faced politicians too!  The closer the election the more pious the candidates become.
 
2013-03-14 01:34:17 PM  
You'd be surprised how many adults, many of them at least partially educated, have to think for a minute when you ask them to hold up their left or right hand.

Or can't alphabetize something without singing the song to help them.

Personally, i would have liked the article better if one of the questions asked you to distinguish between shiat and a can of Shinola.
 
2013-03-14 01:34:42 PM  

m00: Carn: Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false.

That's how science and rational thought work.  If evidence were to suddenly appear that a unicorn exists or may have existed in the past, you re-evaluate at that point.  As for string theory, scientists are relatively certain that they have witnessed the Higgs boson in recent experiments.  String theory predicted that this particle existed and until they found evidence, there was a lot of justified resistance to the theory.   The particle's existence and its behavior will go a long way toward theoretical physicists being able to support or disprove string theory.

So you're saying that String Theory magically became true when the Higgs boson was kinda-observed? And DNA didn't exist until the 1960s? This isn't Schroedinger's box. Things exist or don't exist regardless of our ability to observe them.

(By the way, they didn't "witness" it. They took measurements consistent with what they thought a Higgs boson would give off.)


Please.  There are many other theories in physics trying to explain the gap between classical and quantum physics.  In my last sentence, bolded above, I stated that the particle's existence will help to evaluate whether the theory is valid.

Things exist.  Really?  What things?  By your current reasoning, every possible imaginary creature is quite real because there is no evidence.  That's not how science works.  String theory existed outside of the existence of the higgs because it is just a theory that tries to predict the realities of the universe.  The Higgs cannot be proven to exist until it is/was observed.  If you'd like to start "m00's Theory of the Possibility of the Existence of Invisible Unicorns", then by all means please do.  Mark me down as a skeptic, however.
 
2013-03-14 01:34:54 PM  
/linkage:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8
//(volume warning)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLwPfobiyuo

I was joking, christ. The lady's obviously a loon.



I know you were.  I don't think it's possible to be a Farker and believe that rubbish.  I just wanted to get some self-pimpage in.  Probably could have mentioned that.  My apologies.
 
2013-03-14 01:35:23 PM  

mrbmp: You anti-gun nuts might want to look up the murder rate in Kennasaw, GA,
Where they are REQUIRED to own a firearm...
25 years murder free.....hmmmm.

While you are at it, take a peek at Switzerland, then compare it to Chicago and Detroit where its near impossible to get a gun LEGALLY.

/Splain dat  !!
Wiki quote:Gun lawIn 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-17">[ 17]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Gun rights activist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kopel" title="David Kopel" class="mw-redirect">David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-18">[18 ] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-19">[ 19] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burgl ...


If the threat of someone owning a gun, hence getting shot if you try to rob them, is keeping down burglaries, why don't we just implement the death penalty for burglary?  Shouldn't that have the same effect without putting a bunch of guns out there?
 
2013-03-14 01:36:07 PM  

mrbmp: You anti-gun nuts might want to look up the murder rate in Kennasaw, GA,
Where they are REQUIRED to own a firearm...
25 years murder free.....hmmmm.


Lol, what?  Well this should be fun...

I'll start with the fact that Kennesaw (notice how I spelled it correctly) only has 30,000 people.
 
2013-03-14 01:36:11 PM  

pciszek: Barfmaker: It is this bizarre, circular, catch-22 kind of question, asked almost exclusively by intellectual liberals because intellectual conservatives don't actually exist,

This is gonna be good...

One cannot be accepted as a true conservative by those who dominate American conservativism unless one is a "real Christian".  Anyone who does not accept biblical literalism is at best a "liberal Christian", i.e., no Christian at all.  Believing that everything in the Bible is literally true requires that one reject biology, geology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, and history.  So, yeah, that doesn't leave much room for "intellectual conservatives" to exist.


It's the reason that fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal people like me have been abandoning the Republicans like rats from a sinking ship.  Until they reject the "religious right" and the "conservative christian" mantra and expectations, they will continue to turn lots of people away.
 
2013-03-14 01:36:55 PM  

unchellmatt: m00: "...asked almost exclusively by intellectual liberals because intellectual conservatives don't actually exist."

There we go...

