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.

(Slate)   A half-naked witch doctor is why creationism is still being taught in Louisiana schools. No, really   (slate.com) divider line 379
    More: Stupid, Education Act, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Bobby Jindal  
•       •       •

8996 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2013 at 4:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-05 10:10:23 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.


bindlestiff2600: FirstNationalBastard: Ooo eee ooo ahh ah.

bing bang
walla walla

they are going about it the wrong way
(seriously)

use this ill written junk
to "teach the controversy"   of say
dianetics
voo doo (hey we already got one convert)
kama sutra
the invisible flying spegetti monster

then after that gets outrage
point at those politico's as having brought in those "false religions" on purpose


Note to self. Make even a LITTLE attempt to read the thread before making a joke.
 
2013-05-05 10:12:32 PM
SkinnyHead:  So the ability to replicate does require a designer.

Why?

/Channeling my inner three-year-old
 
2013-05-05 10:13:58 PM

vygramul: Intelligent design. After all, it was our intelligent hand at work.


If we were really intelligent designing wild animals into pets, couldn't we have done it in one generation instead of, like, a thousand?
 
2013-05-05 10:14:14 PM
Turns out apparently he did need it explained to him. Bra-vo  Ishkur. Bravo.

.
 
2013-05-05 10:15:25 PM
Guys, you're arguing with a someone who apparently makes a living out of pretending not to know the meanings of basic concepts like "theory", "falsify" and "logic". There's got to be a better way to spend a Sunday evening. Go hug your children or something.
 
2013-05-05 10:16:42 PM
Was Skinnyhead always Bevet's understudy, or is he just trying to take up the slack?
 
2013-05-05 10:17:51 PM

Biological Ali: Guys, you're arguing with a someone who apparently makes a living out of pretending not to know the meanings of basic concepts like "theory", "falsify" and "logic". There's got to be a better way to spend a Sunday evening. Go hug your children or something.


I dunno, I quite enjoyed Ishkur's explanation of the beginning of life.
 
2013-05-05 10:26:58 PM

WordyGrrl: "The laws of physics are not God's laws! therefore... I can fly!"
/Tee hee hee


Like Bedward the Flying Preacher?

http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=vLUPNXTZzkk
 
2013-05-05 10:27:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Biological Ali: Guys, you're arguing with a someone who apparently makes a living out of pretending not to know the meanings of basic concepts like "theory", "falsify" and "logic". There's got to be a better way to spend a Sunday evening. Go hug your children or something.

I dunno, I quite enjoyed Ishkur's explanation of the beginning of life.


I've had Ishkurflagged as one of the best explainers on Fark for a long time. A Moderator should come and move his post to the front of the first page so more people can read it.
 
2013-05-05 10:28:11 PM

Ishkur: vygramul: Intelligent design. After all, it was our intelligent hand at work.

If we were really intelligent designing wild animals into pets, couldn't we have done it in one generation instead of, like, a thousand?


Not yet.
 
2013-05-05 10:32:06 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution

Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.

It is?  How did it get there?


God, of course.

I wanna know how the hell God got there.
 
2013-05-05 10:33:15 PM
cameroncrazy1984: Biological Ali: Guys, you're arguing with a someone who apparently makes a living out of pretending not to know the meanings of basic concepts like "theory", "falsify" and "logic". There's got to be a better way to spend a Sunday evening. Go hug your children or something.

I dunno, I quite enjoyed Ishkur's explanation of the beginning of life.

Yeah, it quite made the thread for me.

The Christine O'Donnell pics sealed the deal, of course.
 
2013-05-05 10:33:53 PM

PsiChick: ...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.


The Nobel prize winners would like a word...
 
2013-05-05 10:34:55 PM

Ishkur: vygramul: Intelligent design. After all, it was our intelligent hand at work.

If we were really intelligent designing wild animals into pets, couldn't we have done it in one generation instead of, like, a thousand?


Of course. I was joking.
 
2013-05-05 10:37:30 PM

HighZoolander: PsiChick: ...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

The Nobel prize winners would like a word...


...Yes. The Nobel Prize is an  experiment, intended to prove or disprove a thesis.
 
