…and this is a 
Grandpa Simpson is that old character in the animated show who tells odd, rambling stories. "We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you'd say." That sort of thing.
Grandpa has been hired by the Huffington post, and is writing stuff under the pen name of Robert Lanza. For instance, he's got a fascinatingly weird tale up titled "What Happens When You Die? Evidence Suggests Time Simply Reboots". Now if you or I were writing something with that title, we'd probably write something about what happens after we die, or about time, or maybe we'd get really ambitious and write about some evidence linking the two. Not Grandpa Lanza! No, we learn that when he was a boy, his hobby was killing small mammals by torture, until one day a blacksmith destroyed his trap and gave him a new mission in life. "I'll give you 50 cents for every dragonfly you catch," the old man said, and when the excited Little Lanza had caught one, the blacksmith made a model dragonfly out of iron rods. Oh, and he fixed a squeaky chimney cap by blowing it away with a shotgun. But it's not dead! He's sure it's squeaking somewhere.
Someone needs to explain to Grandpa Lanza that the plural of anecdote is not data. And neither is the plural of senile rambling.
Comments
Posted by: kaylakaze
|
June 14, 2010 7:21 AM
*sigh* The comments on that post are so full of fail.
Posted by: spam.away.666
|
June 14, 2010 7:25 AM
"Without the glue of consciousness, time essentially reboots."
What the fuck am I reading?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 14, 2010 7:27 AM
Notice that the comments over there are also moderated. To improve the quality, I'm sure.
Posted by: Biddy
|
June 14, 2010 7:29 AM
Nothing like tripe and coffee in the morning.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 14, 2010 7:32 AM
While the comparison of Lanza's writing to a Grandpa Simpson story makes for a good laugh because the resemblance is uncanny enough to be right up there with the best of your humorous takedowns, I don't think Lanza deserves the comparison.
Lanza is possibly one of the worst woo advocates next to Chopra on the Huffington Post and is doing an enormous disservice to the brains of thousands of gullible people. Every post of his ought to be labeled with a neon green sticker warning readers of the damage his writing will do to their brains and be followed by an extra-large dose of industrial-strength mind cleanser.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
June 14, 2010 7:35 AM
"Death is a reboot that leads to all potentialities."
What kind of woo-ey gobbleygook is this? I just lost a few minutes of my life reading that article.
Curse you (shaking fist in the air) Robert Lanza!
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/06/this-i-do-not-believe.html
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 14, 2010 7:36 AM
Have I woken up in a universe where the meaning of the word 'evidence' is different from what it was in the universe I went to sleep in? Because that's a far more logical explanation than the alternative - that someone could genuinely attach the word to an article of such mindboggling stupidity.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 14, 2010 7:38 AM
Sure. If unfiltered reality were to slip in, the subsequent mental whip-lash would take down the site.Posted by: a.f.diplotti
|
June 14, 2010 7:40 AM
Evidence suggests? And where do weasel words go when they die, pray tell?
So, he's citing himself as a reference?
Posted by: Björn Lindström
|
June 14, 2010 7:47 AM
Nietzsche already made the thought experiment of imagining that you have to live your life again and again, the same every time. He didn't actually suggest you should believe that of course, but he thought the belief to be morally superior to the heaven/hell system.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
|
June 14, 2010 7:54 AM
Given the quality of the current comments, I find that idea more depressing than the actual article.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 14, 2010 7:54 AM
He can do that because he's "Robert Lanza M.D., Scientist, Theoretician". So when he's theorizing, he can cite his science, and when he's sciencing, he can cite his theorizing. And when he's bullshitting at this level he doesn't have much choice; who else is he going to cite? Chopra?
Posted by: godskesen
|
June 14, 2010 7:55 AM
"Time and space aren't objects"? Who the hell claimed they were?!
Also, one commenter at HuffPo wrote that some Jewish mystics believe the universe was created when an entity called "Yod" entered the universe (and somehow that belief was relevant to this article).
How can we argue with these people if they don't understand that Y entering U presupposes the existence U and thus U must have existed beforehand? - not only not explaining anything but utterly failing at the most basic logic and making sense!
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
June 14, 2010 7:57 AM
I think the entire article is a parody of 'Lost.' It has unpredictable twists and turns and a lot of filler, and in the end the point has nothing to do with what the story was setting up. On top of that, it refers rebooting after death and time and consciousness. Oh Robert, you sly dog.
Posted by: revjimbob
|
June 14, 2010 8:01 AM
Isn't this Lanza the same dude who told some tale about his dead sister and some bizarre theory about life after death?
mental as anything
Posted by: PalMD
|
June 14, 2010 8:08 AM
That piece was one of the dumbest things I've ever read, but the comments were really sad.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 14, 2010 8:09 AM
Don't knock Lanza! I think he was awesome is Who's the Boss.
Posted by: TWood
|
June 14, 2010 8:09 AM
The other possibility here is that he got an assignment from a service like Demand Media that gave him a bunch of keywords that are hot on the search engines. Then he just strings them together in an article that doesn't really have to be about anything in particular.
