So, what do you do when those pesky scientific facts won't line up with your beliefs, be they beliefs that evolution doesn't explain the diversity of life, that mercury causes autism, that global warming isn't happening, or whatever your faith-based scientific belief might be?
Click on the image, and White House Situational Science Advisor tells you exactly how to avoid such annoying conflicts.
Best quote: "Situational science is about respecting both sides of a scientific argument, not just the one supported by facts."
Heh.
So many of my good ideas, went down the tubes just because the expeiments sneered at me.
Turns out Stewie's an honor student in the Creative Biochemistry department at the Oral Roberts University. He's developing a testosterone sheet model out of old car parts with a friend in the art department. God willing, if Stewie sells his model for a million bucks, Oral will come down out of the tower.
/btw, switch Oral for Anal and it gets a lot more funny
Of course, another thing you could do when faced with such a conflict between your beliefs and the data is to hire the Geiers or Mohammed Al-Bayati to "produce" some "evidence" to support your belief. ;-)
Just a comment, isn't it interesting that the situational science adviser looks a tad like John Marburger?
I had a nasty experimental fact threatening to destroy my lovely theory the other day. After much discussion and further experiments it turns out that it actually demonstrates an exciting new addendum to the original theory, is probably the nucleus of a second paper (besides the one describing the original theory and results relating to it), and is possibly the first example of a naturally occuring mutation or knock out in a gene previously thought to be embryonic lethal if not correctly expressed. None of which we would have known if we'd just ignored the result and hoped it went away. Situational science is for wimps.
Thanks to chelation, my son said another new word today. One more nail in the coffin of the liars. You Bozo's will all be looking for new pseudonyms when we cure all these kids you claim aren't affected by mercury.
"Bozo's"
was the word, apostrophe?
Fore Sam, one unverifiable, uncontrolled, unblinded anecdote isn't evidence. That's basic knowledge that's supposed to separate us from those guys with the leeches.
Besides, isn't the natural recovery rate for autism something like 40%?
Aren't you supposed to include something preposterous about nuclear power or pesticides in the list of situational science?
Bronze Dog:
Careful you may insult our slippery little friends (and no, I don't mean the chelationists!!!)
Leeches are still used in wound healing for plastics.
http://www.biopharm-leeches.com/
S x
Leeches! Look at Chris Mooney's recent NYT article about them. Take care, Sian, I have had some alties recently argue that the modern use of leeches somehow supports their argument that homeopathy is valid (don't ask, I gave up trying to follow the "reasoning").
What remains of humoural theory of medicine are some great words (phlegmatic, sanguine) and a Pandora's box of "theories" to be endlessly renewed by alties.
I tried that, Bronze Dog, pointing out is misuse leeches were put to for centuries as a means to balance the imaginary humours. Stating the obvious that there is a difference between using leeches to drain excess "black bile" vs. using them as a temporary aid to venous drainage and such, or bleeding the patient to balance their phlegm and heat (and killing George Washington?) or periodically taking a pint from someone with hemochromatosis.
All I get is, "See, leeches are used again!" And I thought all that bleeding and purging were among the horrors that Hahnemann was saving us.
Skeptyk
I believe leeches are also used for ears, to drain out blood after trauma, ie to prevent "Cauliflower ear".