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.

(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  
•       •       •

9016 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
 
2013-05-06 12:20:18 AM  

PsiChick: 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.



About Randi, I don't know the specifics about what you're referring to, but I would happily challenge anyone to demonstrate psychic abilities under controlled conditions for no prize money, if that helps.

And you're still missing the point about the MRI work. We do know how MRI works, in very great, exacting detail (we know a lot about the brain too, but not that much yet). A false positive would mean exactly that it's not happening. And if you want me to look up their methods... well, you said that 'We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums'

The list of those regions, just from the article you linked to: "Intriguingly, experienced psychographers showed lower levels of activity in the brain's frontal lobe regions of the left anterior cingulate and right precentral gyrus during psychography. These areas are linked with reasoning, planning, generating language, movement and problem solving, perhaps reflecting an absence of focus, self-awareness and consciousness during psychography. These psychographers also experienced less activity in the left hippocampus, which is linked with emotion, and the right superior temporal gyrus, which is linked with hearing. "

Gee, what a clear result. (the article writer also gets a lot wrong. The hippocampus does an awful lot of things, and is much more strongly tied to memory than emotion per se. The right superior temporal gyrus is a big area, only part of which is linked with hearing. And wow, look how many broad, vague things the frontal lobe regions are associated with - that really narrows down what the brains of the mediums are doing less of... or the same of but more efficiently... or more of but even more efficiently...)

If you want to cite that study as proof of anything, wouldn't you want to be *sure* that the people who did the work are competent at the method? I know I would.

But, I'll grant for the sake of argument and laziness that they were, and that the results are accurate (i.e., the brain regions identified by the authors are statistically reliable in response to the difference between when the mediums were doing their thing and when they weren't).

So what exactly are the 'experiences of mediums' that you think this study demonstrates the existence of? If it's just mumble mumble *must be something* mumble mumble, then so farking what? What an amazing new bit of knowledge to bequeath to the world! (and if the methods are poor, and this falls into dead fish territory, then wowsers! good jorb).

And, to be charitable, if it's just an internal state the mediums are capable of putting themselves into, then... ok.... let's have people think about their experiences at summer camp vs not. Wow - more brain regions show differences! This must also be an important result! Alert the Nobel committee!

If it's a response to an external stimulus - that is, the mediums are actually communicating with spirits - are you suggesting then that this study is evidence *for* the existence of said spirits? Because then the study would undergo a world a scrutiny, and I seriously doubt it would pass muster.
 
2013-05-06 12:32:32 AM  

HighZoolander: PsiChick:

So what exactly are the 'experiences of mediums' that you think this study demonstrates the existence of? If it's just mumble mumble *must be something* mumble mumble, then so farking what? What an amazing new bit of knowledge to bequeath to the world!  ...

Um...that's the point, genius. It's not 'oh my god, the laws of physics no longer exist!', it's 'wait a minute, these folks are actually experiencing something'. That  is big. It indicates the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did. Now,  what it's doing,  how it's doing it, no, we don't know that. We won't for a while, because we have a really low understanding of neurology. But yes, the point of this really is something that simple. A lot of science is.
 
2013-05-06 12:33:45 AM  

PsiChick: 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.


Just to sum up, you said what I quoted above, I'm saying not necessarily:

A. It could be a false positive/methodological failure (i.e., it's not happening/not real)
B. that 'something' could be no more important than thinking about summer camp re what the brain differences actually reflect (i.e., it can be safely ignored, even by a smart person)
 
2013-05-06 12:35:25 AM  
Yet again my country finds a way to bring me shame.

/is ashamed
 
2013-05-06 12:39:03 AM  

HighZoolander: PsiChick: 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.

Just to sum up, you said what I quoted above, I'm saying not necessarily:

A. It could be a false positive/methodological failure (i.e., it's not happening/not real)
B. that 'something' could be no more important than thinking about summer camp re what the brain differences actually reflect (i.e., it can be safely ignored, even by a smart person)


...No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those. And that  because it's not either of those (and if you want to prove it's either of those, go look at the methodology and prove it there), that represents,  along with the other evidence, indication that having at least some psychic talents are based in  physical, possibly  neurological, processes.

That's huge. It tells us where to start looking, what to start looking for. It's also totally ignored, because 'psychics aren't real'. When they finally figure this stuff out, the headline will read 'Psychics finally disproven!' as they go on to explain in detail exactly what they've been doing. Look at the University of Granada and College London articles. They did exactly that.
 