Eventually they'll be able to give those assignments to robots that will write this stuff up in large volume. The woo-gullible will be in awe of their wisdom and we will take another step toward the idiocracy.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 14, 2010 8:11 AM
'Yod'? A typo.
Posted by: godskesen
|
June 14, 2010 8:22 AM
@Sven DiMilo, #19
Yeah, I guess it must have been a typo...
Surely, Robert Lanza's article is awful enough that it must have been conceived in league with the Outer Gods.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 14, 2010 8:23 AM
So, what Lanza's saying is that life is like deja-vu all over again, except this time there's an onion on your belt? I'm bewildered and beWOOndered by this amazing revelation. Usually when you get information like this you have to wipe or bidet the source afterwards.
Posted by: herr doktor bimler
|
June 14, 2010 8:24 AM
Without the glue of consciousness,
Alas, the glue of consciousness has all been sniffed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 14, 2010 8:31 AM
Well we all knew at some point Time Cubeism would go "mainstream".
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 14, 2010 8:38 AM
#23, EPIC, epic win!
Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger
|
June 14, 2010 8:42 AM
"When I was a pup, we got spanked by presidents 'til the cows came home! Grover Cleveland spanked me on two non-consecutive occasions!"
Posted by: Pastor Farm
|
June 14, 2010 9:04 AM
Apparently there's quite a bit of money to be made by claiming one's self as an authority and then just making stuff up on the fly.
Hmmm...I need to come up with an uninteresting, yet comforting version of the afterlife. Maybe one where you come back as an immortal and Highlander is the new Holy Book, but it's still just a movie and none of the sequels exist, and Christopher Lambert is a major film star, and even though you're immortal you can still die whenever you want by getting your head chopped off because who wants to live forever?
Posted by: Joy K.
|
June 14, 2010 9:16 AM
"...the plural of anecdote is not data."
Reading through the awful ramblings of Lanza was painful, but your comment above made it all worthwhile. Now I'm waiting impatiently for an occasion when I can use it on someone.
Posted by: Nineveh
|
June 14, 2010 9:20 AM
Hahahahahahhaahahahaa! Professor, my brother and I were just talking about how a stark raving rambling lunatic must have written this. Thank you!
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 14, 2010 9:29 AM
Le sigh.
Quantum theory does not overturn the concept of objective existence. All quantum theory does is suggest a statistical model for the sub-atomic realm. That's it.
That's all.
A bunch of physicists tried to make sense of the model during a time when the concept was revolutionary. After, a bunch of philosophers took those speculations and gave them an SF/Fantasy twist, and tried to make it all theological.
I am so fucking tired of these idiots pretending they understand quantum mechanics, when quantum physicists don't even understand QM. There is no unifying theory. Hell, there's not even really a theory, as string theory really is barely an hypothesis (it has problems making measurable predictions). There are other competing models, as well, from causal dynamical triangulation to loop quantum gravity to a bunch I don't follow.
Joy Christian has even shown a disproof of Bell's Theorem, which pretty much eviscerates the idea there can be no local variables causing the statistical behavior of subatomic particles.
So any person who claims that quantum theory has shown the mind is responsible in any way for the universe around us (discounting our physical actions driven by our decisions, of course), they are complete fucking woo meisters. They probably have something to sell, even if it is only themselves.
I think I hate these guys even more than I hate people like Ken Ham. Ham at least tells you up-front that he's foregoing science in favor of his ignorance. Folks like this dress up their ignorance in actual science that has no direct refutation, except a pointed finger and an exasperated, "What the fuck?"
They dress themselves up in sexy science, and whore themselves to the masses. Those who pay are credulous johns who imagine they are buying scientific fact, when they are really just renting the smooth-talking facade of comforting fantasy.
Oooo, I fucking hate these guys.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 14, 2010 9:35 AM
But if you say Quantum you sound REALLY smrt
Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded
|
June 14, 2010 9:42 AM
Gah!! And I just had a horrible experience at a backyard cookout this weekend too. Someone who described himself as a scientist asserted that science is increasingly confirming the bible. Oh, not the specifics, of course. Just the general order of events. The bible says everything was created very quickly and the big bang is consistent with that. And other stuff too!
It wasn't my backyard and the host was valiantly trying to change the subject so I behaved myself.
Me, behaving myself: "So, what's your field?"
Moron: "I'm an economist."
Me, not behaving myself quite so much: "Oh, I thought you said you were a scientist. Gosh, I'm out of beer."
Posted by: JG
|
June 14, 2010 9:48 AM
Could I get a reboot to a point in time before I read that article so I can choose not to?
Posted by: co
|
June 14, 2010 9:49 AM
nigelTheBold:
What about the Clifford algebra approach is more "right" than what is encompassed by the geography covered by Bell's theorem? If things are done consistently, you can't disprove a theorem which was already proven, for the same hypotheses.
So either (1) Bell's theorem doesn't apply to a larger class of objects which Clifford algebra does apply to, but for most "real world" situations, it does apply; (2) The "proof" shown in Christian's paper is wrong, having sat there for 3 years without making a big stir; (3) Bell's theorem is wrong (doubtful, but just slightly possible); (4) other possibilities that I'm too bleary to think of right now.