2013-05-05 10:40:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Biological Ali: Guys, you're arguing with a someone who apparently makes a living out of pretending not to know the meanings of basic concepts like "theory", "falsify" and "logic". There's got to be a better way to spend a Sunday evening. Go hug your children or something.

I dunno, I quite enjoyed Ishkur's explanation of the beginning of life.


It certainly was very good - I just fear that the effort is being wasted on people who (like the few stragglers left in this thread) already have a basic grasp of the relevant science and so will merely find it interesting, as opposed to those who genuinely need to have their minds changed.
 
2013-05-05 10:43:46 PM

SkinnyHead: Ishkur: SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?

Cars don't replicate themselves. That's why we know they are designed.

Life DOES replicate itself, so needs no designer.

That's an interesting observation.  But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself?  It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution.  So the ability to replicate does require a designer.


No it does not. Who designed the designer?
 
2013-05-05 10:45:10 PM

Lionel Mandrake: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution

Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.

It is?  How did it get there?

God, of course.

I wanna know how the hell God got there.


John 1:1(maybe it's how God *gets* there)
 
2013-05-05 10:45:46 PM

Ishkur: SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.

What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works...


Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.  Therefore, evolution cannot explain all of the complexities of life.

And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting.  Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?
 
2013-05-05 10:46:02 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Was Skinnyhead always Bevet's understudy, or is he just trying to take up the slack?


Well, aside from being more "intelligent design" oriented rather than a pure young-earth creationist, pretty much. He's been doing this sort of shtick for several years at least.
 
2013-05-05 10:46:23 PM

eraser8: Zeppelininthesky: I think that we should make anyone who is up for any public office, or anyone who would be in charge of education to take a test. It would be a simple test. "Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old"? "Do you believe that Creationism is a scientific theory"? "Do you believe that what is in the Bible is literal truth"? If they answer yes to any of those questions, then they are not eligible for that job.

I'm pretty sure you'd need a constitutional amendment to make that happen...at least so that it sticks.

And, how likely is that?  Think, for a moment, how stupid the average person is.


Then, as George Carlin suggested, consider that half the people in the country are stupider than that.
 
2013-05-05 10:46:40 PM

PsiChick: To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading and working with auras; this Italian study shows evidence that ESP, as a phenomenon, occurs at a rate higher than chance. We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums. There's even a study of Scottish seers (the  an da shealladh I mentioned) showing an inheretence pattern  consistent with a Mendelian gene. So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.


It's really not that safe to say anything about it...

re just the brain imaging work, you might find this interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/Neuromania-limits-science-Paolo-Legrenzi/dp/01 99 591342
 
2013-05-05 10:47:49 PM

Biological Ali: It certainly was very good - I just fear that the effort is being wasted on people who (like the few stragglers left in this thread) already have a basic grasp of the relevant science and so will merely find it interesting, as opposed to those who genuinely need to have their minds changed.


It won't change his mind. But that wasn't its intent.

He asks the question because he thinks there is no scientific answer (therefore God). My response wasn't to prove him wrong, it was to demonstrate that the answer exists whether he wants to accept it or not.
 
2013-05-05 10:49:06 PM

SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.  Therefore, evolution cannot explain all of the complexities of life.


Your 'God of the gaps' gets smaller everyday.

That noted, religion and science are not a zero sum game.
 
2013-05-05 10:50:00 PM

SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.


Uh, it's actually explained by evolution in this very thread.
 
2013-05-05 10:53:03 PM

PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: ...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

The Nobel prize winners would like a word...

...Yes. The Nobel Prize is an  experiment, intended to prove or disprove a thesis.


It's a prize for a successful experiment. But setting that aside, how is a contest necessarily not scientific? Prize money historically was often offered by governments for the solution to difficult problems - do you think those results are somehow tainted and/or not scientific? (see e.g., Longitude)
 
2013-05-05 10:54:10 PM

SkinnyHead: Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.


That's because evolution is not explaining the ability to replicate. For that you need biochemistry.

Evolution is explaining this:

www.ishkur.com

If you want to disprove evolution, disprove this.

SkinnyHead: And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting. Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?


No.

What "intelligent" agent takes a billion years to create a protein molecule?

/Stupid, Slow and Lazy Design.
 