2013-05-06 12:41:48 AM  

PsiChick: No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those


How do you prove that it is not either a false positive or evidence that the subject was not just reacting to other stimulus?
 
2013-05-06 12:45:48 AM  

PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: So what exactly are the 'experiences of mediums' that you think this study demonstrates the existence of? If it's just mumble mumble *must be something* mumble mumble, then so farking what? What an amazing new bit of knowledge to bequeath to the world!  ...

Um...that's the point, genius. It's not 'oh my god, the laws of physics no longer exist!', it's 'wait a minute, these folks are actually experiencing something'. That  is big. It indicates the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did. Now,  what it's doing,  how it's doing it, no, we don't know that. We won't for a while, because we have a really low understanding of neurology. But yes, the point of this really is something that simple. A lot of science is.


No shiat! They're conscious, of course they're experiencing something! How much of a farking idiot do you have to be to assume that that is the biggest discovery since fire? I could think about my toenail and I can guarantee you that I could see brain differences in MRI vs. me thinking about someone else's toenail. Do you think that is BIG? Do you think it indicates that the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did? (assume that the experimenters asked me to think about toenails, not that I just did it and surprised them with it afterwards, because really, maybe nobody ever normally would think about toenails like that, but that's not important right now).


/you may be underestimating neuroscience
//that's twice now you've called me a genius - I wouldn't say that that's what it takes to poke holes in your arguments, but if that's what gets you through the day, I'm not going to argue the point.
 
2013-05-06 12:46:52 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those

How do you prove that it is not either a false positive or evidence that the subject was not just reacting to other stimulus?


...Because, in academic or scientific circles, you  check your data before you release it?

/Is...this really a surprise to people?
//Like, this is part of the whole 'college-educated' thing. Even English majors are supposed to check their sources...
 
2013-05-06 12:47:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


Tell me, Cameron, did you assess those explanations with critical thinking skills and logical analysis, or did you just accept them at face value?
 
2013-05-06 12:47:39 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those

How do you prove that it is not either a false positive or evidence that the subject was not just reacting to other stimulus?


exactly
 
2013-05-06 12:48:40 AM  

abb3w: Biological Ali: The fark? That's a legit picture? All this while I've been thinking it was a joke.

Recheck Snopes.


That's genuinely depressing. Wish I could go back to thinking it was made up, to be honest.
 
2013-05-06 12:48:53 AM  

PsiChick: .Because, in academic or scientific circles, you  check your data before you release it?


How does one check their data based on an MRI? An MRI doesn't show exactly what the subject was thinking or experiencing, just what area of the brain is active.
 
2013-05-06 12:49:01 AM  
Wow, things are getting kind of heated in here! My fellow Farkers, let's take advantage of the wonderful opportunity in this thread to laugh at fundies and post pictures of Christine O'Donnell.
i1243.photobucket.com

Here's an unintentional avant-garde interpretation of Go Tell It on the Mountain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg7uGL6Ku20
 
2013-05-06 12:49:08 AM  

PsiChick: cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those

How do you prove that it is not either a false positive or evidence that the subject was not just reacting to other stimulus?

...Because, in academic or scientific circles, you  check your data before you release it?

/Is...this really a surprise to people?
//Like, this is part of the whole 'college-educated' thing. Even English majors are supposed to check their sources...


Did you actually read that link about the dead fish?  A lot of published results are carp.. uh.. crap.
 
2013-05-06 12:51:01 AM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: 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.

Tell me, Cameron, did you assess those explanations with critical thinking skills and logical analysis, or did you just accept them at face value?


I assessed those explanations based on scientific data and tested hypotheses. None of which are present in "Intelligent design" and therefore it should not be introduced into a scientific classroom. You have not once proven that "intelligent design" has any reason for being in a scientific classroom and yet you continue to defend its use under this law as "logical."

Something tells me that science and logic aren't your strong suit.
 
2013-05-06 01:01:11 AM  

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?


Magic.

There, happy?
 
2013-05-06 01:06:28 AM  

HighZoolander: PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: So what exactly are the 'experiences of mediums' that you think this study demonstrates the existence of? If it's just mumble mumble *must be something* mumble mumble, then so farking what? What an amazing new bit of knowledge to bequeath to the world!  ...

Um...that's the point, genius. It's not 'oh my god, the laws of physics no longer exist!', it's 'wait a minute, these folks are actually experiencing something'. That  is big. It indicates the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did. Now,  what it's doing,  how it's doing it, no, we don't know that. We won't for a while, because we have a really low understanding of neurology. But yes, the point of this really is something that simple. A lot of science is.

