Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Science denialist vent/ rant.

- Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:30:23 EST FW3hqiSI No.76865
File: 1438331423442.png -(547907B / 535.07KB, 451x604) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Science denialist vent/ rant.
I started a thread on /spooky/ asking for any evidence of the paranormal or supernatural.

Instead all I got was a bunch of personal attack and people babbling nonsense and presenting it as truth. Then when shown they are incorrect with verifiable data rather than pseudoscience they resort to personal attacks again. They and pretty much all other magical thinkers take any sort of challenge to their beliefs as a personal attack.

I was at a party a few months back and some girl was talking about how she went to some yoga guy who does "laying on of hands". Which involves doing yoga while a dude puts his hands on your body and makes weird noises. Supposedly doing this achieves any number of effects from healing wounds, curing depression and other supposed boons.
not arguing the therapeutic effects of yoga just the laying on of hands part
I tried to understand what she was explaining to me by asking questions. Like asking her what was actually happening because it made 0 sense to me. Instead she started insulting me for being closed minded and shit.

Also in real life I live in the US south. Where people who think the world is 6000 years old is the norm.

Needless to say I deal with people who use magical thinking on a regular basis.
They are 100% willing to reap the benefits of science and the technology that comes with it until it conflicts with some myth or story about ghosts or some shit some one told them. Then all reason and logic go out the window.

Why do so many people especially in the us reject verifiable facts over what feels good? I went to the same public schools as them, I was also raised in a religious household (jewish, although I'm no longer religious). The only difference is that I chose the rational answer.

Idk, maybe I'm just a giant nerd who paid too much attention in school. It's frustrating living among all these science denialists.

Also all of the above isn't a rant about religion. You can be religious and a realist, I have several christian friends who understand their religion and all others aren't meant to be taken literally. I actually respect people who can strike the balance between their religion and what the real world shows them.

>Pic very related.
Vehk !7HYGxe5v5c - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:41:51 EST mz6WgLCA No.76867 Reply
1438375311260.png -(1299310B / 1.24MB, 985x587) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

> people are irrational

Stop the fucking presses. Randi Bobandi, you're onto something.

There are always going to be people who will reason incorrectly and show a preference for information that confirms what they want to be true rather than impartially assessing the facts. We're a society which has just undergone an enlightenment period and which culturally hasn't developed a broad level of maturity on par with the technology available to it.

Continue what you're doing, be skeptical and demand verification and falsifiability before accepting anything as approximating truth, and try to weigh up information without heuristics where and when you can. If somebody refuses to apply fundamental principles of operation in their interaction with information and the natural world, there's no point in trying to argue with them about specific cases. The underlying problem is inherent in their flawed methodology and world view. If this girl wants to pay money to get felt up by some creep and it gives her a sense of well-being and a unique personal image, that's her business. I wouldn't take part in it and I'd admonish and challenge someone important to me who took part in it, but I wouldn't waste breath arguing with some girl at a party.

If I was you, I'd just be more selective about who I hang out with and debate with. Accurate information about science isn't widely spread amoungst the general population, especially party girls as a demographic. I find it easiest in these situations to just smile and nod, you have no power to influence this person's fundamental world view because it's a vital part of their self-conception.

The only time I would intervene would be if they were attempting to offer medical advice in a way that would be very adverse or harmful to someone, like telling someone with cancer to throw out their medicine and go see a homeopath. Other than in cases of direct possible harm, I don't see a moral imperative to confront people's delusions. Often feelings of persecution will make them reinforce their beliefs and hold them more strongly, regardless.

I had an ex who lived with a homeopath who tried to indoctrinate her into pseudoscience and get her to go to scientology audits. We had a lot of fights about it where I repeatedly explained why homeopathy was implausible both by a chemically implausible mechanism of action and no evidence of clinical efficacy over placebo, regression to the mean fallacy, etc.

She accused me of intellectually bullying her and it only pushed her more into the sordid world of CAM until one day she said that she thought about it and realised it was a total scam.

If a person reaches a conclusion without using logic, they can't be convinced of the error of that conclusion with logic by anyone else. They have to figure things out by themselves, you can only provide materiel and encouragement.

p.s everyone on /spooky/ is mentally ill or roleplaying. arguing with them is the equivalent to going to a dungeon and dragons convention and giving people shit for playing games in-character or going to a mental institution and making fun of the schizophrenics for having delusions.
Jenny Fellyford - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 11:10:04 EST uGD5aNS6 No.76868 Reply
>Idk, maybe I'm just a giant nerd who paid too much attention in school. It's frustrating living among all these science denialists.
Same bro.
Reason people get all upitty when you question their beliefs is because they are just beliefs, and I have a feeling a lot of them are actually already questioning them themselves.
Like somebody who is very steadfast in their beliefs usually doesn't get upset when you question them, because in their head they are sold. But people who are not rock solid in their belief are grasping at these things like a lifesaver in the ocean. They don't like their world views being being dismantled in front of them, as it is the only thing that gives them grounding in this world, I presume.
Archie Lightspear - Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:22:52 EST TRE2mvTS No.76870 Reply
Wow tipping my fucking fedora to you, OP.

There are tons of things you and the rest of the world just don't understand, which doesn't necessarily mean it's magic. You are the worst kind of elitist and your cringing up this board.
Cyril Pubbleham - Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:17:01 EST uGD5aNS6 No.76874 Reply
Did you even read the OP? That is not what it was entirely about.
Edwin Pittman - Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:59:00 EST cM6rhCgJ No.76875 Reply