2013-05-05 10:54:36 PM

HighZoolander: PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: ...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

The Nobel prize winners would like a word...

...Yes. The Nobel Prize is an  experiment, intended to prove or disprove a thesis.

It's a prize for a successful experiment. But setting that aside, how is a contest necessarily not scientific? Prize money historically was often offered by governments for the solution to difficult problems - do you think those results are somehow tainted and/or not scientific? (see e.g., Longitude)


Or the X-Prize. Though that's not a government.
 
2013-05-05 10:55:18 PM

SkinnyHead: Ishkur: SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.

What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works...

Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.  Therefore, evolution cannot explain all of the complexities of life.

And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting.  Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?


Therefore, you are not paying attention. They are two totally separate theories.
 
2013-05-05 10:56:28 PM
Why are you guys arguing with a known troll-alt?
 
2013-05-05 10:57:03 PM

Ishkur: It won't change his mind. But that wasn't its intent.

He asks the question because he thinks there is no scientific answer (therefore God). My response wasn't to prove him wrong, it was to demonstrate that the answer exists whether he wants to accept it or not.


See, I'm not so sure about that. My suspicion is that guys like him "accept" the right answers all along (or at the very least, don't really care about what the answer is), and that their actual goal is not to advance the comically inept arguments they're making or the silly beliefs they're purporting to hold, but rather, to simply get off on wasting the time of strangers on the internet.
 
2013-05-05 10:57:43 PM

ShawnDoc: Why are you guys arguing with a known troll-alt?


Isn't that what the internet is for?
 
2013-05-05 11:01:21 PM

ShawnDoc: Why are you guys arguing with a known troll-alt?


Because there is no BIE thread?

/at least for liters
 
2013-05-05 11:04:22 PM

Biological Ali: See, I'm not so sure about that. My suspicion is that guys like him "accept" the right answers all along (or at the very least, don't really care about what the answer is), and that their actual goal is not to advance the comically inept arguments they're making or the silly beliefs they're purporting to hold, but rather, to simply get off on wasting the time of strangers on the internet.


I have him farkied as a freeper, from all the politics threads over the years.. So I don't think he's a troll, I think he's just posting what Republicans Actually Believe. It's pretty consistent with their ethos.
 
2013-05-05 11:05:07 PM
Just because this thread needs more Christine:
i1243.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-05 11:06:55 PM
Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.
 
2013-05-05 11:10:29 PM

HighZoolander: PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: ...I completely agreed with this article right until they brought up Randi's Million-Dollar Pile of Shiat again. FFS,  why do people think that is IN ANY WAY a legitimate scientific experiment? Dear god, we need an entire class on  bias in elementary school, never mind science.

/I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

The Nobel prize winners would like a word...

...Yes. The Nobel Prize is an  experiment, intended to prove or disprove a thesis.

It's a prize for a successful experiment. But setting that aside, how is a contest necessarily not scientific? Prize money historically was often offered by governments for the solution to difficult problems - do you think those results are somehow tainted and/or not scientific? (see e.g., Longitude)


What's the difference between a science fair and an individual experiment? That's the difference between what you're talking about and what Randi's doing. Not to mention the huge amount of fame he generates for the experiment continuing, the way he would be treated by skeptics if he was 'tricked by psychics', etc...

HighZoolander: PsiChick: To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading and working with auras; this Italian study shows evidence that ESP, as a phenomenon, occurs at a rate higher than chance. We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums. There's even a study of Scottish seers (the  an da shealladh I mentioned) showing an inheretence pattern  consistent with a Mendelian gene. So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.

It's really not that safe to say anything about it...

re just the brain imaging work, you might find this interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/Neuromania-limits-science-Paolo-Legrenzi/dp/01 99 591342


So you're arguing that, because we see a physical change in the brain when these experiences appear..we're putting too much faith in the scanning equipment because it only shows us which areas of the brain are lighting up, and not specific responses?

Riiight.

/That's  still a physical reaction, genius--psychics are  still experiencing physical stimuli that do not fall under the psychological definition of insanity.
 
2013-05-05 11:12:05 PM

SkinnyHead: Ishkur: SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.

What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works...

Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.  Therefore, evolution cannot explain all of the complexities of life.