Posted by: Nineveh
|
June 14, 2010 9:51 AM
@32 - I've heard similar arguments. Muslim girl: "omg did you hear they confirmed there was a great flood in the Middle East about 6000 years ago? The Noah story is true". "No, it isn't. That a flood happened is maybe true. That's it."
Evangelical girl:"did you hear they found the ruins of the Ark? They carbon dated it, it's about 6000 years old." "Oh, so you believe in carbon dating being accurate now? Oh good. Triceratops. Good day."
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 14, 2010 10:10 AM
Eventually they'll be able to give those assignments to robots that will write this stuff up in large volume. - TWood
I think Eliza could probably have produced a more coherent article than Lanza.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
June 14, 2010 10:15 AM
from the comments. I do so sincerely hope this is an enormous piss take, in which case it's funny mockery. If it was written seriously there just isn't enough brain bleach. You were warned . . .
The human being has seven energy modules. Each resides in a separate hyperspace co-dimension. These modules receive energy through vortices which store the energy in meter long troughs. If drained of energy, water-like energy will flow into the trough and slosh back and forth for six hours due to the low damping of the low density hyperspace energy. Upon death, the dan tian red ball of energy located in the second chakra orange vortex of the 7th dimension, provides the instructions to assemble these modules into a single energy being. One light cord comes out of the dan tian and another comes out of memory to transfer all the person's memories into the newly formed energy being. This is why people say that their entire life flashes before them. Once the energy being is assembled, the two light cords are cut so that the energy being becomes an independent entity. If the being has had a difficult life, the angelic beings take the person to hell in order to be rehabilitated. Hell is not a place of punishment, but a place of rehabilitation and instruction. Usually, the person's energy relatives come to help the person cross over into another dimension. In terms of hyperspace physics, the 7th dimension has 33 times the solid angle as our 4 pi solid angle. From this dimension, we see the energy ball as 2 inches in diameter, which means that it is really 66 inches in diameter in the 7th dimension.
Posted by: Form&Function
|
June 14, 2010 10:19 AM
AAUGH! P.Z., you got us all nostalgic for the glory days of The Simpsons and failed to warn us that the author of that craptacular piece of brain lint is an M.D.! I despair. So much schoolin', so little learnin'.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 14, 2010 10:27 AM
co:
While entirely possible Christian's paper is wrong, it has caused a bit of a stir. Not a big one, but it has resulted in some rather interesting exchanges between Christian and some of his critics. (SEE especially this paper.)
Christian's approach seems fairly solid: the application of Clifford algebra to electron spin is exactly what Pauli used in the early days of quantum mechanics. As Christian says in his paper:
As for disproving a theorem that has been proven: you certainly can disprove a proven theorem -- simply show the old theorem does not present a complete model. That's what science is about: generating more accurate models than we had before. That's how relativity can supersede Newton's Laws (though Newtons Laws remain very useful approximations).
Bell's theorem attempts to demonstrate the non-existence of quantum local variables. It is one of the finest, most elegant experiments in all of physics. However, disproving the existence of something non-specific (some unknown local variable) is difficult, if not impossible. (Ask anyone who has tried to disprove god.)
Do I believe Christian has disproven Bell's Theorem? No, I do not. I said he has presented a disproof. I do not know Clifford algebra to the degree necessary to analyze his math. Assuming his math is good, the approach of casting Bell's experiment in the context of Clifford algebra appears solid. Therefore, I believe Christian's approach is solid, whether or not it turns out to be true.
This in turn leaves Bell's Theorem in (at least a tiny-little) doubt, pending the formulation and execution of an experiment designed to test Christian's proposition. (He does present testable predictions, and even proposes a test.)
Then again, I merely majored in physics as an undergrad, and follow current development as a very interested and barely-educated layman. I certainly defer to those with greater education in the subject (which isn't that hard, really).
Posted by: JG
|
June 14, 2010 10:34 AM
@32,
I had the exact same experience at a cookout 2 years ago. Randomly this fellow stated how he loved science and how it was confirming the Bible.
I just shook my head, it wasn't even worth it.
What is it about those venues and those discussions?
Posted by: daveau
|
June 14, 2010 10:49 AM
Limited only by your limited imagination. What experiments?
Duh!
Posted by: pwillow1
|
June 14, 2010 10:52 AM
Having never heard of this person, I googled his name and the first few pages of results informed me that he is considered one of the Leading Scientists In the World.
I had no idea!
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
June 14, 2010 11:06 AM
@32 and 40...
I had this same conversation with decidedly non-scientists over a Sonic ice cream sundae a while back...me against two woo-meister friends.
Them: Science says [insert woo]
Me: No, it doesn't. It says [insert evidence-based assertion].
Them: Well, I'd rather believe [re-insert woo].
This went on for a while, with topics ranging from cosmology to miracles.
You can't win. They're gonna believe what they want to believe, because "thinking" makes their heads hurt.
And yet, they're still my friends. People I can rely on to help me out in a pinch, to play golf with, etc.