Yeah, that turned me off the article entirely. I know quite a number of people who consider themselves "conservative" who:

- Aren't delusional enough to believe the US was founded as a "Christian" nation
- Understand how the universe works
- Don't watch FOX

Now, are they in line with the rank and file, or the current batch of Tea Party coonts in office? No. But they are intelligent, well read, and not against intellectualism.


Ooh ohh!!!

1797 treaty of tripoli.

Universe workes according to the four fundamental forces of nature, exploded out of a singularity about 13 billion years ago, is expanding, and we're all going to die a horrible cold death in the future.

I only watch fox news in the break room while I make my coffee.

But I don't consider myself a conservative or liberal but on some issues i agree with the conservative platform - like forcing pregnant women who want an abortion to see their ultrasound so that they can make an informed decision. More information leads to better decisions and who is against better decisions?
 
2013-03-14 01:38:53 PM  

mrbmp: You anti-gun nuts might want to look up the murder rate in Kennasaw, GA,
Where they are REQUIRED to own a firearm...
25 years murder free.....hmmmm.

While you are at it, take a peek at Switzerland, then compare it to Chicago and Detroit where its near impossible to get a gun LEGALLY.

/Splain dat  !!
Wiki quote:Gun lawIn 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-17">[ 17]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Gun rights activist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kopel" title="David Kopel" class="mw-redirect">David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-18">[18 ] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-19">[ 19] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burgl ...


threadjacking?
 
2013-03-14 01:39:22 PM  

stonicus: FTFY


It's convenient to think this, I'm sure, but it's also wrong. From Georges Lemaître to Gerhard Ertl to Sewall Wright, there have been many great minds who clearly, unquestionably were also religious/spiritual men. They were in no danger. They did not fear being killed. They were simply brilliant men of science who also had religious beliefs.

And that's not getting into brilliant philosophers, writers, and so on who were also religious.
 
2013-03-14 01:39:24 PM  

RedTank: Then give me an example of the logical fallacies and we'll discuss them.


Well, beyond the fact that the whole damn thing is an ad hominem you mean?
 
m00
2013-03-14 01:39:56 PM  

Biological Ali: The terms and phrases you're talking about aren't "incorrect"; they're used as convenient shorthand (as you yourself note) for propositions that themselves are not ambiguous. What you're terming as "incorrect" are literal interpretations of these fragments that are irrelevant because everybody knows what's being referred to.

Importantly, even the people who gave the silly answers to these questions are doing so under the same understanding of terms like "revolve around the sun" that everybody else is (unless they're deliberately farking around, which is a separate issue). If you want to engage in pedantry about the wording of the questions, that's fine, but that doesn't make the people who gave these silly answers any more correct.


I'm pretty sure most people don't understand that the earth/sun dynamic is a two-body system, and that they both orbit around a common point which happens to inside the sun's atmosphere, but is not "the sun" if you are treating the sun as a point mass, because it's outside the sun's center of gravity. And like any two-body system, they are rotating around each other.
 
2013-03-14 01:40:15 PM  

m00: stonicus: It's not even that either.  9.81m/s2 is just a good approximation for average gravitational attraction on Earth.  It's based on distance to center of mass and how much mass is between you and that center.  The number is different at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level.  The position of the moon also affects the force of gravity experienced at any given position.

Certain questions come with built in, or assumed, boundaries.  "Do unicorns exist?" is an example.  To me, I process this question to mean "Do real living animals called unicorns currently exist on the planet earth?"  I don't include the abstract concept of a unicorn in my selection.  Otherwise, the question "Does blank exist?" will always be "yes" as blank exists within the question itself.  Nor do I include toys or stuffed animals or artwork in my selection process.  And I frame my selection process within the confines of the world which I reside in, not in some fairy tale or imaginary world.  There's no hard written rules on these assumptions and context that everyone can or will agree on.  I assumed the "real world" in the unicorn question.  But sometimes the question can demand it exist elsewhere.  "Do Jawas exist?"  No.  Jawas are a character from Star Wars.  "Do Jawas ever travel to Coruscant?"  This question makes the statement that Jawas exist by framing it as if they do.  Taking that lead, we can then infer this question is in the context of an imaginary world, not our real world, and therefore can be answered thusly.  Sort of rambling now, so I'll wrap it up...

Well, my point is the answer to "does X exist" is always either "yes" or "unknown." You can't prove something doesn't exist, it's logically impossible unless X is pre-defined as being mutually exclusive or co-existent with some already known thing.