No shiat! They're conscious, of course they're experiencing something! How much of a farking idiot do you have to be to assume that that is the biggest discovery since fire? I could think about my toenail and I can guarantee you that I could see brain differences in MRI vs. me thinking about someone else's toenail. Do you think that is BIG? Do you think it indicates that the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did? (assume that the experimenters asked me to think about toenails, not that I just did it and surprised them with it afterwards, because really, maybe nobody ever normally would think about toenails like that, but that's not important right now).


/you may be underestimating neuroscience
//that's twice now you've called me a genius - I wouldn't say that that's what it takes to poke holes in your arguments, but if that's what gets you through the day, I'm not going to argue the point.


Again: If you think they got a false positive,  go read the damn study. Don't sit here arguing with me because you might have a feeling in your gut that maybe it's not true. The first step to scientific literacy is literacy.

HighZoolander: PsiChick: cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: No. I'm saying that  it's not either of those

How do you prove that it is not either a false positive or evidence that the subject was not just reacting to other stimulus?

...Because, in academic or scientific circles, you  check your data before you release it?

/Is...this really a surprise to people?
//Like, this is part of the whole 'college-educated' thing. Even English majors are supposed to check their sources...

Did you actually read that link about the dead fish?  A lot of published results are carp.. uh.. crap.


Yes, I did. It's interesting, but wouldn't you agree it indicates that, well, the brain tissue responds to stimuli after death? Which isn't that surprising, since tissue is tissue. Frogs twitch when you send electricity through them, too.

cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: .Because, in academic or scientific circles, you  check your data before you release it?

How does one check their data based on an MRI? An MRI doesn't show exactly what the subject was thinking or experiencing, just what area of the brain is active.


Check against baseline and against the same subject (or different subjects if you have enough grant money) thinking of a memory, of a made-up image, or something random.

It's not a hard test to design, which is why it's easy to tell that Randi's full of shiat--if you want to show something physical is happening in the brains of mediums, have them imagine an image, have them imagine something random, basically put them through their paces, then have them do the medium thing under an MRI. If the result matches a prior scan, it's a false positive. If it doesn't, you've got your proof.
 
2013-05-06 01:10:35 AM  

PsiChick: Check against baseline and against the same subject (or different subjects if you have enough grant money) thinking of a memory, of a made-up image, or something random.


Okay and how do you test that baseline?
 
2013-05-06 01:13:18 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: 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.

Tell me, Cameron, did you assess those explanations with critical thinking skills and logical analysis, or did you just accept them at face value?

I assessed those explanations based on scientific data and tested hypotheses. None of which are present in "Intelligent design" and therefore it should not be introduced into a scientific classroom. You have not once proven that "intelligent design" has any reason for being in a scientific classroom and yet you continue to defend its use under this law as "logical."

Something tells me that science and logic aren't your strong suit.


No, I don't think you did.  Evolution cannot take place unless there is an ability to replicate in the first place.  So if someone told you otherwise in this thread, you were misled.  A Louisiana science education that teaches critical thinking skills and logical analysis would have helped you see that.
 
2013-05-06 01:15:47 AM  

SkinnyHead: critical thinking skills and logical analysis


Do you even know what that means?
 
2013-05-06 01:17:09 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: Check against baseline and against the same subject (or different subjects if you have enough grant money) thinking of a memory, of a made-up image, or something random.

Okay and how do you test that baseline?


I don't know how you get a baseline on an MRI. I'm not a neurologist. Presumably, however, they do actually know what a baseline (brain that isn't thinking of anything in particular) looks like.

/Sorry, but at some point I actually do not know the science. How to work an MRI is not my major.
 
2013-05-06 01:19:00 AM  

SkinnyHead: Evolution cannot take place unless there is an ability to replicate in the first place.


Yes, and I explained to you how that replication happens and why.

What part of it didn't you understand?
 
2013-05-06 01:21:06 AM  
So, I'm just curious. After seven pages of getting people to respond to him, how many times has SkinnyHead came?
 
2013-05-06 01:27:52 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: So Guillory says it's ok to teach Islam in schools as science?


Historically speaking, great strides in science and medicine were accomplished during the "Golden Age" of Islam. Islam is not anti-science.
 
