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.

(Popular Science)   Science discovers twins tend to be religious, hot   (popsci.com) divider line 117
    More: Cool, genetic predisposition, King's College London, religiosity, Clinical study design, White American, individual differences, twin study  
•       •       •

11622 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Aug 2013 at 11:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-19 01:03:59 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Amos Quito: "Scientific Priest Class"

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 250x272]



Found a true believer here, folks!


Have a look at the history of your object of worship, GRÜBY.

See anything that was once widely accepted - even applauded - that is now shunned?

Think that won't happen again?
 
2013-08-19 01:13:34 AM  
baddestbroads.com
There was a time on FARK that this was a sponsorable offense!
 
2013-08-19 01:15:28 AM  

Amos Quito: Science, in purity - the pursuit of fact and truth for truth's sake - is a wonderful endeavor.

But this creature is rare and elusive - as "science" is highly succeptible to corruption for the sake of ego, profit and political gain, and is constantly manipulated by those we entrust - the bought-and-sold "Scientific Priest Class" to hoodwink and manipulate the befuddled rabble to serve nefarious agendas.

Of course the "soft" sciences are particularly vulnerable.

Does that help?

Or am I addressing "True Believers" here?


I suppose that might be a plausible characterization of science, assuming you've never read a scientific journal and are already predisposed to epistemological relativism. Otherwise...

Yeah, no. The vast majority of science is soul-crushingly routine, technically-oriented, and wildly uninteresting to anybody but the usually small number of colleagues working on the same problems. Maybe that reality doesn't match the glamor that a phrase like "truth for truth's sake" would imply. But, the correctness and verifiability of one's work isn't exactly an incidental concern of the average scientist in the field.

If it were, science probably wouldn't...you know, actually work all that well.
 
2013-08-19 01:19:37 AM  

HairBolus: n your obsession you got that picture confused with this one, though they do look similar.


24.media.tumblr.com i.chzbgr.com29.media.tumblr.com


i621.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-19 01:21:29 AM  
Well, if the scientific method isn't infallible, we have no choice but to fall back on ancient creation myths and their immutable dogma. Now to decide which one is the correct one!
 
2013-08-19 01:31:13 AM  
Twins are creepy. Yeah I've said it. They are like an alien doppelganger abduction plot that never went through.
 
2013-08-19 01:32:03 AM  
I don't see why this would be controversial.  Plenty of heritable traits (e.g. disposition, intelligence) have a modest correlation with level of religious belief.

Or is this because we're not supposed to acknowledge that some life outcomes are partially genetically pre-determined?
 
2013-08-19 01:36:47 AM  
Do identical cousins count?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-19 01:38:19 AM  
www.popcrunch.com
/meh
 
2013-08-19 01:41:36 AM  
www.buzzinn.net
 
2013-08-19 01:41:47 AM  

Captain Dan: I don't see why this would be controversial.  Plenty of heritable traits (e.g. disposition, intelligence) have a modest correlation with level of religious belief.

Or is this because we're not supposed to acknowledge that some life outcomes are partially genetically pre-determined?


It's because a phrase like, "faith gene," conveys no such subtlety of understanding.

Actually, that sort of illiterate bullshiat tends to get in the way.
 
2013-08-19 01:46:59 AM  
www.morethings.com
cdn2.maxim.com yeeeah.com
secretsocietynyc.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-19 01:53:43 AM  

Bumblefark: Amos Quito: Science, in purity - the pursuit of fact and truth for truth's sake - is a wonderful endeavor.

But this creature is rare and elusive - as "science" is highly succeptible to corruption for the sake of ego, profit and political gain, and is constantly manipulated by those we entrust - the bought-and-sold "Scientific Priest Class" to hoodwink and manipulate the befuddled rabble to serve nefarious agendas.

Of course the "soft" sciences are particularly vulnerable.

Does that help?

Or am I addressing "True Believers" here?

I suppose that might be a plausible characterization of science, assuming you've never read a scientific journal and are already predisposed to epistemological relativism. Otherwise...

Yeah, no. The vast majority of science is soul-crushingly routine, technically-oriented, and wildly uninteresting to anybody but the usually small number of colleagues working on the same problems. Maybe that reality doesn't match the glamor that a phrase like "truth for truth's sake" would imply. But, the correctness and verifiability of one's work isn't exactly an incidental concern of the average scientist in the field.

If it were, science probably wouldn't...you know, actually work all that well.



Unfortunately it often doesn't - you know - work all that well, especially in the "soft sciences", as I emphasized above.