Ghosts aren't real, hands on yoga coaches are molesters, religion is lies, and there's no life after death.
Jenny Gandlegold - Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:27:03 EST hjlqHS4/ No.76877 Reply
Everyone is family and there is no you but only the one which encompasses all things.
James Mother Fucking Randi - Thu, 06 Aug 2015 02:18:53 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76878 Reply
I almost feel like i should of posted my "magic isn't real" thread here.
Nell Firrynock - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 09:18:03 EST suDCfAlN No.76882 Reply
>Why do so many people reject verifiable facts over what feels good?
You already answered your question, because it feels good. That's the point of faith based beliefs, comfort. Or at least that's what I think about it.
It really doesn't matter what people who deny science think, because they're denying science, which is the method for figuring out the truth and how things work.
And getting into arguments with people who are denying science for something warm and fuzzy is pointless, and in my eyes kinda immoral. You believe in the scientific method. They believe in whatever faith based belief you're dealing with at the time.
When it comes down to it, when you are telling them they're wrong in hopes of enlightening them and/or inadvertantly or purposefully questioning their intelligence, you're pushing your belief system on them.
Beliefs are what we use to make sense of the world. When someone shakes or insults them, it's basically the same as shaking or insulting the core of their consciousness.
If you continue to argue with people about their beliefs, and let your jimmies get rustled over their reactions, you're gonna turn into a giant douchebag like Richard Dawkins who can't just live and let live.
Also OP I live in Texas, so I know what you're talking about with these kinds of people. My whole family is immigrant hating, "We need god in school," etc etc borderline conservative religious fanatics. I've tried talking to them about that stuff in the past and my logical viewpoint doesn't hold much weight to them. Just gotta let them be, if they choose to reject the best we know, that we've been refining since genesis, then that is their prerogative.
Maybe say the serenity prayer lol.
James Mother Fucking Randi - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 12:12:57 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76884 Reply
I disagree.

Not teaching the scientific method and telling people their wrong about their beliefs (when evidence is available) isn't a douche bag thing to do. It's quite the opposite. Letting some one remain in ignorance because you're afraid you might hurt their feelings is 100x worse of a thing to do.
Letting people believe in fairies and spirits is going to turn this world into the one shown in the movie idiocracy.

If some one takes me questioning their beliefs as a personal attack, then that must mean on some level they know their beliefs aren't correct. When some one gets all uppity and tries to challenge my use of the scientific method to view the world I don't get all butthurt and sad about it. I let them ask questions and say what ever they like, then counter the nonsense they said with verifiable facts and my feelings remain intact.

I've had to cut friends off for some stupid shit they believe before. The most recent one was because my "friend" didn't believe humans could go to space and therefore never went to the moon.
He had a whole joe rogan inspired argument about it. I'd show him facts to the contrary and I kid you not he'd say "I'm just the guy asking questions here" when I'd point out how retarded he was being.
James Mother Fucking Randi - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 12:16:22 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76886 Reply
Let me clarify so i don't sound like a super ass hole. I cut him off more specifically because he started harassing me on facebook about it. Like I'd have a thread going about something entirely unrelated and having nothing to do with him. He'd jump on and hi-jack the thread to insult me and my actual friends for believing in space travel, while the thread might of been about some one's cute dog picture or something.
Nell Firrynock - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 12:28:41 EST suDCfAlN No.76887 Reply
Yeah I don't think you're a "super ass hole" bro. I generally agree with everything you're saying. It all makes sense. It just seems that people who tend to go against the scientific method in interpreting their surroundings don't take scientific facts very well and are resistant to changing their ideologies. Like with religion, their ideas haven't changed for years and years. That shit is set in stone. I just don't believe the effort required to fight someone's belief system isn't worth it.
Also I get what you're saying with the idiocracy reference, but there will always be real scientists out there, and the people who reject it, ever increasingly, are discounted and their opinions are invalidated.
I just think that logic will prevail either way, and if they figure it out on their own, then their opinion is valid because their mind is open to change.
I guess my scattered point is that religion and faith (which is what believing in something without evidence like pseudoscience really is) have a fundamental role in human life for a lot of people, to fill a void in human understanding, and I get it. The reason a lot of pseudo science exists is because our understanding, in the grand scheme of things, is really impotent. And religion is to fill a philosophical void. I just can't go along with it because I'm too much of a realist and a pragmatist. But I say live and let live. Unless someone is fucking with you like you just said, then put him in his place.
James Mother Fucking Randi - Sat, 08 Aug 2015 03:35:36 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76891 Reply
Logic will only prevail if people push it and champion it's cause. It's not unlike being evangelical with religion.

If no one pushes it people will do what ever is easier/feels good.
But that's my opinion tho.
Nigger Docklekedge - Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:13:23 EST uGD5aNS6 No.76892 Reply
>You believe in the scientific method. They believe in whatever faith based belief you're dealing with at the time.

There is no belief in the scientific method. It's just something you use, a tool.

Do you walk into your kitchen, grab some food and a knife, and believe the knife is cutting your food?
Hugh Cherringson - Wed, 12 Aug 2015 02:01:28 EST lqfCRKYj No.76898 Reply

If you want an honest conversation about the topic of magic/metawhatever you want to call it these days, and are willing to actually attempt to understand the topic, I'm willing to try. I am a person of a scientific background (though live as a polymath applying various crafts and fields, partly as an excuse to learn more things.) who has been actively practicing various traditions of the occult for about a decade now. On this path I have always strived to seek truth, whatever it may be, regardless of whether it aligned with my beliefs, theories, or assumptions, or not, happy in the fact that being proved wrong now, could save me years of being wrong if it were to happen later, lol. That said, I am not offering debate, I honestly am of the opinion that debate is one of the worst things to happen to our society, next to politicians, who invented the fucking thing to make themselves look like they're needed, but that is a rant for a thread of it's own.

So in short, up for conversation? I'm not like the others.
Hugh Cherringson - Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:58:01 EST lqfCRKYj No.76900 Reply

Although... now that I read your thread in the paranormal section OP, I think your problem is that you're a bigoted dogmatic, and completely pretentious douchebag who cannot handle that your own worldview is not accepted as the credos of the world. If you cannot talk to people without trying to make them to be a lesser, you should just cut out your tongue now, it has no value to the world or yourself. Pig shit be upon you, lol.
James Mother Fucking Randi - Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:45:30 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76903 Reply
>claims to be a polymath in more than ine thread.
I dont think that word means what you think it means.

So how am i bigoted and dogmatic?
Is it because i refuse to accept unprovable nonsense? Im a douche because im upset that adults be live and practice what a child should be able to perceive as a fantasy?