2013-05-06 01:29:54 AM  

PsiChick: cameroncrazy1984: PsiChick: Check against baseline and against the same subject (or different subjects if you have enough grant money) thinking of a memory, of a made-up image, or something random.

Okay and how do you test that baseline?

I don't know how you get a baseline on an MRI. I'm not a neurologist. Presumably, however, they do actually know what a baseline (brain that isn't thinking of anything in particular) looks like.

/Sorry, but at some point I actually do not know the science. How to work an MRI is not my major.


A brain that isn't thinking of anything would be dead.

I see what you think you are trying to prove, but you are wrong. Or rather, we don't have the technology yet to tell what exactly someone is thinking ABOUT. We know that areas that are active when a person is remembering something are different than when they are experiencing something; but there is a lot of crossover, and a memory can trigger an experience and vice versa.

Also, just because someone is experiencing something doesn't mean they are experiencing something from beyond the grave. Your example of the frog muscle twitch is wrong also, because that is a muscular response triggered by the muscle reacting to the electrical impulse--there are no muscles I know of in the brain, and electrical impulses to the brain, while they do some interesting things, don't cause it to twitch. It can, however, cause someone to experience the sensation of being watched, or that someone is in the room with them...sensations remarkably similar to that of ghosts or aliens. The similarity of some mediums' experiences to temporal lobe epilepsy has been researched and documented pretty extensively.

MRIs are not the thing to do this with anyway. It's PET scans that show areas of the brain that are active. MRIs don't do it, and if they're using them for this research, they're not using the best techniques.
 
2013-05-06 01:31:35 AM  
Meanwhile, in the Geek tab: a Fifth force has been discovered.

Meet the new gaps.
 
2013-05-06 01:36:15 AM  

Fark You I'm Drunk: So, I'm just curious. After seven pages of getting people to respond to him, how many times has SkinnyHead came?


That's an image I didn't need, thanks. And not right before bed.
 
2013-05-06 01:39:08 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Also, just because someone is experiencing something doesn't mean they are experiencing something from beyond the grave


This...is sort of my point. I'm not sure it even  is something beyond the grave. It's just  something, and this is a start on where to find them. And yes, it's probably similar to temporal lobe epilepsy.  That's probably what it's going to look like. And that's okay. Most psychics would be pissed off about that, because psychics have their own subculture that's highly spiritual (which could have been avoided, so I really have no sympathy for researchers who deal with that; research is incredibly buyer-beware for psychics, and at some point you make your own bed), but that's probably how it'll turn out. That doesn't make it less 'real'. It makes it  entirely real.

I don't know enough about PET v. MRI to comment about that, but I'll take your word for it.
 
2013-05-06 01:46:06 AM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: 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.

Tell me, Cameron, did you assess those explanations with critical thinking skills and logical analysis, or did you just accept them at face value?

I assessed those explanations based on scientific data and tested hypotheses. None of which are present in "Intelligent design" and therefore it should not be introduced into a scientific classroom. You have not once proven that "intelligent design" has any reason for being in a scientific classroom and yet you continue to defend its use under this law as "logical."

Something tells me that science and logic aren't your strong suit.

No, I don't think you did.  Evolution cannot take place unless there is an ability to replicate in the first place.  So if someone told you otherwise in this thread, you were misled.  A Louisiana science education that teaches critical thinking skills and logical analysis would have helped you see that.


Yes it can and it has and we can prove that it happens, unlike you false claim of ID. If you would have any critical thinking skills, you would actually understand this concept.
 
2013-05-06 01:48:08 AM  

Ishkur: SkinnyHead: Evolution cannot take place unless there is an ability to replicate in the first place.

Yes, and I explained to you how that replication happens and why.

What part of it didn't you understand?


To be fair, it is all pretty complex. It is easier for him to just say that god did everything.
 
2013-05-06 01:52:45 AM  
wait a minute...witch doctor..this sounds familiar. think think think

aha

isleofran.com
 
2013-05-06 01:58:14 AM  
Come on, stop feeding the troll.

i1243.photobucket.comi1243.photobucket.comi1243.photobucket.com

Also, Senator Elbert Guillory (D-Opelousas) mentioned in TFA is a moran. His vouching for the credibility of a witch doctor to allow creationism to be taught in schools is ridiculous. The witch doctor as well as most people with mystical/magickal approaches to spirituality, most likely have a very different (and probably open-ended) view of cosmology than fundies or even followers of organized religions in general.
 