People don't necessarily "need" to operate in the rational world in order to get along. But neither does one need to enable them to blithely float through the universe in a bubble of make-believe.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
June 14, 2010 11:09 AM
Actual experiments keep showing that Bell inequalities are violated. (The way the terminology is set up is slightly confusing: classical physics obeys the Bell inequality, while quantum physics violates it.) Whatever replacement for quantum physics you cook up (esoteric nonlocal/oddly-valued hidden variable theory, or whatever) has to do everything quantum physics does. So: quantum physics, or something worse. Your choice.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
June 14, 2010 11:19 AM
Lanza can't even get basic terminology right — "biocentrism" is a wonderful example of what happens when somebody learns about science third-hand. It's like trying to learn computer programming by watching Tron.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 14, 2010 11:22 AM
That's exactly what Joy Christian's proposal demonstrates: by placing spin in the context of Clifford algebra, the results are identical to the observed violation of Bell's inequalities.
In the concluding paragraphs of the paper, Christian states:
Again, while being a bit of a fanboi of Christian's work, I do not propose he has demonstrated that local variables exist, only that he has shown how local variables can exist. The regular caveats about his math and the appropriateness of Clifford algebra to electron spin states (or other quantum states) apply, of course.
Posted by: theswede
|
June 14, 2010 11:32 AM
The problem with Joy Christian's proposal is not the math; it is the applicability of Clifford algebra to the problem domain. Oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy, but to explain simply; it appears nonsensical to place variables in the place of actual measured values. I'd like to see some solid support for that the model actually models reality when Clifford algebra is used. Joy Christian provides handwaving, which doesn't convince me (nor a lot of others).
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 14, 2010 11:52 AM
Whenever I read shit like this I think "I could write that." Honestly. I could write something as plausible sounding to stoners and equally filled with tortured math and psychobabble.
It's just that the guilt would keep me up a little at night. I'd have to take something for that. Probably get addicted. Have to go to rehab. Get to hang with Lohan maybe and have pics in the tabloids.
And if I got on Oprah then people might start prying into my love life. And I'd have to tell them just to pray for a car because the universe *wants* you to have one. Pray for a car and buy my book.
People will do anything to deny their problems and avoid their fears it seems. Even publish crap like this.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 14, 2010 12:01 PM
Wow. The comments. I posted a reply to one. Let's see if it gets through.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 14, 2010 12:03 PM
I think Lanza's essay would have been better had he just recounted the story of the blacksmith and the dragonfly and didn't try to surround it with all the quantum woo.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 14, 2010 12:13 PM
anecdota
daton
HTH
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
June 14, 2010 12:21 PM
I tend to agree. I may, of course, be completely wrong.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 14, 2010 12:23 PM
re 52:
"daton"
I always thought it was "datum"
Wouldn't "daton" be the fundamental particle of data :-)
Posted by: pwillow1
|
June 14, 2010 12:25 PM
Um, actually the singular of data is "datum."
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 14, 2010 12:26 PM
Okay, I know you said you're oversimplifying (dangerously, perhaps), but -- isn't that the point of an hypothesis, to present a generalized model which suggests specific (and hopefully novel) conclusions?
I'm just perception-checking here. As it is, I think I am misunderstanding you.
True, that.
I'm still working on Hamilton's quaternions, so I'm still a far cry from understanding Clifford algebra. It does seem like a non-commutative geometry is applicable to electron spin, which is why I am so fascinated with the approach.
As I am unable to evaluate Christian's approach, I retract any suggestion that Bell's Hypothesis has been successfully questioned, until such time as I am able to evaluate Christian's proposal myself (likely, never), or there is some experimental evidence supporting Christian's proposal.
I especially retract the word "eviscerates." Damn, do I regret it's use.
This is my last post on the subject. I plomise.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 14, 2010 12:27 PM
Psst... it's Sven up there @ 52. I don't know, but he *may* be putting you on. Just fft.
Anecdotes and datum are my answers, google likes them.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
June 14, 2010 12:40 PM
Scott Aaronson, quantum-computing maven, once wrote:
On the issue of terminology, he continues:
Personally, I side with Aaronson and against the nameless physicists here. If the world were entirely and plainly classical, with no whiff of quantum behaviour about it, Bell's Theorem would be a perfectly valid theorem concerning some pathological construction of probability theory generalized into the complex numbers. Experiments would show that said modification of probability theory did not apply in physical reality. However, in that world, like ours, the theorem would be a theorem. One could, maybe, "disprove a theorem" by showing that a previously accepted proof of a result is in fact erroneous, but even that seems like loose talk to me.
Posted by: broboxley OT
|
June 14, 2010 12:42 PM
on what happens to time when you die, I prefer this version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRoue8EABkM
as far as time/space goes, we need to look at
http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2003-090.pdf
Posted by: unclexbob
|
June 14, 2010 12:46 PM
I enjoy antagonizing the comment section on HP, but I don't even bother with the woo section. They are quite draconian in their moderation.
For whatever bizarre reason, the religious section is much more open to critical posts. You would think it would be the other way 'round. I think it is because HP, as a whole, finds religion not very central to their world view, where as the woo is.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
June 14, 2010 12:47 PM
I should also say that I don't really like Bell's Theorem — every time it comes up in conversation, I have to go back and relearn the details. It seems to have a lack of paedagogical clarity (which, I suspect, makes it easier for mistaken ideas or poorly-thought-out ideas to hide).