No.  Evolution begins with the ability to replicate.  A simple amino acid sequence or mRNA sequence can have the ability to self replicate and more importantly allow for variation to be introduced.  This is all evolution requires.

And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting.  Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?

Crystal growth is an arduous painstaking process that takes millions of years at least.  You're not suggesting that crystals form only by God's the intelligent designer's whim.

Incidentally, your falsification of ID listed above was no such thing.  It was a test of the theory of evolution, not a test of intelligent design.  In fact, even if we fulfilled the terms of your test it would not falsify ID because one could simply claim the designer set things up so that they would unfold that way or intervened in an undetectable way to cause life to unfold as it has.

In order for something to be falsifiable it has to satisfy the following form: If I do x, the theory says y should happen.  If y does not happen then the theory is falsified.  What "x" could you perform that would result in the designer doing "y" such that the absence of "y" would mean that a designer does not exist?
 
2013-05-05 11:14:00 PM

Stile4aly: SkinnyHead: Ishkur: SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.

What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works...

Well, the ability to replicate is a complex feature of life that cannot be explained by evolution.  Therefore, evolution cannot explain all of the complexities of life.

No.  Evolution begins with the ability to replicate.  A simple amino acid sequence or mRNA sequence can have the ability to self replicate and more importantly allow for variation to be introduced.  This is all evolution requires.

And your story about abiogenesis -- "the arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years" -- is very interesting.  Doesn't an "arduous, painstaking process" imply forethought and deliberation in working toward a goal, as if it were the work of an intelligent agent?

Crystal growth is an arduous painstaking process that takes millions of years at least.  You're not suggesting that crystals form only by God's the intelligent designer's whim.

Incidentally, your falsification of ID listed above was no such thing.  It was a test of the theory of evolution, not a test of intelligent design.  In fact, even if we fulfilled the terms of your test it would not falsify ID because one could simp ...


Plus, he still cannot tell us who designed the designer.
 
2013-05-05 11:21:50 PM
Gosh, this really counters my firmly held belief that all southern educated people are fundie Christian, ignorant whackjobs.  I'll have to reconsider everything that I hold true.
 
2013-05-05 11:31:14 PM
img58.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-05 11:33:29 PM

PsiChick: What's the difference between a science fair and an individual experiment? That's the difference between what you're talking about and what Randi's doing. Not to mention the huge amount of fame he generates for the experiment continuing, the way he would be treated by skeptics if he was 'tricked by psychics', etc...


What exactly is Randi doing that you find so objectionable? I thought he was merely asking people to demonstrate psychic abilities under controlled conditions. Is there something I missed or what?

PsiChick: So you're arguing that, because we see a physical change in the brain when these experiences appear..we're putting too much faith in the scanning equipment because it only shows us which areas of the brain are lighting up, and not specific responses?

Riiight.

/That's  still a physical reaction, genius--psychics are  still experiencing physical stimuli that do not fall under the psychological definition of insanity.


You somehow managed to get the point while completely missing the point. The question to ask is: "Why do those areas appear to be more active than a baseline condition in those individuals during the experiment?"

Is it because they are indeed experiencing messages from beyond the grave?
Is it because they need to be in a self-induced trance-like state to perpetuate their brand of fraud?
Is it just what normally happens in the brain when someone pretends to be talking to a ghost?
Is it just what normally happens in the brain when someone pretends to be talking to anyone who isn't present?
What do the particular brain regions that appear to be active actually do?
Was the study conducted to professional standards with respect to methodology and data analysis?
Activation in fMRI studies is inherently comparative - what baseline task was used, and is that the best baseline task to use?

It's actually quite easy to get activation in brain regions in fMRI studies - simply seeing an area 'light up' tells us nothing without additional information.

For example, even if you accept paranormal phenomena, I sincerely doubt you would accept that a dead (and frozen) salmon is sensitive to human emotion. Or would you:?  http://boingboing.net/2012/10/02/what-a-dead-fish-can-teach-you.html

/I hope not...
 
2013-05-05 11:39:12 PM

Apos: Bobby Jindal weeps for.....Bobby Jindal.