2013-05-06 02:16:36 AM  

PsiChick: Again: If you think they got a false positive,  go read the damn study. Don't sit here arguing with me because you might have a feeling in your gut that maybe it's not true. The first step to scientific literacy is literacy.


I've actually studied MRI extensively and published papers using it. What I'm trying to get across to you is that it is not as easy to draw conclusions about it as you seem to think.

PsiChick: Yes, I did. It's interesting, but wouldn't you agree it indicates that, well, the brain tissue responds to stimuli after death? Which isn't that surprising, since tissue is tissue. Frogs twitch when you send electricity through them, too.


I'm glad you read it, but no. This is not the correct conclusion to draw. You can also see areas of activation in MRI that appear outside of the heads of your test subjects. This is also simply noise. It means nothing. If you do 1000 scans, and look at the areas outside the head that appear active, they are not the same from scan to scan. Average the scans, and with enough scans those areas of activation will simply disappear. Adjust the significance threshold, and they will also disappear, even with a single scan.

PsiChick: I don't know how you get a baseline on an MRI. I'm not a neurologist. Presumably, however, they do actually know what a baseline (brain that isn't thinking of anything in particular) looks like.


There is not 'a baseline' for functional MRI. Any particular baseline that is chosen depends on the hypothesis being tested.

PsiChick: This...is sort of my point. I'm not sure it even  is something beyond the grave. It's just  something, and this is a start on where to find them. And yes, it's probably similar to temporal lobe epilepsy.  That's probably what it's going to look like. And that's okay. Most psychics would be pissed off about that, because psychics have their own subculture that's highly spiritual (which could have been avoided, so I really have no sympathy for researchers who deal with that; research is incredibly buyer-beware for psychics, and at some point you make your own bed), but that's probably how it'll turn out. That doesn't make it less 'real'. It makes it  entirely real.

I don't know enough about PET v. MRI to comment about that, but I'll take your word for it.


What evidence would you want to see to determine whether or not it's real? How would you test 'probably similar to temporal lobe epilepsy'?

What I'm trying to get you to see is that you should be rigorously trying to find out what's wrong with these studies (if nothing, then maybe there's something), not what's right with them. If you focus on how they could be right, then there's a much better chance that you're just fooling yourself.


Gyrfalcon: MRIs are not the thing to do this with anyway. It's PET scans that show areas of the brain that are active. MRIs don't do it, and if they're using them for this research, they're not using the best techniques.


just to clarify this - structural MRI does not show areas of the brain that are active, as you say. Functional MRI does show active brain areas, using blood flow as a proxy for neural activity (I can get more technically precise if you want). There are pros and cons of FMRI in comparison to PET. In my posts above I meant to be referring to FMRI, not structual MRI. I assume that that's what the authors did, which I don't take to be a problem necessarily.

It's partly about the rigorous methodology, and partly about drawing inferences from the results. It may be that the study authors are appropriately rigorous and cautious (I haven't read the study - I come to fark to argue, not to work), and it may be that the media coverage is overblowing it, and then PsiChick is maybe even stating things a bit more strongly.

I do have to say though, that I would not accept evidence for psychic phenomena unless it were done extremely rigorously by people with unimpeachable reputations. Call me biased, or call me Bayesian; at this point: tomato, tomahto.
 
2013-05-06 02:26:47 AM  

PsiChick: Erix: PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /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.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.

Would it be not science if I offered a reward for a fossil proving human and dinosaur coexistence?  As long as the methods are sound and the evidence is properly studied, the reward did nothing other than provide the motivation for people to supply testable samples.

Randi isn't exactly doing that, but the greater point is that by offering a reward he's drawing attention to the fact that no one has claimed it.  It's public outreach with tiny science filling.

The bold part is the really big point.

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 ...


There was no "nerding" about the gibberish nonsense you just put forth. I like people like you though, because it makes it so easy to just categorize you as a nutter.
 
2013-05-06 03:35:45 AM  

PsiChick: Um...that's the point, genius. It's not 'oh my god, the laws of physics no longer exist!', it's 'wait a minute, these folks are actually experiencing something'. That  is big. It indicates the human brain does something we didn't previously know it did.


Every portion of the brain lights up under some stimulus, so what's weird about what the bit that lights up for mediums, exactly?  What does it correlate to that's unexpected?

By telling us that there are regions of the brain that light up when hanging out with a cold-reader, all you're telling us are that the cold reader is a thing, that exists, that the subjects can sense.

... holy shiat, you've proven that psychics aren't invisible.  WOAH MIND BLOWN.
 