Sidney Coleman, who was much smarter than I am, had the same problem.
Posted by: martha
|
June 14, 2010 12:50 PM
This is one good reason why appeal to authority is a fallacy. Lawyers who won't vaccinate their children. Physicians who believe in mysticism. Professional skeptics who don't believe in global warming.
Anyone can go off the rails.
Posted by: co
|
June 14, 2010 12:54 PM
Ditto, Blake. It's one of those fantastically important things in science that doesn't seem to have an al dente rightness to it, at least to me.
On the other hand, Greenstein's and Zajonc's The Quantum Challenge (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0763702161/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?ie=UTF8&cloe_id=7cb1fa78-6a00-49b8-b4a5-a5519a2a0404&attrMsgId=LPWidget-A2&pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=076372470X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0CV9NM0Q86CVQCPF9S3Y) makes the whole thing a bit more palatable and obvious.
Posted by: Ströh
|
June 14, 2010 12:58 PM
Without knowing it, one Huffpo commenter gets it just right:
Yes, getting Stargate confused with science would explain a lot of the Woo. Too bad the other readers aren't as eager to admit that they get stories confused with reality.
Perhaps it's just a typo - but getting confused with science in general would explain a lot too.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
June 14, 2010 1:03 PM
@#60
I think that's what you meant.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
June 14, 2010 1:14 PM
unclexbob @ 60 and infraredeyes @ 65
Huffpo thought the following was too controversial:
Anyone else notice that people who bring up quantum mechanics to support religion are never physicists?
Posted by: RijkswaanVijanD
|
June 14, 2010 1:23 PM
"if you remove everything from space, what's left?"
Remove to where? Where are you gonna put it all?
I smell violation of thermodynamic law..
Posted by: RijkswaanVijanD
|
June 14, 2010 1:38 PM
@64
That's no typo!
Only signs near 1 are @2q which obviously wouldn't make any sense at all..
Stargate 1 it is
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 14, 2010 1:38 PM
A creationist once wrote here:
To be fair, s/he was citing an actual valid scientific concept. However, it in no proved the theological bullshit s/he was peddling.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 14, 2010 1:40 PM
My attic, from the looks of things.
Posted by: tbriggs
|
June 14, 2010 1:52 PM
What I think he was trying to say:
It's perfectly simple. If you're not getting your hair cut, you don't have to move your brother's clothes down to the lower peg, you simply collect his note before lunch after you've done your scripture prep when you've written your letter home before rest, move your own clothes on to the lower peg, greet the visitors, and report to Mr Viney that you've had your chit signed.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 14, 2010 2:00 PM
OT:
tbriggs, I'm going to have to send your site to a friend of mine. I think they'd love your work.
Posted by: isaksson.e
|
June 14, 2010 3:11 PM
@ #7: Perhaps time rebooted :)
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
June 14, 2010 3:14 PM
I couldn't get through that article. I kept going "What?" and having to reread the last few sentences, because I expect things to make sense, and it kept not making any.
And I glanced at your site, tbriggs, because Ol'Greg mentioned it, and I'm going to start going through it in depth when I have time. It's really interesting.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 14, 2010 3:33 PM
Disturbingly Openminded #32
I am an economist. Anyone who claims economics is science is ignorant of science or economics or both.
Posted by: tbriggs
|
June 14, 2010 4:09 PM
Thanks, Ol'Greg and Angel Kaida, fresh eyes are always welcome.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
June 14, 2010 4:10 PM
Just more BS from HuffPost.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 14, 2010 4:44 PM
You ever stop and think for a moment that HuffPo puts out this stuff on purpose just as a laugh, knowing full well it will get dissected with humourous and naughty invective here on Pharyngula (I thought Scott Pharyngula was great on Quantum Leap)? They may be just fishing for jokes when they put out pieces like this. How else could you explain the publication of woo to the n'th power composed of nothing but non-sequiturs?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 14, 2010 5:04 PM
Sigh.
You know what your problem is, you sad materialist naturalist physicalist atheists? You're all head, no heart. You just don't know how to feel things in your heart and gut to be true. Lanza knows in his heart. He knows, and he knows that he knows, and knows that he knows that he knows. You just have to read with your gut, not your lying eyes. What he was really saying, when you read between the lines and feel it in your heart, is:
"Quantum mechanics requires hearts and minds. Therefore, it's all about Love".
Amen.
Posted by: Ströh
|
June 14, 2010 5:32 PM
@RijkswaanVijanD
I thought so too - to be a typo it would have to be an implausibly acrobatic one!
The rest of the post had something to do with the age of the universe and the quote was directly preceded by "I'm a musician".
Heh, the "I'm a musician, not a scientist" is somewhat of parallel to Star Trek too: Dr McCoy and the "I'm a doctor, not a (insert random task here)".
Perhaps this guy is a SciFi fan who forgot what the Fi stands for.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 14, 2010 5:34 PM
Curse you (shaking fist in the air) Robert Lanza!