For example, anyone with access to a large rock can easily demonstrate the action of gravity to a student in possession of a toe. That's "hard science".

But the fields of psychiatry, psychology, sociology, economics, pharmacology, etc. are much more subjective in nature, and therefor subject to corruption via selective data inclusion and/or interpretation.

Fro example, I read an excellent article on a study wherein SSRI antidepressants (Prozac) were being compared to newer classes of AD's. A placebo arm was included in the study.

The placebo outperformed BOTH the SSRI's and the new drugs.

The google-fu fails at the moment, so this will have to suffice.

No offense, chum. I'm sure your work is impeccable, but not all "science" is as trustworthy - ego, politics and ca$h have their influence.

As for the "science" of economics....

i1121.photobucket.com

You believe that, right?
 
2013-08-19 02:05:09 AM  

Amos Quito: Bumblefark: Amos Quito: Science, in purity - the pursuit of fact and truth for truth's sake - is a wonderful endeavor.

But this creature is rare and elusive - as "science" is highly succeptible to corruption for the sake of ego, profit and political gain, and is constantly manipulated by those we entrust - the bought-and-sold "Scientific Priest Class" to hoodwink and manipulate the befuddled rabble to serve nefarious agendas.

Of course the "soft" sciences are particularly vulnerable.

Does that help?

Or am I addressing "True Believers" here?

I suppose that might be a plausible characterization of science, assuming you've never read a scientific journal and are already predisposed to epistemological relativism. Otherwise...

Yeah, no. The vast majority of science is soul-crushingly routine, technically-oriented, and wildly uninteresting to anybody but the usually small number of colleagues working on the same problems. Maybe that reality doesn't match the glamor that a phrase like "truth for truth's sake" would imply. But, the correctness and verifiability of one's work isn't exactly an incidental concern of the average scientist in the field.

If it were, science probably wouldn't...you know, actually work all that well.


Unfortunately it often doesn't - you know - work all that well, especially in the "soft sciences", as I emphasized above.

For example, anyone with access to a large rock can easily demonstrate the action of gravity to a student in possession of a toe. That's "hard science".

But the fields of psychiatry, psychology, sociology, economics, pharmacology, etc. are much more subjective in nature, and therefor subject to corruption via selective data inclusion and/or interpretation.

Fro example, I read an excellent article on a study wherein SSRI antidepressants (Prozac) were being compared to newer classes of AD's. A placebo arm was included in the study.

The placebo outperformed BOTH the SSRI's and the new drugs.

The google-fu fails at the mom ...


You're right. Those goal-posts do look better over there.

But, fine, let's make the relative efficacy of the human sciences. Are you are at least vaguely aware of the self-defeating irony of quoting scientific research to make your point?
 
2013-08-19 02:08:07 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Do identical cousins count?


I always wanted to fark Patti. Not only did Patti like to rock 'n' roll, but a hot dog made her lose control.
 
2013-08-19 02:08:12 AM  

Amos Quito: Ed Grubermann: Amos Quito: "Scientific Priest Class"

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 250x272]

Found a true believer here, folks!
Have a look at the history of your object of worship, GRÜBY.


I don't worship anything or anyone. Science has not replaced religion in my life. It's really too bad your mind is too small to comprehend that fact.
 
2013-08-19 02:08:51 AM  

Bumblefark: But, fine, let's make the relative efficacy of the human sciences. Are you are at least vaguely aware of the self-defeating irony of quoting scientific research to make your point?


"Let's make this about", that should read.

/Meh. Been drinkin'.
 
2013-08-19 02:08:51 AM  

Amos Quito: Bumblefark: Amos Quito: Science, in purity - the pursuit of fact and truth for truth's sake - is a wonderful endeavor.

But this creature is rare and elusive - as "science" is highly succeptible to corruption for the sake of ego, profit and political gain, and is constantly manipulated by those we entrust - the bought-and-sold "Scientific Priest Class" to hoodwink and manipulate the befuddled rabble to serve nefarious agendas.

Of course the "soft" sciences are particularly vulnerable.

Does that help?

Or am I addressing "True Believers" here?

I suppose that might be a plausible characterization of science, assuming you've never read a scientific journal and are already predisposed to epistemological relativism. Otherwise...

Yeah, no. The vast majority of science is soul-crushingly routine, technically-oriented, and wildly uninteresting to anybody but the usually small number of colleagues working on the same problems. Maybe that reality doesn't match the glamor that a phrase like "truth for truth's sake" would imply. But, the correctness and verifiability of one's work isn't exactly an incidental concern of the average scientist in the field.

If it were, science probably wouldn't...you know, actually work all that well.