Why exactly is debate wrong? I figure a person who claims such intellectual heights as your self would feel the opposite of this.
You really come across as another magical thinker who takes any challenge to their wolrd view as some major personal attack.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:35:22 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76908 Reply
I keep getting called names and insulted in both threads. Yet I avoid doing the same thing yet some how I'm a douche.
nignogmcgoggins - Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:08:36 EST ZMFKNgv5 No.76918 Reply
they think you are a douche because you cant let go of the fact that they have facts that are wrong. they have the opinion that your a know-it-all child who must correct everybody on theyre errors i know coz i was one of these kids.

however if you let them be un-corrected and skirt around the issue of "their belief is wrong...etcetc....etc" things will be much less abraisive for you do it for technical shit not beliefs and ppl will not call you a douche and insult you and they start calling you awesome because your essentially a massive information sink

tldr im baked not sure if this made any sense but fuck it heres my 20c
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:11:58 EST V1Ngvki3 No.76919 Reply
Meh. If you're a tripfag, you're probably going to be sometimes pretentious as you struggle to turn on and off your morals at the right and wrong times. humility is weird thing, so don't even try anymore. just say what's on your mind, m8b8

on that sense, if someone already thinks you're pretentious, they'll think you're a douch. so that's a redundant point.

i would worry about how your arguments are bigoted or dogmatic, though. that might or might not have some point. but ID : lqfCRKYj is biased againstyou. so theres that lol
Hugh Drimblewere - Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:50:06 EST lqfCRKYj No.76920 Reply

I'm only biased against dogmatic bigotry, ignorance, and fucking hipsters. Hipsters are the worst. The day that I see a hipster suicide bomber, I'm nuking something. I also find vegans to be morally wrong, and overall stupid. Hmmm... I also dislike triscuits. They are neither a tasty cookie, or even a proper cracker or biscuit.

That's what I can think of right now, but I got high and ate a ton of cookies, so cannot retain consciousness.
Hugh Drimblewere - Sun, 16 Aug 2015 08:13:08 EST lqfCRKYj No.76922 Reply

And this is why you're treated like a douchebag.
Vehk !7HYGxe5v5c - Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:47:41 EST WGuIAtwV No.76923 Reply
1439732861636.jpg -(61408B / 59.97KB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
This thread is memes.
Martha Fonningfadge - Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:03:11 EST 1jxy4e5k No.76924 Reply
You're spamming somebody else's thread with vapid shit, you're the douche here. Ignored.
Hugh Drimblewere - Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:18:14 EST lqfCRKYj No.76925 Reply

rofl, ah, I mean... Touché?

On the record though, I prefer the term Asshole. I strive to be as great an asshole as Socrates in fact. It is a truly vital role. :/ in fact, I may be keeping this up in hopes of converting this poor douchebag, for assholes are far more useful than douchebags, as they get shit done and can be used more than once.
Jack Soffingcocke - Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:33:20 EST jX/qkJTV No.76931 Reply
>They have to figure things out by themselves, you can only provide materiel and encouragement.

Encouragement? As in: "please alter your world view and see how wrong you are with your little brainwashed mind! i still have hope, that you're not actually as stupid as you look, right now!"?
'not saying their world view is not actually ridiculous, but i found that as soon as you become a supercilious dick the other one will shut down and you'll get nowhere. being a douche, will only give them the right to say: "pff! 'not gonna listen to that douche!", so to speak.
A Wizard - Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:06:02 EST lqfCRKYj No.76932 Reply

Hence why assholes are superior to douchebags.

I still don't get why you SCIENCE IS THE NEW GOD! Types get so trapped by dogma. Why is it so hard to realize that there are different methods of defining things, and that the primary issue is a linguistic one. You are never going to be able to convince someone of anything remotely complex without learning their language.

:/ If it makes you feel better, I hate most of them too. Luckily at this point in my life, I am so far above and beyond the knowledge basis of their "Great raven guru" yet so far from their idea of what a person with such understanding should be, that my presence tends to destroy misconceptions and arrogantly guarded ideas that are the ones you're likely most irritated by.

Really though, how can you expect to convince someone that their worldview is wrong, when you cannot remotely comprehend it. You need to immerse yourselves in the better parts of it and learn the language.

Oh, and btw, from my perspective, you guys ( lol, randi) and the new-agers and wishy-washy crystal rubbers are the exact fucking same. People who think they are completely right, have to convince everyone that they're wrong to be able to accept themselves, and refuse to listen to the other side's arguments, assuming that there's nothing to be gained. Also neither side has yet to properly explain gravity to me -.- (open invitation, lol.) Luckily I've learned to oscillate my voice in a way that pretty much forces people to listen to me rant in person though.

All directions lead to the same fucking answers people, just they take different ways to get there. As above, so below. IT'S ALL THE SAME!
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:22:59 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76933 Reply
1440004979088.jpg -(4064B / 3.97KB, 257x196) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:24:58 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76934 Reply
Im convinced your just trolling now
Cornelius Parringgold - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 03:34:47 EST lqfCRKYj No.76936 Reply
1440056087121.jpg -(90659B / 88.53KB, 1277x543) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I'm being serious! Learn to listen if you expect to ever get your points across.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:19:07 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76937 Reply
1440058747385.jpg -(1967953B / 1.88MB, 1988x2362) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Science isn't trapped by dogma. When something in science is proven to be wrong with verifiable peer reviewed data it gets changed.

It adapts.

You are demonstrating you aren't scientifically literate, a common theme among science denialists.
Cornelius Parringgold - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:41:58 EST lqfCRKYj No.76938 Reply

Show me the current statistics to back up your claim. From my own experiences, what you said is the equivalent of "Islam is a religion of peace".

So show me that nothing is being accepted by dogmatic masses within the scientific community, without the proper peer review? It might of been there at the start, as is claimed by historical accounts, but at this point in history there is a lot of money and political power attached to the scriptures of science, and I have yet to see a single system of thought in human history, to survive the binds of politics and greed unscathed, once they get hold.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:06:39 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76940 Reply
1440101199376.jpg -(79484B / 77.62KB, 625x625) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Also you aren't a poly math.
Hedda Fazzlekire - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:22:48 EST DIZp74tV No.76941 Reply

The state of scientific knowledge is constantly being refined and revised everyday. If you disagree with accepted theory and have quality data to back up your claims then by all means you can publish your own counter examples and work to convince people that your theory is more correct.

This is pretty much the whole foundation of science. The beauty of genuine data and robust reproducible experimental methods is that anyone can replicate a set of results for themselves. The more robust a finding is, the more likely it is to become accepted theory.
Archie Dunkinbury - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:18:46 EST lqfCRKYj No.76944 Reply
1440123526512.jpg -(14993B / 14.64KB, 670x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

The issue is inadequacies of the peer review system, numbnuts. Your religion does a worse job than the vatican at this shit, though maybe that's because they've had more time to refine it.