Shake harder boy!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/KI9.4t8P0eWdP3v7Axw3LdtrXw--#48285
|
June 14, 2010 5:34 PM
aka No Gurus,
Two comments:
No actual evidence of anything presented here. The author did not present a shred of evidence I can look up and investigate that directly supports his view of life after death. Something about quantum physics, something about other universes, and an emotional testimonial about a lost sister. Sorry, not convinced.
His disengenuous use of Einstein. Einstein strongly believed and was quoted numerous times saying he had no scientific belief in the after life whatsoever, that people believed in it for emotional reasons. From the man who knew more about time than anyone, and proved it, Einstein could easily and quite comfortably imagine death as the end of time for humans. Lanza hasn't proven anything to me in this article except that he is willing to misrepresent Einstein. Here are some quotes from Einstein.
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-Quotes-on-Afterlife.htm
Posted by: Ströh
|
June 14, 2010 5:35 PM
Really, Owlmirror? Comic Sans?
Posted by: Kagehi
|
June 14, 2010 5:36 PM
Wait.. There is something even less Euler out there, and thereby more confusing for working in 3D than quaternions? O.o Damn... Hope it doesn't get added to Second Life in the next patch. Dealing with trying to **accurately** move from "I want this thing as these angles", to quaternions, reliably, never mind deal with fracking gimble lock, is bad enough right now, I don't need something I can comprehend even less. lol
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 14, 2010 5:41 PM
I know what's in my heart: Blood.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 14, 2010 6:21 PM
Joy Christian has even shown a disproof of Bell's Theorem
So he claims. What makes you think he's right?
which pretty much eviscerates the idea there can be no local variables causing the statistical behavior of subatomic particles.
"eviscerates the idea"? I thought we were talking about theorems and proof/disproof?
Bell's theorem attempts to demonstrate the non-existence of quantum local variables. It is one of the finest, most elegant experiments in all of physics.
You might at least try to understand the difference between Bell's theorem and the Bell test experiments.
Posted by: spiderxray
|
June 14, 2010 6:44 PM
Its easy to see why HuffPo loves having Lanza around just by looking at the Living page. His goofy Reboot post has generated over 2,800 comments in just 4 days! That's not just page views, that is the number of people taking the time to post a comment. How could Huffington not love a guy like that? In the same time period, Dr. Dolgoff on "Has the ban on trans fats made foods healthier" generated a pathetic 33 comments. The whole page will be biocenteriffic before long.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 14, 2010 6:47 PM
Comic Sans is perfectly suited to Owlmirror's post there. He's not so much hinting that he's doing a Poe, as bashing you over the head with a clue-by-four.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
June 14, 2010 6:49 PM
@Owlmirror #79
...Bones? Get off Pharyngula and back to sickbay!
Posted by: rick.price84
|
June 14, 2010 6:59 PM
I read that article a couple days ago, I was so lost I thought about re-reading it, but decided it wasn't worth my time. I'm glad I'm not the only person who thought it sounded insane.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
June 14, 2010 7:02 PM
Maybe CreoID scientists have moved their "Research and New Theory Promotion" activities out of church basements and onto backyard B-B-Ques?
When I was getting my BEc, I used to make the lads in my econ courses hyperventilate by telling them that economics was a social science (and not, as one claimed, a hard science like physics). Most of them were only taking the minimum (half courses in micro & macro) for two years so they could apply to the MBA programs.#75 TisHimself
Posted by: Petzl
|
June 14, 2010 7:14 PM
Thank You, PZ!
I'm so glad he picked up on this one. As soon as I saw it on HuffPo, I tried to comment on it: every single comment I made on HuffPo was rejected (and I tried to make them increasingly less strident, down to a simple "Lanza is a kook"). For some reason, HuffPo is completely in love with Lanza, and the moderators will brook absolutely no negative comments.
If you check out Lanza's own website, he quotes from a fawning Newsweek writer's calling himself the "living embodiment of the character played by Matt Damon in the movie “Good Will Hunting.”
That is one weak ego.
http://www.robertlanza.com/who-is-robert-lanza/
Checking his various claims have been interesting.
Doesn't it sound suspicious that such luminaries as Jonas Salk, B. F. Skinner, and Christiaan Barnard all tutored him? Doesn't that sound like a confabulation? A compulsive liar never tells a small lie; it's usually something audaciously big, like this one.
But my favorite is this one: according to lore, as a high school student, he "altered the genetics" of chickens in his basement, brought it to the attention of Harvard professors, and thus started his fabulous career. "altered the genetics"? Doesnt this just mean that he "bred" or "selectively bred" chickens? Could he really have a DNA lab in his basement 15 years ago? The only reference for this is the afforementioned 2001 Newsweek puff piece:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/011203/archive_019784_4.htm
Finally, I wonder what his employers at ACT feel about his spoutings on "Biocentrism". He's their Chief Scientific Officer. Don't his ridiculous "woo-woo" claims reflect rather badly on company and wouldn't the CEO want to rein him in?
http://www.advancedcell.com/
http://www.advancedcell.com/company/leadership-team/senior-executive-officers/
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 14, 2010 7:23 PM
f the world were entirely and plainly classical, with no whiff of quantum behaviour about it, Bell's Theorem would be a perfectly valid theorem concerning some pathological construction of probability theory generalized into the complex numbers.