I mean, obviously the answer the question "Do unicorns exist" is looking for is 'no.' That's the right answer. But... then the point of the question isn't to think about it ...


The answer is "yes" or "no until proven otherwise".  If you're persisting in this line of reasoning because you are religious, we'll allow that one exception, especially if you worship a unicorn god.
 
2013-03-14 01:40:37 PM  

Boudyro: The problem is we simply have too many people. We are 7 billion + now on this planet. If even 10 percent of that figure are idiots it makes for 700,000,000 stupid mother farkers somehow remembering to breathe right this moment.

While I think that 10 percent is a lowball guess, it is compounded by the fact that we are all human. Even the best educated and cleverest of us still have moments of shocking stupidity. Consider that anther 10 percent (another lowball guess) of the "smarter" population segment in this example just happen to be doing something stupid RIGHT NOW. That makes for another 630,000,000 people.

So just using what are probably low percentages, we come to the realization that at any given moment there are 1,330,000,000 people either being stupid or doing something stupid.

It really begins to explain a lot.


Thanks for almost making me choke on my sandwich.

This line alone was snort causing
700,000,000 stupid mother farkers somehow remembering to breathe right this moment.

 Well done sir, well done.
 
2013-03-14 01:41:53 PM  

SquiggsIN: ghettodwarf: I don't think you can discredit anyone who believes in a religion as dumb.

I'll just go ahead and ignore you now.


I think my wording there was bad.  I'm not suggesting that you can't consider religious people dumb.  I'm saying you can't consider people dumb because they are religious.  There are all kinds of dumb religious people.  I think they are dumb because they are dumb, and the way they practice their religion is just an extension of their dumbness, not the reason for it.
 
2013-03-14 01:42:45 PM  

stonicus: m00: Biological Ali: Which is, of course, entirely separate from the point of the question. It's like saying "If we expand the definition of the term to include those Blue Angel planes that do the fancy tricks, then angels really are real!", or "If we expand the definition of 'murder' to include 'killing someone softly with his song', then that man is guilty!"

I think you're missing the point I'm (maybe poorly) trying to make. It's factually incorrect to say "the Sun does not revolve around the Earth." This is what we teach kids, because it's easier than high school/college level physics and there is the history behind heliocentric/geocentric models. It's like a questionnaire that says "Is the acceleration of gravity  9.81 m/s2?" The answer is, of course, "no." It's the acceleration of gravity on earth, in a vacuum, as described by classical mechanics. Basically, it's a poorly worded question because it's looking for a specific answer but it doesn't phrase the question to make that answer absolutely true. "Does the sun revolve around the earth?" is another example. You might call this nit-picky, but these are supposed to be scientific questions. Don't give me a scientific y/n question where the answer isn't an absolute.

It's not even that either.  9.81m/s2 is just a good approximation for average gravitational attraction on Earth.  It's based on distance to center of mass and how much mass is between you and that center.  The number is different at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level.  The position of the moon also affects the force of gravity experienced at any given position.

Certain questions come with built in, or assumed, boundaries.  "Do unicorns exist?" is an example.  To me, I process this question to mean "Do real living animals called unicorns currently exist on the planet earth?"  I don't include the abstract concept of a unicorn in my selection.  Otherwise, the question "Does blank exist?" will always be "yes" as blank exists within the question itself.  Nor do I include toys or stuffed animals or artwork in my selection process.  And I frame my selection process within the confines of the world which I reside in, not in some fairy tale or imaginary world.  There's no hard written rules on these assumptions and context that everyone can or will agree on.  I assumed the "real world" in the unicorn question.  But sometimes the question can demand it exist elsewhere.  "Do Jawas exist?"  No.  Jawas are a character from Star Wars.  "Do Jawas ever travel to Coruscant?"  This question makes the statement that Jawas exist by framing it as if they do.  Taking that lead, we can then infer this question is in the context of an imaginary world, not our real world, and therefore can be answered thusly.  Sort of rambling now, so I'll wrap it up...


Most importantly, is the King of France bald?
 
2013-03-14 01:42:54 PM  

barefoot in the head: That is true, in the southern hemisphere, where it is winter on January 4th, the day WHEN the closest approach to the sun occurs.