Take a good look at your "peers" and see how much of that scientific method is being applied today. Your clergy has become as corrupt, and your prophets as pompous and demanding (with a few notable exceptions,) as any organized religion on the planet. Shit, you even have your own class of mystics who debate the weirdness on strange drugs, and then go tell the others to figure out their ramblings.

So tell me how the fuck the scientific community has become anything but a dogmatic and corrupted religion, attempting a monopoly like all the others. Got an explanation? I'll read it.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:48:13 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76945 Reply
1440125293721.gif -(359297B / 350.88KB, 245x183) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
What in the actual fuck?

Im done....i cant even.

Take your medicine.
Motherfuckin Wizard - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:50:07 EST lqfCRKYj No.76948 Reply
1440136207858.jpg -(13156B / 12.85KB, 194x259) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Yep, you're quite the hypocrite aren't ya sonny? That's the same response someone from any other dogmatic cult would make, but with fewer names and specifics given as they exit out of the arguments that they themselves began.

I explained myself and my points. I answered the questions on my own worldview without difficulty, yet you sir, have no foundation for your own beliefs beyond that you have been told that they are correct by others.

You forfeit it would seem. Shall I announce victory now, and burn some sort of book on atheism or something?
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 02:14:00 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76949 Reply
1440137640790.jpg -(12043B / 11.76KB, 400x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I forfeit because your only tactic in this is to argue using nonsense.

Some said it earlier in this thread "you can play chess with a pigeon, but he's just gonna shit all over the board and strut around like he won".

Each one of your replies is less coherent than the last. For ducks sake you claim to be a wizard.
Its gotten to the point where im convinced your just trolling. So i cant have a debate with some one like that.

So yes i give up.
A Wizard - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 02:31:59 EST lqfCRKYj No.76951 Reply
1440138719235.jpg -(100306B / 97.96KB, 996x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I am a Wizard. You claim to have dominion over this world and it's ideas, that only you and your pitifully young and fragile belief system is the ONLY ANSWER TO SOCIETY and that all others must clearly be wrong, despite having absolutely no understanding of them yourself, and using the most hypocritically unscientific mindset when entering the discussion.

You have yet to show or apply this supposed "Scientific Method" to me. You enter with the assumption that your beliefs are correct, and never, ever try to actually prove anything right. Explain to me sir, how the fuck do you support SCIENCE when you never, EVER, try out any of the theories that you claim to be false!?

Oh yeah, debate, that's why you quit. You have no interest in the truth, only in self validation. I exist in a reality where my only power is truth. My existence relies on truth, my magick relies on truth, and every fucking thing I do relies on truth. So I question my theories, and I have no fear of being wrong or right, as being proved wrong will only make my theories become closer to the truth.

Now stop being a coward, stand up, open your eyes and read what's being saod. Your theories have no merit if you cannot explain them. Explain yourself, and I will listen, that is truth.
Hedda Fazzlekire - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:29:18 EST DIZp74tV No.76952 Reply
1440163758563.jpg -(80626B / 78.74KB, 800x557) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Well then Mr. Wizard, why don't you get to casting a spell that cures cancer, or generates electricity, or keeps pests off our crops.

Oh right, you can't because there is no such thing as magic, crystal healing, miracle cures, whatever the hell you nut jobs believe this week.

You keep saying that science is a belief or requires some kind of faith without evidence while in reality nothing could be farther from the truth. Nothing gets incorporated into the mass of scientific knowledge without verification, repeatability, and mountains of raw data.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:41:39 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76953 Reply
Dont bother dude. Hes scientifically illiterate while at the same time thinking he isn't. From his pov it gives him a perceived edge over us normal, logic using folks.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:44:21 EST q1Ed4MrN No.76954 Reply
check out his postings in spooky to see a more crazy version pf the posts he makes here
Phyllis Bugglenod - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:05:22 EST uGD5aNS6 No.76960 Reply
>The issue is inadequacies of the peer review system, numbnuts. Your religion does a worse job than the vatican at this shit, though maybe that's because they've had more time to refine it.

I am actually published scientifically. I don't think you understand the peer review process at all. Like for instance my boss is very highly published along the lines of one particular protein. There are a handful of scientists that study this protein, and 2 camps or schools of thought about its function.

For my last paper, even though we didn't know our reviewers we are reasonably sure who they are. When we sent in our paper, they initially did not accept it on the basis that we needed to more concretely prove it and expand upon things experimentally.

My point is these are scientists in our camp of the debate. These guys wanted our work published and still didn't. The only thing scientists like more than data and evidence is GOOD data and evidence. We exist to advance human knowledge. Each scientist exists within a sphere, which is a rather small facet of all that is knowable, and we attempt to characterize that sphere. The vast majority of scientists really only want to characterize their specialty, there little sphere, to the best of their ability.
Why? Because it interests us. Because we are weird and we ask questions that the overwhelming majority of people don't give 2 shits about and we can't sleep at night until we answer it.

Its just interesting that you attempt to characterize science as a whole without actually having any experience in it. It would be like trying to explain colors if you are blind or talk about rollercoasters having never been on one, fruitless. So save your bullshit for the less educated, your responses are laughable.
Phyllis Bugglenod - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:51:06 EST uGD5aNS6 No.76962 Reply
>So tell me how the fuck the scientific community has become anything but a dogmatic and corrupted religion, attempting a monopoly like all the others. Got an explanation? I'll read it.

How is it even remotely a dogmatic and corrupted religion? Once again, just reading your posts man, they reek of a lack of comprehension. It is actually quite baffling.

How many scientists do you know, man? I mean like real scientists, not lazy ass grad students. I'm talking grizzly professors, hardcore researchers, people who spend nights in their lab so they can get measurements on that tricky time-point.

Because a real scientist is not dogmatic.
>No scientist believes in evolution. It is simply accepted as the best explanation for the origin of species. The evidence we currently have simply supports this conclussion.

Better yet, no scientist believes in anything. Belief is not compatible with science. There is simply acceptance of rejection of your hypothesis based on evidence and measurement. Usually done using mathematics.