The problem is that Bell's theorem as understood is not a formal mathematical statement; it's a plain language assertion about an inconsistency between QM and certain sorts of physical theories. In order to prove the theorem, one must mathematically model the entities in the plain language statement, and it's my understanding that Christian asserts that Bell's model is incorrect, so while there may be a formal mathematical theorem that has been proven, it isn't one that corresponds to Bell's assertion.
One could, maybe, "disprove a theorem" by showing that a previously accepted proof of a result is in fact erroneous, but even that seems like loose talk to me.
To say the least: Fermat's Last Theorem wasn't disproved by showing that Wile's first attempt at a proof was flawed. In order to disprove a proposition, you must both prove its negation and be prepared to show that any purported proof is erroneous. It's my understanding that Christian claims to have done both, by showing that Bell's model is flawed and by demonstrating the workability of the sort of local realistic physical theory that is claimed to be impossible.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 14, 2010 7:30 PM
Er, make that "Wiles's".
Posted by: Marella
|
June 14, 2010 7:48 PM
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
June 14, 2010 8:07 PM
Now I'm waiting impatiently for an occasion when I can use it on someone.
Be sure to attribute the "anecdotes data" quote correctly. It's from Heinlein.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 14, 2010 8:08 PM
It's astoninshing that people (well, some people) can't see that all he and woomeisters like him are saying is that whatever you want to be real can be real, as long as you believe in it enough - and they're protecting themselves by insisting that if reality isn't changing to match your desires it's because you aren't trying hard enough.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 14, 2010 8:24 PM
Ugh, this is stupid.
Somewhat related (OK, maybe not much), I just experienced the "tree argument" for the first time in my life. You know, when someone says, "How can you not believe in a creator. . .just like at the trees!" WTF LOL WUT?
I was at a professional conference last week, about a topic wholly unrelated to anything religious, and a colleague went off on some tangent about what happens after we die. I was prepared to say nothing (I was more interested in lunch, frankly, than debate) until she started asserting her nonsense in such a way that it was clear she presumed everyone at the table agreed.
I said something like, "Yes, I understand that some people believe that's what happens after death." She countered with an incredulous, "Don't you?"
"No, I don't see any evidence that consciousness persists after death, nor do I see any evidence that a 'creator' exists."
She was genuinely shocked, and kept pressing me to say "why." I explained, very calmly, that I saw no evidence for it, but that I wasn't attempting to tell her what she should or should not believe. This served only to provoke her further, and she went down the rabbit hole with all sorts of "arguments" about first causes, "the perfect design of the world around us," etc.
Now, regulars here know I'm plainspoken, sometimes to a fault. But please believe me that in this professional, public context, I was anything but. I kept a low, conciliatory tone of voice, made sure to repeat that I had my opinions but that I didn't expect her to adopt them, etc. Not because I cared what she thought of me (I don't), but because I really just wanted to eat my lunch in peace.
This did nothing to assuage her. She got angrier and more incredulous by the minute. It occurred to me what really pissed her off was that I kept stating, "I see no evidence for that, but I'm willing to change my mind if evidence comes forward." She knew on some level that's an unavoidable critique of her gullibility, and that - not any "strident," "shrill" tone - is what really peeved her.
There isn't any phrasing, and there's no tone of voice or conciliatory body language, that takes away the sting of the clear subtext: "You believe in things for no reason at all, and I don't." I wish the accommodationists would learn this.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 14, 2010 8:32 PM
QFT
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 14, 2010 8:55 PM
Josh, OSG wrote:
Well, the accomodationists do, between their bleating and disingenuous misrepresentations, propose a solution of sorts - that all atheists must repeatedly profess a great humility and even greater sadness about our inability to maintain delusional belief systems.
Of course, my response - which I believe is shared by most of the people here - can be summed up thusly: Fuck. That. Shit.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 14, 2010 9:30 PM
@Wowbagger, #100
I'm with you. I don't know what the fuck it is about delusional, embarrassing Sky Daddy/Mommy fantasies they find so attractive, and I want nothing to do with them.
Posted by: Ströh
|
June 14, 2010 9:49 PM
Count me in too. I'm all for humility, civility and diplomacy but I'm not about to other people in order to upset them because of conflicting views. Be it religion, philosophy or politics.
People who wear their beliefs on their sleeves have learn to be able to take some criticism now and then. If they don't, they will only assume that everyone is agreeing with them - and be even more assertive!
Posted by: Ströh
|
June 14, 2010 9:52 PM
The last post got prematurely posted and escaped editing. Here's how it should look, in case someone was doubting my sanity (or sobriety):
Count me in too. I'm all for humility, civility and diplomacy but I'm not about to humiliate myself for other people in order to avoid upsetting them because of conflicting views. Be it religion, philosophy or politics.
People who wear their believes on their sleeves need to be criticized now and then. If they aren't, they will only assume that everyone is agreeing with them - and be even more assertive!