So your whole point is a silly bit of semantics that clearly ignores the intended meaning of the person who wrote the post?
 
m00
2013-03-14 01:44:27 PM  

Carn: m00: Carn: Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false.

That's how science and rational thought work.  If evidence were to suddenly appear that a unicorn exists or may have existed in the past, you re-evaluate at that point.  As for string theory, scientists are relatively certain that they have witnessed the Higgs boson in recent experiments.  String theory predicted that this particle existed and until they found evidence, there was a lot of justified resistance to the theory.   The particle's existence and its behavior will go a long way toward theoretical physicists being able to support or disprove string theory.

So you're saying that String Theory magically became true when the Higgs boson was kinda-observed? And DNA didn't exist until the 1960s? This isn't Schroedinger's box. Things exist or don't exist regardless of our ability to observe them.

(By the way, they didn't "witness" it. They took measurements consistent with what they thought a Higgs boson would give off.)

Please.  There are many other theories in physics trying to explain the gap between classical and quantum physics.  In my last sentence, bolded above, I stated that the particle's existence will help to evaluate whether the theory is valid.

Things exist.  Really?  What things?   By your current reasoning, every possible imaginary creature is quite real because there is no evidence. That's not how science works.  String theory existed outside of the existence of the higgs because it is just a theory that tries to predict the realities of the universe.  The Higgs cannot be proven to exist until it is/was observed.  If you'd like to start "m00's Theory of the Possibility of the Existence of Invisible Unicorns", then by all means please do.  Mark me down as a skeptic, however.


You clearly don't understand the difference between "does not exist" and "is not known to exist/has not been observed to exist."

Because by my current reasoning, you can't prove anything does not exist. You can only prove it does exist. This does not that everything which can be imagined exists. It only means everything which can be imagined cannot be proven definitively to not exist, unless as part of it's criteria it has a pre-established relationship with a known thing.
 
2013-03-14 01:45:26 PM  

Joe Blowme: Nagilum


I can't unsee that face now...thanks for the nightmares.
 
2013-03-14 01:46:39 PM  

ghettodwarf: SquiggsIN: ghettodwarf: I don't think you can discredit anyone who believes in a religion as dumb.

I'll just go ahead and ignore you now.

I think my wording there was bad.  I'm not suggesting that you can't consider religious people dumb.  I'm saying you can't consider people dumb because they are religious.  There are all kinds of dumb religious people.  I think they are dumb because they are dumb, and the way they practice their religion is just an extension of their dumbness, not the reason for it.


I was joking.  But, I see it as you see it.  I think religion is dumb.  I think people are dumb.  Sometimes those overlap.  Frequently the "dumb" is a result of the "religion" and its resultant influence.  Some times it isn't.

Fano: Most importantly, is the King of France bald?

Dig the last one up and find out?
 
2013-03-14 01:47:54 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: dittybopper: Knock off the bogus pedantry or I will be forced to shoot you with my .357 Magnum rotator.

The face of responsible gun ownership, ladies and gentlemen.


Wow, that's deliciously ironic giving your chosen nom de Fark.  "Hey, I joke about death, but when someone I disagree with does it, it's bad".
 
2013-03-14 01:48:34 PM  
occamswrist:  ...like forcing pregnant women who want an abortion to see their ultrasound so that they can make an informed decision. More information leads to better decisions and who is against better decisions?

Wouldn't it be a better option to offer these women more information on having their baby adopted as opposed to trolling them out of having an abortion?  Having all the information directly or indirectly related to a decision is not always the best option.  In this case the forced ultrasound information is of poor quality.  It's only meant to torture and manipulate the recipient into making the "right" decision.

It's the quality, weight, and priority of the information that's truly important.  If one person knew everything there was to know then they would go mad.
 
2013-03-14 01:48:42 PM  

m00: Carn: m00: Carn: Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false.

That's how science and rational thought work.  If evidence were to suddenly appear that a unicorn exists or may have existed in the past, you re-evaluate at that point.  As for string theory, scientists are relatively certain that they have witnessed the Higgs boson in recent experiments.  String theory predicted that this particle existed and until they found evidence, there was a lot of justified resistance to the theory.   The particle's existence and its behavior will go a long way toward theoretical physicists being able to support or disprove string theory.