There is a few bad apples like Richard Dawkins who spout dogma related to God or whatever. But most scientists aren't like that, we just don't give a fuck about it. Quite frankly it is so unverifiable that IDK why anyone would give a fuck about religion, but that doesn't mean science is automatically antireligion.

tl;dr Your mistake is in seeing science as 1) A homogeneous body and 2) not understanding how it works.
A Wizard - Sat, 22 Aug 2015 13:37:29 EST lqfCRKYj No.76970 Reply

Sorry if this response is a bit lacking, but I'll try to cover some ground with it. (also, can we take off topic questions to the other thread, if just me related?)

I think there has been a gross misunderstanding here. I was never implying that science as a whole, throughout it's entire lifespan, was a religion or dogmatic, but rather that was the direction it was heading and that "MFin Randi" was the biggest example of the effects of dogmatism on science that this board has. The only flaw that the community put in from the start, was the absolute fear of being tied to any of the "spiritual" fields, and that is mostly due to the political situation of the time, as the christian religious leaders had to be kept at bay at any cost to ensure survival. That and the holdout of the greek system, splitting metaphysics and physics. (There is no less a difference between the "immaterial" and the "material" than there is between gas and solid. Same system, the difference lies in our own perception.)

Now, back to peer review. This is the point where it starts to crumble. I know it might seem hard to accept, but look at the history here and take things for what they are.

All systems of thought rely on human beings to keep them alive and evolving. That's the flaw that people are not paying attention to, human nature. Look at this like any other group of people, objectively, for a moment. You have the masses who accept just about any scientist as speaking FACT (with little understanding of the concept of theory.) without much question, as they will never have time to study it themselves. Next you have the practitioners, the people who make use of scientific gains. Engineers, things of that nature. They make shit happen with the data they are given, and everybody says "Yay, science! I have a toaster!" and such. Then you have the high priests and the mystics. You'll know them better than I, lol. The high priests are the ones quoting everyone but themselves, and the way they rise in rank is by forever specializing more and more in one category of their field. These are the people usually doing the peer review. Then there's the mystics, who come up with crazy theories while high as balls, then toss them on everybody else to figure out. The Sagans and the Hawkings, though once they get shit accepted as right, they step up to PROPHET! Like Einstein and Darwin. To go against the prophet is fucking blasphemy though, so wording must always be careful if you don't want shooed away.

Now, from that perspective, can you see anything here? Your peer review goes to a very small group of people, small enough that you can reasonably assume who they are, mostly due to rampant specialization. This is not safe! This is the reason why the community is so fucking easily corrupted! This is the reason the pharmaceutical companies can buy studies and the fda. You're relying on specialists for peer review, who do not have either the motivation or the talent to disseminate and translate the information to people who are not specialists. Please tell me you can see what happens if you follow that for a few generations, because that's what happened to the majority of world religions, and that's why fucking nobody seems to understand their own fucking religions.

As for lack of comprehension in prior arguments... That's because again, confusion on your part. These were demands for randi to explain himself in the defense of his ideas, something he is incapable of. I was hoping he would give it a shot, as I had for him, and explain why these points were wrong, using the scientific method, in attempt to show him the errors in his own method of thought. To show him that his complete inability to use the method in dealing with me, is proof of his own dogmatic and fearful nature.

On a final note, please stop assuming a lack of familiarity for my disdain with the system. Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not make them ignorant. If i have to show my hand here, I'm hoping to fix these problems so that we can move forward, rather than watch all the progress made be destroyed by the flaws of human nature, and the blindness of those who surround themselves only with people who think in the same manner as they do.

With that said, can you re-evaluate my statements and see if you're getting the same opinions of them?
Fucking Bonderham - Sat, 22 Aug 2015 17:22:04 EST rybJ4K29 No.76980 Reply
I know most people are hella irrational, but some people just hate the scientific community because of it's ignorance and dogma, very real dogma. No idea that challenges the current paradigm too much is even investigated. Because it's thrown into the category of unscientific lunatic mumbo jumbo. I never have enough interest to argue with those people so it;s just a frustration that I blame on the community. Scientific community is people. 97.5% of people are retards. mainstream Scientific community is retarded.

Synchronicity, telepathy is two things that are supposedly looney, but it just shows the denialism and irrationality of scientific community. It's the kind of people who say that the coordinates of the kings chamber in great pyramind and speed of light is a coincidence that piss me off not so much the poor christian idiots. Both groups are retards but at least the latter doesn't hide behind a false veil of rationality.

Also universe is so much more than 99,7 percent of people imagine it to be. It's beyond magic.

Emma Pickgold - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 04:37:38 EST ILxqROob No.76988 Reply
You're one of those retards.
You cannot scientifically say that the Egyptians knew the speed of light, that's why people call you out.
If you were trying to communicate a message, wouldn't you leave more of a message than just one example and express it in that form? Get real.

Fuckin Khanacademy and Wikipedia
Betsy Brabbercocke - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:20:09 EST EtiPlZV7 No.76989 Reply
well if you draw a circle inside and outside of the base of the pyramid, the difference between the lenghts of the circles is also speed of light, so it's not one example as you have presumed. must be coincidence too. Retardation in relative so sure I am a retard in comparison to tesla, just not so in comparison to people who have reductionist closeminded mainstream scientific worldview or the batshit christian bullshitarians...
Emma Pickgold - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:27:37 EST ILxqROob No.76990 Reply
You're just a young kid.

But that still doesn't matter, Egyptians wrote down a ton of mathematical formulations, never do they mention the speed of light; a number in your theory that was so consequential to them, that they would devote the construction of a pyramid around it.
Dubious at best and you can not stand there and convince anyone without additional evidence such as the kind I outlined.
A Wizard - Sun, 23 Aug 2015 21:40:44 EST lqfCRKYj No.76994 Reply

If there is one thing that constantly dumbfounds me about modern society, it is the constant inability of the average human, to recognize that things exist for a reason, always.
Hedda Lighthall - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 00:56:30 EST uGD5aNS6 No.77001 Reply
>With that said, can you re-evaluate my statements and see if you're getting the same opinions of them?

Well, your metaphors are interesting. Prophets, mystics, ect, I see the comparison.

I'm not going to quote every one, but I see you do raise legitimate problems that I am aware of. There are other problems too, maybe you touched them and I missed them.

One thing though:
>Your peer review goes to a very small group of people, small enough that you can reasonably assume who they are, mostly due to rampant specialization.
I get why this seems problematic. But also consider, who else is knowledgable enough to review a study in this regard.