Unfortunately it often doesn't - you know - work all that well, especially in the "soft sciences", as I emphasized above.

For example, anyone with access to a large rock can easily demonstrate the action of gravity to a student in possession of a toe. That's "hard science".

But the fields of psychiatry, psychology, sociology, economics, pharmacology, etc. are much more subjective in nature, and therefor subject to corruption via selective data inclusion and/or interpretation.

Fro example, I read an excellent article on a study wherein SSRI antidepressants (Prozac) were being compared to newer classes of AD's. A placebo arm was included in the study.

The placebo outperformed BOTH the SSRI's and the new drugs.

The google-fu fails at the moment, so this will have to suffice.

No offense, chum. I'm sure your work is impeccable, but not all "science" is as trustworthy - ego, politics and ca$h have their influence.

As for the "science" of economics....



You believe that, right?


Did you forget to list chemistry, biology, physics, astrophysics, genetics, and so on? Because those fields aren't "hard science" they are science period. Sociology? Economics? Did the definition of science suddenly take on this broad term I'm not aware of?
 
2013-08-19 02:14:33 AM  
Hilarious because when they get to heaven God makes them arena fight for their one shared soul.
 
2013-08-19 02:14:55 AM  
CTRL-F, NSFW [ENTER]

I haz a sad
 
2013-08-19 02:15:05 AM  

Gone to Plaid: Did you forget to list chemistry, biology, physics, astrophysics, genetics, and so on? Because those fields aren't "hard science" they are science period. Sociology? Economics? Did the definition of science suddenly take on this broad term I'm not aware of?


150 years ago is "suddenly"?
 
2013-08-19 02:27:21 AM  

Bumblefark: But, fine, let's make the relative efficacy of the human sciences. Are you are at least vaguely aware of the self-defeating irony of quoting scientific research to make your point?



That IS the point, friend.

People have a tendency to "worship", to blindly place their faith in a "higher power" to form the basis life-changing decisions - personally, and on a societal level.

Back in the day, the Pope said the Earth was the center of the universe - anyone who disagreed was ridiculed - or worse.

Yesterday, coffee was "good for you", today, it is the devil incarnate. Tomorrow???

People are gullible SOB's. They seek to "believe", and I have been speaking of the tendency in human nature of blindly placing trust in a "higher authority", whether it be to a "sky god" and his Priest Class, a politician and his minions, or "science" and its "priest class".

Go back and read my initial offering in this thread.

If you don't, the sun will not rise in the morning, and the moon will crash to Earth, killing us all.

Then cometh the Judgement.

Amen.
 
2013-08-19 02:33:03 AM  
 
2013-08-19 02:39:02 AM  

Dahnkster: Gordon Bennett: Do identical cousins count?

I always wanted to fark Patti. Not only did Patti like to rock 'n' roll, but a hot dog made her lose control.


See, that's why I'd fark Cathy instead. Even though she's supposed to be Scottish but sounds Dutch to me. Because we're never quite told what losing control would be. On one hand she might be like a squirming orgasmic wildcat in bed, on the other she might try to pop open a champagne bottle up your arse. I'm not sure if I could take that chance.
 
2013-08-19 02:44:10 AM  

ultraholland: Quantum Apostrophe: Yes, who can forget the university crusades of the middle ages, or the horrific "science" mass killings of the 19th century?

oh, and remember when "science" placed Galileo under life-long house arrest for heresy?


Or when science rioted over a cartoon of its prophet?
 
2013-08-19 03:12:04 AM  
I'm a twin.
I'm an atheist.
I'm also male so that doesn't help the spirit of this thread any.

/carry on.
 
2013-08-19 03:30:29 AM  

fusillade762: ultraholland: Quantum Apostrophe: Yes, who can forget the university crusades of the middle ages, or the horrific "science" mass killings of the 19th century?

oh, and remember when "science" placed Galileo under life-long house arrest for heresy?

Or when science rioted over a cartoon of its prophet?


If I wasn't so tired and about to go to bed I would so put a bomb turban on Einstein.  Also, my photoshop skills suck.
 
2013-08-19 04:56:35 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Oldiron_79: fusillade762: Hopefully we can identify this gene and eradicate it.

You know who Else liked eliminating those whose genes he disliked?

Me, Ed Grubermann!


Ed Grubermann, you have failed to grasp the lessons of Twin Kwon Leap. Approach so that you might learn.
 
2013-08-19 05:01:17 AM  
I was under the impression that we were already well aware of the genetic links to religion? I've read about it plenty, in books from many decades ago. This seems like old news to me.
 