So you're saying that String Theory magically became true when the Higgs boson was kinda-observed? And DNA didn't exist until the 1960s? This isn't Schroedinger's box. Things exist or don't exist regardless of our ability to observe them.

(By the way, they didn't "witness" it. They took measurements consistent with what they thought a Higgs boson would give off.)

Please.  There are many other theories in physics trying to explain the gap between classical and quantum physics.  In my last sentence, bolded above, I stated that the particle's existence will help to evaluate whether the theory is valid.

Things exist.  Really?  What things?   By your current reasoning, every possible imaginary creature is quite real because there is no evidence.  That's not how science works.  String theory existed outside of the existence of the higgs because it is just a theory that tries to predict the realities of the universe.  The Higgs cannot be proven to exist until it is/was observed.  If you'd like to start "m00's Theory of the Possibility of the Existence of Invisible Unicorns", then by all means please do.  Mark me down as a skeptic, however.

You clearly don't understand the difference between "does not exist" and "is not known to exist/has not been observed to exist."

Because by my current reasoning, you c ...


some people's brains don't function in the absolute logic factory the way yours does.  (My brain is like yours)
 
2013-03-14 01:49:12 PM  

m00: I'm pretty sure most people don't understand that the earth/sun dynamic is a two-body system, and that they both orbit around a common point which happens to inside the sun's atmosphere, but is not "the sun" if you are treating the sun as a point mass, because it's outside the sun's center of gravity. And like any two-body system, they are rotating around each other.


The whole point of my post was to explain to you that virtually nobody interprets a question like that as being about a "two-body system". They interpret it in the context of our solar system, along with all the other orbiting entities it contains, and saying that "The sun revolves around the earth" means something very different (and very wrong), in that context, than the "technically correct" proposition you've been talking about.
 
m00
2013-03-14 01:49:27 PM  

Carn: The answer is "yes" or "no until proven otherwise".  If you're persisting in this line of reasoning because you are religious, we'll allow that one exception, especially if you worship a unicorn god.


You can only prove that something exists.
You cannot prove the absence of something, unless it's a built-in condition.
This is basic, gradeschool, logic.
 
2013-03-14 01:49:32 PM  

dittybopper: The My Little Pony Killer: dittybopper: Knock off the bogus pedantry or I will be forced to shoot you with my .357 Magnum rotator.

The face of responsible gun ownership, ladies and gentlemen.

Wow, that's deliciously ironic giving your chosen nom de Fark.  "Hey, I joke about death, but when someone I disagree with does it, it's bad".


Wait, I just thought:  Are you so intellectually stunted that you didn't get the revolver/rotator joke?  In that case, I apologize for assuming you were smart enough to get it.
 
2013-03-14 01:49:53 PM  
I mean are the 6% under 9 years old? Because I could excuse that...

I want a study on how practical knowledge and how people do their job relates to people who believe crazy things like vaccines = autism, ghosts, dinosaurs didn't exist, Obama is a muslim, etc.

Because everyone is always shouting around that everyone else is stupid, but SOMEHOW in general these people can do their jobs. I know some 'Obama is not a US citizen' believers who are engineers and as far as I can tell they aren't farking things up left to right. I know a girl who is a CT tech and is all Obama is a Muslim, vaccines are a government plot to kill us, etc. but if you ask her what a certain bone is or need her to position someone for the right scan that is easy.

What I'm saying is that I *don't* think we are stupid (I mean- the bell curve of IQ pretty much tells you where we all are), I think we are easily brainwashed. Which, to me, is way more concerning.
 
2013-03-14 01:50:51 PM  
Yesterday I was talking with coworkers and religion/pope was brought up.

One guy went to the white board and drew a Venn diagram explaining the Trinity. I went up to the whiteboard and drew a circle around his diagram and labelled it "make believe". You could cut the tension in the room with a knife.

And yes I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
 
2013-03-14 01:51:23 PM  

halfof33: RedTank: Then give me an example of the logical fallacies and we'll discuss them.

Well, beyond the fact that the whole damn thing is an ad hominem you mean?


Yes, beyond that fact.
 
2013-03-14 01:52:25 PM  

RedTank: occamswrist:  ...like forcing pregnant women who want an abortion to see their ultrasound so that they can make an informed decision. More information leads to better decisions and who is against better decisions?