I know you mentioned it before, but the days of true polymaths are over. Even as a biologist, fuck that, a neurobiologist, fuck that, a cellular neurobiologist, you know what, that's not specific enough, a cellular neurobiologist with a specialization in neuronal cytoskeleton, there are so many things going on, such fine and intracate details that it makes it impossible to be a true expert in many fields.

See where I am going here? So using that example, a cellular neurobiologist with a specialization in neuronal cytoskeleton, you can study actin, neurofilaments, the microtubule. And if you study the microtubule, do you study MAP tau? MAP2? MAP1A, or MAP1B? Or do you study the kinases that phosphorylate these MAPs, if so, which one? MAPK? GSK3B? Caesin Kinase? CDK5? ERK? I could go on.

Science has become so complicated, the low-hanging fruit is gone and the days of being a multifield scientist is near impossible, as the systems we now study are so minute, so arcane, it takes somebody who at least works in a related system to understand what is going on. Thus, the rampant specialization is a necessity.

>You have the masses who accept just about any scientist as speaking FACT (with little understanding of the concept of theory.)
Yes, largely problematic. Mostly a lack of understanding. At the same time, I've used this metaphor before, but I don't go into a mechanics shop and tell the dude how to fix my car. I let him work from his experience, his speciality to get the job done. And I expect people to trust that if I say something based on my own scientific research, that it is based on the best attempt at characterization I can provide. They may not need to know how I did it, or understand it, but simply take the evidence as provided.
Likewise I see how this is problematic. Not a perfect system. Yes big pharma is sheisty as fuck, I do not like that industry much. They have been caught falsifying data. So don't private investigators. None-the-less, like any business or institution, there is corruption. The only remedy I can see is to have as many people studying a particular small area as possible to serve as a sort of counterbalance akin to a checks and balances system. IDK, it is tricky.
Frederick Dablinglitch - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:26:17 EST eg2eHljf No.77003 Reply

I see we have two fundamental disagreements, but only one on topic, so I will start with that.

If you cannot explain your field to the layman, then you are not yet an expert in what you do, and progressed too quickly through the topics of your study. To master something, you must be able to teach it. In all of the arts that I practice, I have only managed to truly refine them, and find the flaws in them, by teaching them to others. There is nothing in this world that cannot be shown simply. If that does not seem to be the case, then it is not yet fully understood.

The next disagreement is about the polymath. A polymath comes to realize that all fields are the same. Not just interconnected, but the very same. Perhaps this is something that I could had learned sooner from my more esoteric practices, but regardless, there are few things in my life that I have found to be more useful, as far as lessons go. Chemistry, engineering, social sciences, politics, cooking, it's all the fucking same. We're just applying motion to things in one form or another, regardless of the abstractions that our mind may perceive. They are no different. The polymath is just an individual who makes use of this detail, whether they realize it or not.

My experience as a chef has aided me greatly in chemistry and alchemy, and likewise. My drug use has allowed me to identify plants and substances that may be psychoactive or poisonous by scent. My time as a butcher has significantly improved my ability to fight with a blade. My time swordfighting with live steel for sport (usually to first blood) has improved my vision and my ability to read body language, which in turn has greatly improved my social confidence and charisma. My time as an artist has made me a better engineer and architect. Don't even get me started on the influence of my magickal/spiritual practices... But this isn't just my attributes going up like in a game, but the understanding crosses over from field to field, and I would likely had never come to many of my realizations without the experience in other fields, and I will never consider any of them as having been wastes of time.

The days of the polymath are not over. It's just a bitch in a society where degrees in everything are expected, despite the knowledge being freely available. So people like me have to start by working for themselves until we have the capital to start up on our own, or get by as inventors and artists, as per tradition.
Lydia Ficklewod - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:23:19 EST ICyLNOfk No.77004 Reply
>that they would devote the construction of a pyramid around it.
I didn't intend my post to mean that, sorry if it did. The pyramid is so much more than that! It's just an interesting bit about it/them because it took us some scientific advancements to figure out the speed of light. About what they wrote down I think it's what the old kingdom wrote down and IMO there was a kingdom before the iceage and they are the one's who built the pyramids, not the old kingdom.
Nell Clemmerwatch - Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:36:43 EST uGD5aNS6 No.77010 Reply
I still disagree man.

You mention some things that you might be proficient in, which is great, don't get me wrong. I for one used to weld. I am proficient in MIG welding, Oxyacetylene welding, using plasma torchers, grinding wheels, mechanical drill presses, ect. So much so that I could easily teach those thing. That being said, I am not a master welder. I am not a go to expert on those things. Same goes for when I worked at a butcher shop, cooked, played lacrosse, did martial arts, I could go on.

The definition of a polymath is tricky. I'll be honest, I have pulled from my experience as a butcher to do very difficult tissue extractions in my lab. I've pulled from my martial arts experience to do better at lacrosse, ect. But IMO at least, purely subjective, but polymath has a connotation of attaining that next level expertise in many fields. Its a step up from just be learned, wise, experienced, "well-traveled."

Also I get what you are saying here:
>If you cannot explain your field to the layman...
It is actually a very important thing for sure, we are drilled relentlessly on how to do this. I actually teach university level science, so I get it. But in some ways its not really relevant to the peer-reviewed process that I was talking about. In that setting, one needs to be as precise and technical as possible. In very complex situation it takes meticulous technical protocols coupled with scrupulous review based in loads of experience and familarity with the field to review properly. Without these, the tiny yet insanely important inconsistencies, flaws, or error may not be noticed. Do you see what I am saying here?

Also not arguing just for the sake of arguing, as I said I see problems with the peer review process as well but I do assure you it is quite a nice system, quite effective.
A Wizard - Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:43:53 EST eg2eHljf No.77011 Reply

Didn't intend to come off as a braggart on my hobby of collecting skills, just my best examples are usually personal ones. Onwards now.

Actually... I'm now a bit lost on what we disagree on at this point. Admittedly, I have been toking on Mjolnir today. Are you just stating that polymathy is like a prestige class in dnd, and you just need to reach the pre-requisits? I might actually agree there. It felt like I leveled up and took something weird about a year ago.