2013-05-06 04:15:14 AM  

Walter Paisley: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That "Were you there?" response could also be used to counter just about everything that fundies claim to be true.


Where you there when they crucified our Lord?
 This might end badly for creationists...
 
2013-05-06 04:33:58 AM  
I came to the thread for religious derp, instead I got new age psychic derp.
 
2013-05-06 04:41:48 AM  
An example of Randi's totally "biased" million dollar challenge.

So biased in fact that the institute and the person making the claim negotiate the conditions of the test before hand and sign a contract stating that all parties agree to those terms.
 
2013-05-06 04:47:53 AM  

SkinnyHead: But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.


It's bollocks.
 
2013-05-06 04:54:45 AM  
Why are they trying to get legislators who are stupid enough to have passed this law in the first place to overturn it? Sounds like a waste of effort. Put together a case and have the law overturned in court. One step.
 
2013-05-06 05:27:11 AM  

SkinnyHead: The Louisiana Science Education Act speaks for itself, and it does not mention anything about teaching creation science or intelligent design. But if the scientific theory of intelligent design were to be discussed in the classroom, the students should be expected use critical thinking skills and logical analysis in assessing that theory as well.


Creationism = a pig
Creation Science = a pig in a tuxedo
Intelligent Design = a pig-shaped tuxedo, but no pig
Teach the Controversy = squirt BBQ sauce on the other guy's tuxedo
 
2013-05-06 05:45:50 AM  

Mikey1969: In 2008, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed the "Louisiana Science Education Act" into law. This Orwellian-named bit of legislation was an outrageous attempt to allow creationism to be taught in schools.

Oh FFS, LEARN what farking "Orwellian" means before slapping it on everything that is handy, you dipshiat. The name is not "Orwellian" at all. Something like the Thinking Alignment Act, now THAT would be "Orwellain".

God, journalism has turned to utter shiat. People don't even bother to use the right version of a word anymore. The bee removal story on the Main Page said that the bees were removed from the "eve" of the house. It used to be that you only saw this type of shiat on the message boards, the articles were still written by professionals. I'm not even sure journalism degrees exist anymore... I sure as Hell know that editors don't.


Disagree. 'Orwellian' is appropriate, here. The Ministry of Peace wages war. The Ministry of Truth spreads lies, and this "Science Education Act" indoctrinates religion.

'Orwellian' is correct. I'm sorry. I do not make the rules. You are simply going to have to deal with it.
 
2013-05-06 06:14:04 AM  

fusillade762: [img.photobucket.com image 512x384]

ARISE CHICKEN! So I can fark you some more.


you, sir, are a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day.
 
2013-05-06 07:07:54 AM  

RyogaM: oon, and these super-dinos were directing our evolution toward being the ultimate half-time snack, and, when humans contained exactly the right ratio of bones/fat/muscle, they would hoover us all up to their secret dino-base in the moon and eat us.


lol...
 
2013-05-06 08:22:49 AM  
And, as usual, skinnyhead wins the thread because people will not farking stop responding to his inane horseshiat.

You can't reason with a person whose sole purpose in arguing is to be unreasonable. All you can do is insure that he prevents any other intelligent or interesting discussion from happening.

Congratulations, most of the people in this thread have actually managed to be stupider than skinnyhead. Pat yourselves on the back.
 
2013-05-06 08:30:06 AM  

GilRuiz1: I'm surprised Slate admitted Sen. Guillory is a Democrat.


And he will be held up as an example of "Democrat" thought for decades hence by future Republicans who will conveniently forget the oceans of derp put forth by their side.
 
2013-05-06 08:36:27 AM  

Graffito: GilRuiz1: I'm surprised Slate admitted Sen. Guillory is a Democrat.

And he will be held up as an example of "Democrat" thought for decades hence by future Republicans who will conveniently forget the oceans of derp put forth by their side.


Gil's dumb ass actually agrees with Jindal, so I wouldn't bet that he would categorize it as derp.
 
2013-05-06 08:51:40 AM  
I make it a point not to argue with a creationist.  That just brings me down to their level.

/Echoing a point about a Roman master beating his slave.
 
2013-05-06 09:02:36 AM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Voodoo gets results


yeah, I do.
 
2013-05-06 09:39:23 AM  
Creation
In religion and philosophy stories of the supernatural creation of the Earththe biblical account of creationISM a suffix appended to many philosophical concepts
 
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 »
Advertisement
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