Wouldn't it be a better option to offer these women more information on having their baby adopted as opposed to trolling them out of having an abortion?  Having all the information directly or indirectly related to a decision is not always the best option.  In this case the forced ultrasound information is of poor quality.  It's only meant to torture and manipulate the recipient into making the "right" decision.

It's the quality, weight, and priority of the information that's truly important.  If one person knew everything there was to know then they would go mad.


I agree with you. Was being sarcastic based on a previous thread.
 
2013-03-14 01:52:49 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: dittybopper: Knock off the bogus pedantry or I will be forced to shoot you with my .357 Magnum rotator.

The face of responsible gun ownership, ladies and gentlemen.


www.inquisitr.com
 
2013-03-14 01:53:39 PM  
And 25% believe the President was born in Kenya
 
2013-03-14 01:55:00 PM  
Actually number 1 on this list is interesting considering the % of farkers who actually believe that Joe Paterno was worse then Hitler.
 
2013-03-14 01:56:07 PM  

occamswrist: I agree with you. Was being sarcastic based on a previous thread.


Oh, ok.  Sorry - I'm reading too many comments to discern sarcasm...  Someone should invent a sarcasm font or something....
 
2013-03-14 01:56:09 PM  
Err sorry you have to click a link in the article but it says that 28 % of America believes that Paterno Molested children.
 
2013-03-14 01:56:16 PM  

stonicus: If the threat of someone owning a gun, hence getting shot if you try to rob them, is keeping down burglaries, why don't we just implement the death penalty for burglary?  Shouldn't that have the same effect without putting a bunch of guns out there?


At the risk of threadjacking, no, not really. The odds of a burglar being caught by the police, tried, and convicted is fairly low particularly if there's no witnesses to the crime (either they burglarize the place with nobody home or they kill anyone who's there). The odds of being stopped and/or captured by the police if the homeowner is armed is higher.

While not much can be done to prevent empty homes from being burglarized, if someone is armed and at home they have a decent chance of defending themselves and repelling the criminal.

While I'm not convinced that giving more people guns will result in less burglaries, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to defend their life if threatened. A gun is an effective means of self-defense.

In regards to "putting a bunch of guns out there", that horse has already left the barn.
 
2013-03-14 01:57:44 PM  

barefoot in the head: durbnpoisn: barefoot in the head:

In the southern hemisphere, the earth is further from the sun in winter. Closest approach is Jan 4, which is summer in the south.

Didn't watch.


Uh...  No.  That's like saying that the western hemisphere is further away at night time.  In terms of how seasons work, It's all about the angle of orientation, and how direct the suns light is.

Here is the reference from the comment above:
"Like, there's one guy who claims winter occurs when Earth is farther away from the Sun, and summer occurs when its closer. "
That is true, in the southern hemisphere, where it is winter on January 4th, the day WHEN the closest approach to the sun occurs.

article, meet thread.



Sorry...  I didn't take it the way you meant it.  In that respect, the guy from Harvard is correct, assuming he is referring to the southern hemisphere.
I think the point, however, is that it doesn't appear that's the way he meant it.  It's almost like he doesn't even realize that the seasons are reversed in the north and south.
 
2013-03-14 01:58:36 PM  

m00: You clearly don't understand the difference between "does not exist" and "is not known to exist/has not been observed to exist."

Because by my current reasoning, you can't prove anything does not exist. You can only prove it does exist. This does not that everything which can be imagined exists. It only means everything which can be imagined cannot be proven definitively to not exist, unless as part of it's criteria it has a pre-established relationship with a known thing.


I understand quite well.  The proof is the lack of evidence, especially when we're talking about imaginary horse-sized creatures.  Or sasquatches.  Or leprechauns.    More accurately, as I said up thread, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim in such a case. Things are a little different when we're discussing sub-atomic particles (or God(s)) as we're dealing with things that we can't see with the naked eye.  In the case of finding the Higgs, it was theorized (looking to be correctly) that we just didn't have a big enough or powerful enough reactor.

So, unless you're arguing that unicorns are invisible and/or the size of sub-atomic particles, the only rational conclusion is that they don't exist.  It's not unknown, it's false.  Would you argue that we just have not invented the proper unicorn detector yet?
 
2013-03-14 01:59:10 PM  

pciszek: Barfmaker: It is this bizarre, circular, catch-22 kind of question, asked almost exclusively by intellectual liberals because intellectual conservatives don't actually exist,

This is gonna be good...