I think we've strayed from our main arguments a bit too close to some manner of conclusion. Can you interject, as to help direct our ramblings? We've declared the peer review system sucks at least, and pointed out why. Could try to figure out an improved system with better checks and balances, and inclusion of a broader base of people. I still stand by the opinion that people of other fields should be required, due to their ability to ask questions nobody else would expect, if nothing else.
Nell Clemmerwatch - Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:16:59 EST uGD5aNS6 No.77012 Reply
>I'm now a bit lost on what we disagree on at this point.
Lol, how typical of this site man. Let bygones be bygones. This sort of talk would better suit real life anyway, but alas this is the internet.
Nell Clemmerwatch - Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:18:00 EST uGD5aNS6 No.77013 Reply
And uh, honestly I can't fix the derailment, I am pretty fried from a weekend of binge drinking and puffing herb.
A Wizard - Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:04:07 EST eg2eHljf No.77028 Reply

Should we talk more about the pyramids? They were built by people of what's now considered european or Caucasoid blood nowadays, though I prefer ManKind, as in Kin of Man, Man as in Mannaz, so white people.
A Wizard - Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:09:47 EST eg2eHljf No.77042 Reply

Ha, you caught me in the direction I was going for. If we properly trace the ancestry, we can turn all of /his on it's heads and then open up a shit-ton of new discoveries. Where exactly DO the indo-european races hail from?

Here's your clue and red herring in one. The Dalai Lama knows the answer, and it's kept in plain sight, like all the mysteries of the world.
Simon Wapperville - Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:38:19 EST uGD5aNS6 No.77077 Reply
>Where exactly DO the indo-european races hail from?
I'm not entirely sure, but from my limited studies of linguistics, which I consider a hobby, I believe they started in central asia and branched out in 2 directions, according to current theories.

Could you enlighten me on the Dalai Lama's insights, though?
A Wizard - Mon, 31 Aug 2015 02:05:04 EST eg2eHljf No.77080 Reply

Yes! Though, I do suspect that there was a stranded, western colony of the same peoples that became isolated for a thousand years or more (honestly could be one to four if I were to guess) which then later re-homogenized, and would explain the oddities in Mediterranean religion, as well as the cultural gap between celtic and german peoples, and maybe all the strange island folk who fell off of europe to boot.

As for the Dalai Lama's insight, I'll give you an indirect clue. What lead me to the discovery, was the research of this word. Dharmapala. Quite a few of those.
A Grouchy Wizzzzard - Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:55:47 EST eg2eHljf No.77095 Reply

Just figured I'd vent here with you assholes, before the acid really kicks in.

Funny shit. I feel your rage and pain here, fuckwits. I know, a lot of times you're right about the details, but I understand how blinded by language and separation of ideas that your community is. It had to be that way, you hadn't built nukes yet to defend yourselves from the pope and baptists and such. But you guys get to take it personal -.- it's ok for you to hate. You're like a bunch of oprah's sometimes, you know that? Me? People are actually SURPRISED when the wizard yells at them and tells them they are wrong! It's uncalled for, uncouth, how dare I insult their religion.

Oh well... What I meant to say was that I deal with these shitnuggets too, and they're not who you think they are. The people you see are just stupid. Simple stupid people. How the fuck do we make them think?

We need people to start to think again. I don't give a fuck about the beliefs at the moment, because if they can think, then this bullshit might be over. x_X

-fuck you guys.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Tue, 01 Sep 2015 01:47:37 EST q1Ed4MrN No.77096 Reply


I think the acid is already kicking in.
A sleepy Wizard - Tue, 01 Sep 2015 02:26:47 EST eg2eHljf No.77098 Reply

lol, you're welcome. Wound up finding the last three people I got acid off of, at the end of the journey from that post.
Edward Pecklewill - Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:22:38 EST uGD5aNS6 No.77101 Reply
Fuck you too, with love

That's not the same as Dhammapala, the guy who wrote the Theravada books, is it?
I studied Theravada so my lexicon is slightly different
Angus Brankinville - Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:36:28 EST sQTYKn4I No.77167 Reply
I too am a skeptic of all things unverifiable but a friend of mine recently made a really good point to me: the placebo effect has measurable effects on people's health and well being, these people who use "magical thinking" to cure themselves are indulging in the placebo effect. When talking to my friend he asked me "If indulging in these sorts of beliefs doesn't limit you from exploring alternatives and it imparts you with power derived from the placebo effect then what reason is there to not indulge?"
Lydia Bovingson - Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:59:05 EST sPY5pKPA No.77168 Reply

Pretty big "if" your buddy has there, especially considering people have literally died from this.

Even assuming his hypothesis was correct (it's not), there's still a moral issue in play. Even if one person can perform magical thinking without ill effect, you can't guarantee that everybody else can. So spreading the idea could result in disaster for others. Your friend could well have already caused significant harm by recommending his way to other people.
Nigel Sussleworth - Sat, 03 Oct 2015 13:10:14 EST 4THNrfPz No.77225 Reply
The phrase 'Life after death' is open for a lot of interpretations
William Munderkedge - Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:43:08 EST cIUKn2oY No.77231 Reply
Mother Fucking Randi, you need to realize that rationality is not something people are inclined for. Just look at children, and how magical their attitude to the world is. Without a personal conviction that logic and reason are virtues to aspire for, you're likely to remain in that childish state.

This is in fact entirely normal, and not something to get frustrated or irritated about.
Sidney Billingforth - Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:48:39 EST Vl7RL7oN No.77234 Reply
Love is scientifically proven to cure all problems in existence.
Shit Buzzstock - Mon, 05 Oct 2015 01:58:46 EST uGD5aNS6 No.77235 Reply
>scientifically proven
bro nothing is scientifically proven. Literally not a single thing has been proven. Hence why no publication in existence will say their evidence proves anything.
James Mother Fucking Randi !lwriJ94kMg - Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:09:19 EST 9HALoaaS No.77249 Reply
How does it unstick my cock from the neck of a beer bottle. I need to know this for science?