I hope Jindal drowns in a pool of tears and fire ants, covered in the blood of the poor, ill, unlucky non-millionaires.
In his imbecilic little skull, there are no poor or sick.
I hope he loses all his wealth and power one day, gets anal cancer, and has the good fortune to wind up in the NON-charity hospitals here.

FARK GOVERNOR JINDAL.
 
2013-05-05 11:40:12 PM

TheDarkSaintOfGin: ox45tallboy: jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.

FYI, the parents weren't happy about it, and the father stated the child would not be attending the school the following year.

Link

Thank you for that.  I was hoping it was faked.  I have now lost all hope.

/last shred of faith in humanity=gone


Don't be down y'all.  The kid's parents were pissed and took the kid out of the school, so that's good. :)
 
2013-05-05 11:44:05 PM

rosebud_the_sled: Gosh, this really counters my firmly held belief that all southern educated people are fundie Christian, ignorant whackjobs.  I'll have to reconsider everything that I hold true.


Hey, I'm from the south and out of those, I'm only a wackjob.

Beating the curve, baby!
 
2013-05-05 11:46:33 PM

HighZoolander: PsiChick: What's the difference between a science fair and an individual experiment? That's the difference between what you're talking about and what Randi's doing. Not to mention the huge amount of fame he generates for the experiment continuing, the way he would be treated by skeptics if he was 'tricked by psychics', etc...

What exactly is Randi doing that you find so objectionable? I thought he was merely asking people to demonstrate psychic abilities under controlled conditions. Is there something I missed or what?

PsiChick: So you're arguing that, because we see a physical change in the brain when these experiences appear..we're putting too much faith in the scanning equipment because it only shows us which areas of the brain are lighting up, and not specific responses?

Riiight.

/That's  still a physical reaction, genius--psychics are  still experiencing physical stimuli that do not fall under the psychological definition of insanity.

You somehow managed to get the point while completely missing the point. The question to ask is: "Why do those areas appear to be more active than a baseline condition in those individuals during the experiment?"

Is it because they are indeed experiencing messages from beyond the grave?
Is it because they need to be in a self-induced trance-like state to perpetuate their brand of fraud?
Is it just what normally happens in the brain when someone pretends to be talking to a ghost?
Is it just what normally happens in the brain when someone pretends to be talking to anyone who isn't present?
What do the particular brain regions that appear to be active actually do?
Was the study conducted to professional standards with respect to methodology and data analysis?
Activation in fMRI studies is inherently comparative - what baseline task was used, and is that the best baseline task to use?

It's actually quite easy to get activation in brain regions in fMRI studies - simply seeing an area 'light up' tells us nothing without additiona ...


A) I have two problems with Randi. First, he's incredibly biased. He's got a million dollars of his own money and his entire reputation riding on the outcome of the experiment he's running. Second, a lot of psychics have actually tried to complete the challenge, and he basically screwed them over, not to mention changed the rules on a whim.

B) 'We don't know how this works' != 'it's not happening'.  Something is happening. You are trying to argue we don't know what. Yes. We don't. We  will someday, but 'I don't know' does not equal 'it's not happening'. And if you're questioning their methodology and\or ability to run a study...go look it up, these aren't state secrets or anything.
 
2013-05-05 11:56:46 PM

BSABSVR: jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.

Actually, IIRC the father of the child is the one who made the test public because he was shocked that his top notch private school was so terrible regarding science.  I believe the family is pulling the child from the school next year.


The fark? That's a legit picture? All this while I've been thinking it was a joke.
 
2013-05-06 12:07:55 AM

Ishkur: He asks the question because he thinks there is no scientific answer


Or, alternately, is playing devil's advocate, allowing others to practice answering challenges intelligently duplicitous.
www.swanwickcentre.ca
 
2013-05-06 12:09:16 AM

Biological Ali: The fark? That's a legit picture? All this while I've been thinking it was a joke.


Recheck Snopes.
 
2013-05-06 12:12:49 AM

abb3w: Or, alternately, is playing devil's advocate, allowing others to practice answering challenges intelligently duplicitous.


And it's a good thing we've had these debates several times before on Fark, otherwise I might have had to spend some actual precious time writing out responses rather than just copy-pasting.

/ ; )
 
Displayed 50 of 379 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report