2013-08-19 05:03:56 AM  
tenletter.files.wordpress.com

TWINS, Basil.
 
2013-08-19 05:41:03 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Amos Quito: These days we seem to be trending away from the traditional "sky-god" worship and leaning more toward the (often equally irrational) worship of State, "science" and academia.

Yes, who can forget the university crusades of the middle ages, or the horrific "science" mass killings of the 19th century?

(What the hell are you talking about?)


When you say "science" mass killings you mean hiroshima and nagasaki right?
 
2013-08-19 06:45:20 AM  

zock: When you say "science" mass killings you mean hiroshima and nagasaki right?


How were those science-related?  You realize the experiments leading to the bombs still haven't been published, right?  That's essentially the opposite of science.
 
2013-08-19 07:58:42 AM  

Jim_Callahan: zock: When you say "science" mass killings you mean hiroshima and nagasaki right?

How were those science-related?  You realize the experiments leading to the bombs still haven't been published, right?  That's essentially the opposite of science.


He's talking about post destruction. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have lead to a much greater understanding of ionizing radiation and it's effects. The contributions of the studies to the field of radiography and medicine have been huge.

/radiographer
 
2013-08-19 08:05:24 AM  
I guess this is the wrong place to point out that twins find the sexual fascination that singletons have with the
concept of a threesome with a set of twins repugnant.

/Incest is not hot, people.
 
2013-08-19 08:26:55 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: I guess this is the wrong place to point out that twins find the sexual fascination that singletons have with the
concept of a threesome with a set of twins repugnant.

/Incest is not hot, people.


No, but it is the best.
 
2013-08-19 08:54:32 AM  

Captain Dan: I don't see why this would be controversial.  Plenty of heritable traits (e.g. disposition, intelligence) have a modest correlation with level of religious belief.

Or is this because we're not supposed to acknowledge that some life outcomes are partially genetically pre-determined?



Nope, it's because the opposite has been claimed.  Like here and here and here.
 
2013-08-19 09:00:21 AM  
many thanks, !


/Go Twins!
 
2013-08-19 10:18:48 AM  
gotta love FARK.  in this corner we have people discussing merits of a variety of sciences, and in this corner over here we have a stand up gentleman doing outstanding work at filling the thread with hot twins.
 
2013-08-19 10:20:27 AM  
People who are into the whole "hooking up with twins" thing appear to be OK with incest, and that's just farking creepy.
 
2013-08-19 10:21:28 AM  
What I've learned in this thread: Amos Q can't tell the difference between science and how the media reports science.
www.phdcomics.com
 
2013-08-19 10:21:54 AM  
You're all going to hell. This is what all those twins used to look like:

i.imgur.com

/shakes fist
 
2013-08-19 10:23:20 AM  

OgreMagi: CTRL-F, NSFW [ENTER]

I haz a sad


ME TOO
 
2013-08-19 10:26:33 AM  

I created this alt just for this thread: What I've learned in this thread: Amos Q can't tell the difference between science and how the media reports science.
[www.phdcomics.com image 600x667]


It's true, your Honor.
 
2013-08-19 10:32:48 AM  
0f.img.v4.skyrock.net
 
2013-08-19 10:39:24 AM  

jayhawk88: You're all going to hell. This is what all those twins used to look like:

[i.imgur.com image 850x566]

/shakes fist


I don't understand this point. Everyone who's ever had sex with anyone used to be a baby at some time. What the hell.

If it's supposed to be funny I don't get that either.
 
2013-08-19 11:01:18 AM  

Amos Quito: Ed Grubermann: Amos Quito: "Scientific Priest Class"

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 250x272]


Found a true believer here, folks!


Have a look at the history of your object of worship, GRÜBY.

See anything that was once widely accepted - even applauded - that is now shunned?

Think that won't happen again?


So...you're just a dumb troll then?
 
2013-08-19 11:12:02 AM  

panfried: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x692]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x667]
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 500x667]
/Back on track
//hot as twin hotties


Awww hell, its about time
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-19 11:14:18 AM  

jayhawk88: You're all going to hell. This is what all those twins used to look like:

[i.imgur.com image 850x566]

/shakes fist



So all we have to do is wait? Excellent.
 
2013-08-19 11:27:24 AM  

panfried: [www.popcrunch.com image 450x315]
/meh


I wish I could "Smart" this a thousand times.
 
2013-08-19 11:32:25 AM  

jayhawk88: You're all going to hell. This is what all those twins used to look like:



I should keep that picture so I don't have to draw as many pictures of unicorns.
i44.tinypic.com
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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