One cannot be accepted as a true conservative by those who dominate American conservativism unless one is a "real Christian".  Anyone who does not accept biblical literalism is at best a "liberal Christian", i.e., no Christian at all.  Believing that everything in the Bible is literally true requires that one reject biology, geology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, and history.  So, yeah, that doesn't leave much room for "intellectual conservatives" to exist.


Wow, another one to add to this guys list of retarded beliefs.
 
m00
2013-03-14 02:03:14 PM  

Biological Ali: m00: I'm pretty sure most people don't understand that the earth/sun dynamic is a two-body system, and that they both orbit around a common point which happens to inside the sun's atmosphere, but is not "the sun" if you are treating the sun as a point mass, because it's outside the sun's center of gravity. And like any two-body system, they are rotating around each other.

The whole point of my post was to explain to you that virtually nobody interprets a question like that as being about a "two-body system". They interpret it in the context of our solar system, along with all the other orbiting entities it contains, and saying that "The sun revolves around the earth" means something very different (and very wrong), in that context, than the "technically correct" proposition you've been talking about.


You realize, in the context of our solar system the earth and sun behave in a dynamic where the earth does not  really revolve around the sun. Mainly because the earth has non-zero mass. So the center of mass of the earth/sun system is not identical to the center of mass of the sun. Therefore, the earth cannot be said to revolve around the sun. Both the sun, and the earth, revolve around that point (obviously the sun is much, much, much closer).But as was said earlier, "the earth revolves around the sun" is shorthand for the high school physics explanation. The whole point of my post is that most people clearly don't understand what it's shorthand for.
 
2013-03-14 02:03:17 PM  

RedTank: Yes, beyond that fact.


OK, first sentence. "Six percent of Americans believe in unicorns." What is that based on? he doesn't say. A survey perhaps? Well we all know a survey doesn't work that way, because there has to be a factor for accuracy or the lack thereof taken into account. If it is plus or minus 9% as someone here suggested, then the entire conclusion is faulty, it could be as low as 0%. Therefore, any conclusion that relies on that is fallacious based on the Fallacy of Assumption.
 
2013-03-14 02:06:10 PM  

m00: Carn: The answer is "yes" or "no until proven otherwise".  If you're persisting in this line of reasoning because you are religious, we'll allow that one exception, especially if you worship a unicorn god.

You can only prove that something exists.
You cannot prove the absence of something, unless it's a built-in condition.
This is basic, gradeschool, logic.


What is a vacuum?  What is a 100% pure metal/element/compound?  How do we determine half life?  Does a sun give off radiation, and if we didn't measure any, would we know that there wasn't one nearby?  There is sadly, a 100% absence of hot naked ladies in my house.  You can disprove me by sending one over, and I'll thank you for it.
 
m00
2013-03-14 02:06:24 PM  

Carn: The proof is the lack of evidence


I don't know if you are trolling me now. Lack of evidence is not proof. There was lack of evidence that the Higgs Boson existed until recently. Does this mean there was PROOF the Higgs Boson didn't exist until they took the measurements?

As I said earlier, you seem to live in Schroedinger's box.
 
2013-03-14 02:07:13 PM  
Yes I believe the angels *mumble* are in Anaheim and unicorns *are in tapestries*,

- What can I say? I like to fark with pollsters.
 
m00
2013-03-14 02:07:56 PM  

Carn: What is a vacuum?  What is a 100% pure metal/element/compound?  How do we determine half life?  Does a sun give off radiation, and if we didn't measure any, would we know that there wasn't one nearby?  There is sadly, a 100% absence of hot naked ladies in my house.  You can disprove me by sending one over, and I'll thank you for it.


The sad part is you probably think, deep down, that you are smarter than other people.
 
2013-03-14 02:10:16 PM  
Believing in unicorns is similar to believing the governments 9/11 story.
 
2013-03-14 02:10:46 PM  

m00: Because by my current reasoning, you can't prove anything does not exist.


Bertrand Russell's way ahead of you:


On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.


What you're talking about applies only in a certain strictly philosophical sense - in everyday discourse, we have a different standard for saying whether something does or does not exist, or whether something did or did not happen, and so on. And as with the previous points, everyone understands intuitively what this standard is; the ones giving the silly answers are merely wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 521 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report