I'm pretty sure love is what got me into this mess in the first place.
Phyllis Nobblewater - Wed, 07 Oct 2015 02:31:02 EST PtGx5SYm No.77250 Reply

Suction... or break the bottle. Dude, you're fucked. Go to the ER and beg for help, you will totally get moved to the front of the line to save your cock.
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:30:54 EST vbS8CtHn No.77257 Reply
As retarded as his claim about scientifically proven shit goes, I can easily say that if we're discussing the absolute value of something, science can "prove" various concrete things.
Especially in chemistry and Newtonian physics. However, yes. Science cannot prove something like "love cures all problems". But please, don't nitpick something. There were so many things that you could've tore up his argument with but you chose to wreck him on that. RIP
A Wizard - Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:45:02 EST PtGx5SYm No.77260 Reply

See this guy? That's the kind of ignorance and behavior you find in an organized religion. He misunderstands a basic premise of his own religion, and then gets butthurt and defends it against perceived assaults, which were in fact just the stating of the doctrine of the faith he professes.
Martin Bishspear - Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:48:07 EST /dGkbVvd No.77261 Reply
If there really is such a doctrine and you aren't just a liar, please quote the doctrine.
Isabella Budgesutch - Wed, 07 Oct 2015 23:25:57 EST A9FsJSdZ No.77262 Reply

Yes it's called the science bible. It's a collection of rantings by Richard Dawkins.

I think Wizard is literally insane. His narcissism is so pronounced he actually believes he has magical powers. He claims he's a "polymath" whatever that means, but cannot figure out that all his claims are based on magical thinking.
trypto - Sat, 10 Oct 2015 16:30:23 EST VTEeSGZV No.77276 Reply
Most scientific philosphies or scientifically-oriented epistemology focus on how nothing is ever truly 'proven'. It's a purely skeptical stance, in contrast to mathematics which has actual proofs. This is pretty much the starting point for a deeper understanding of how/why science is successful. Bombastus knows this, which is why he used the quotes here:
> science can "prove" various concrete things.

But he fucked it up with this ambiguous phrase:
>if we're discussing the absolute value of something

Absolute value of something? Who knows what that means. It's just sloppy talk. He's probably talking about the colloquial concept of "proof", but saying shit about "absolute value" gives the opposite impression.

I see what >>77235 is saying, but I also think the phrase "scientifically proven" is acceptable and different from plainly 'proven'. "scientifcally proven" is some confidence past a basic consensus. but the phrase should be avoided for this reason.
Samuel Pittway - Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:06:58 EST /dGkbVvd No.77281 Reply
Since we all know that nothing can be 100% proven, I think the word "proof" can imply an implicit acknowledgement of that fact.
Reuben Sanderfoot - Tue, 13 Oct 2015 01:26:14 EST uGD5aNS6 No.77282 Reply
Its more appropriate to just say "indicates" or "we hypothesize".

I agree, I just tend to shy away from the word. What happens all the time is the scientific community accepts something in a consensus, only to have that consensus overturned or it falls to more complete models. As you said, just try to keep a healthy dose of skepticism of everything since we are so far away from total understanding of anything, especially in the realm of physiology.
Samuel Nishson - Thu, 29 Oct 2015 03:51:53 EST A6yjNMdA No.77338 Reply
>I was at a party a few months back and some girl was talking about how she went to some yoga guy who does "laying on of hands". Which involves doing yoga while a dude puts his hands on your body and makes weird noises. Supposedly doing this achieves any number of effects from healing wounds, curing depression and other supposed boons.

She was probably just saying that because she wanted you to be sceptical and then invite her to demonstrate or whatever out of "curiosity" and it would all quickly escalate into sex.

I won't believe a girl could genuinely be that ditzy.
Rebecca Fangold - Sat, 22 Sep 2018 16:38:11 EST dl9lAnzN No.79234 Reply
>>Its more appropriate to just say "indicates" or "we hypothesize".
Didn't read the thread so don't know if anyone has already mentioned this, but you should look into something called 'English Prime.'

Basically it takes the concept of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that language creates mental state, that ideas possible to be expressed within a language are the borders of the space in which speakers of that language can have ideas at all) and uses it to attempt to fix English by making it more explicitly scientific.

For example, it removes almost all constructions of 'to be' including 'is' and 'are.' Nothing is good, or bad, or blue, or fast, but can seem, or appear, or correlate to those properties. It basically forces people to remove the unscientific and unprovable but completely common habit of claiming things 'are' things, reducing it to the simple truth; that they seem to be things, and deliberately denying the power to speculate beyond to 'the thing in itself.'
Ernest Murdstone - Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:00:14 EST QiRUncgI No.79330 Reply
Only a newfag would reply to a post from 7 months and one temporal recursion ago...
James Randi - Wed, 10 Apr 2019 05:08:43 EST LIARuhXT No.79353 Reply
Lol I forgot this thread existed.

Science > Magic

Fight me nerds.
Archie Buzzville - Sun, 14 Apr 2019 03:49:15 EST COFwG3IO No.79366 Reply
I have a theory I have been thinking about for several years now and it kind of applies to this. We have our primary senses (sight, smell, hearing) but I theorize we also have a unique sense that I call the reasoner. This sense takes all other senses as inputs and puts them together in real time and this comes to be what we call consciousness.
The primary function of the reasoner is to come to logical conclusions based on past information obtained and what is currently before it. Why I think people can't seem to have regular conversations about these subjects is because reasoners can't truly give itself a reasonable explanation as to why they exist and create shortcuts to give reason to instead.
Archie Buzzville - Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:22:28 EST COFwG3IO No.79367 Reply
also after finishing the clusterfuck of this thread I have to say science>magic/spirituality just to be clear. Anybody who can't get over the fact that their reasoner can't comprehend or atleast attempt to understand scientific theory's goals and evidence so far have become lazy or too scared to accept their own insignificance.
Fucking Lightfield - Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:40:31 EST BnGdMrEk No.79372 Reply
No a priori truths

Platonists go home
Martha Sonnerman - Wed, 17 Apr 2019 20:14:08 EST QiRUncgI No.79374 Reply
This is like a zoo exhibit, guys. Don't feed the positivists ontological albatrosses, they just become epiphenomenal.
James Randi - Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:10:45 EST LIARuhXT No.79390 Reply
1556187045855.gif -(6625487B / 6.32MB, 474x474) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Reading through this whole thread and I just realized the wizard has spent time studying the blade you guize.

>My time as a butcher has significantly improved my ability to fight with a blade.

Look out we gotta level 3 polymath swordsman on our hands guys.
Phoebe Ducklefuck - Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:44:36 EST FyzhtNRJ No.79394 Reply

Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the universe.
Ebenezer Pittingdit - Tue, 23 Jul 2019 04:56:29 EST uWDaM5J4 No.79511 Reply
1563872189289.jpg -(26213B / 25.60KB, 768x432) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I got message from GOD on my smartphone..

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.