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 14, 2010 9:58 PM
truth machine,
Right. I was careless. I already retracted that bit. Fucking sue me.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 14, 2010 10:30 PM
Oh man, I get this one. It hits me particularly hard because as someone who never deconverted, except maybe from the dramatic enjoyment of dressing up for some alt-religion cosplay, I have trouble saying anything back. Inherently, I did always have a problem with believing it. Even before I knew there were people who didn't, or how to properly challenge or question it. It just struck me as utter shit, and I sort of resented the psychological manipulation that seemed so obvious to me.
So then when people say, you're just deficient some how, it rubs. It really does. I've always been skeptical, and I've been made to feel really fucking guilty about it too.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 14, 2010 10:40 PM
OH NO NO NO NO!!! Do not use fucking and sue in the same sentence. The lawyers are all already whores and we do not need to turn the courtroom into a COMPLETE brothel. American society is litigious enough as it is without bringing the concept of a slap and tickle with every lawsuit into the bargain.
Posted by: broboxley OT
|
June 14, 2010 10:44 PM
Ol'Greg and Josh
woo believers think that a hard core atheist is akin to a sociopath, missing an essential emotional something. Having met non and different believers from a very early age I know that is not the case, that emotional attachment is there but not woo oriented. Too bad more people dont get that. I have my own peronal brand of woo so find it quite amusing when running across the true believer and either nicely start cutting them up via their own scripture when they get testy or having a delightful conversation if they are willing to enter into a lively debate with self resolving logic bombs being lobbed back and forth. At a backyard bbq a few years ago where it was a neighborhood invite and a sneak attack by local baptists I found a newly minted seminarian who was willing to play.
"Would you consider hard core pornography to be acceptable?"
yes of course it is but I dont watch it
"Why not"
Because it would upset my wife who has indicated that she does not like to be exposed or around people who watch it due to prior life experience. Its a matter of respect
he actually understood that but he was a noob at the pastor biz
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 14, 2010 10:48 PM
Ol'Greg: I have found that a lot of people, while having a diametrically opposite opinion to the one being waved around in public, tend not to say anything simply because they don't really know how to present their disagreement or don't have a completely coherent picture of exactly what that argument is. It's a bit like a before and after picture. My plumber went on a spiel about why he thinks religion should guide law and politics and I just about had an aneurysm wanting to disagree, but didn't have the right words to express the points I wanted to make. Fast forward a couple years after reading a great deal of Christopher Hitchens-esque writers and I let the guy have an earfull. He never came back to do work for us, but at least he doesn't have this idea that everyone agrees with this insipid idea that separation of church and state are a bad thing. Main point being, find authors of ideas that represent your own and quote vigorously if you're not adept, expressive or creative enough to present the argument in your own words. The idea is still the same as your own.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 14, 2010 11:11 PM
Ol'Greg wrote:
I keep on trying to recall how I felt about religion as a kid, but I certainly can't remember ever feeling that I believed any of it - or, at least, I don't remember any particular event or instance that would indicate that I did. But I also didn't realise that other people did believe it.
And I still have trouble with the whole concept - I truly, honestly cannot comprehend how people believe in what you have to believe in to be (genuinely) religious; my brain just won't let me go there.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 14, 2010 11:23 PM
THIS, Wowbagger, this. It wasn't until I was an adult and people I knew, some of whom were quite religious, talked about both positive and negative aspects of this that I actually realized.
I thought a lot of things, but it never crossed my mind that it was actually true.
Oh, and is it too late to say you flattered me once in another thread? Because you did.
But to the point:
I still don't find myself willing to argue too much. I'm afraid of the consequences. I'd probably just have never hired the plumber again!
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 14, 2010 11:35 PM
I already retracted that bit.
Sorry, I missed that.
Fucking sue me.
Mu.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 14, 2010 11:38 PM
I can't actually talk to strongly religious people about religion face-to-face. I just can't - no more than I could talk to flying saucer abductees or past-lifers. To me it's just all so alien, so counter-reality that they might as well be speaking another language.
I don't think it's ever too late. But how, exactly? Something other than the offer of Australia, marriage and bulldog co-ownership?
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 14, 2010 11:56 PM
Be sure to attribute the "anecdotes data" quote correctly. It's from Heinlein.
How utterly wrong and stupid. You could double your effective IQ just by making a minimal attempt to confirm your beliefs before imposing them on others.
As it so happens, the phrase was originated in the inverse form -- "the plural of anecdote is data" -- by Raymond Wolfinger. I'll leave it as an exercise to confirm this tidbit.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 14, 2010 11:56 PM
Oh see, as much as I blather, I can't stop listening. It's all so fascinating to me! I truly love hearing about other people's experiences and psychological states.
However, I can't help but see it as a sort of phenomenon to record and document. I'd have no problem listening to an alien-abduction story, and in fact I've listened to much stranger.
People are incredible!
Some times I even wish I'd just stop listening to their bullshit because it can be very distracting... either that or just go on and study psychology or journalism or something so I'd have an excuse.
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
June 15, 2010 12:03 AM
I grew up in a family and around other people who all were members of the church, but it never really had any real part in their lives, so I just thought nobody took those stories seriously. Until third grade - when we had a new teacher for our class who turned out to be a YEC and a faith healing preacher. Way more religious and fundamentalist than anyone I had ever known before. What an obnoxious, pushy bastard he was. I think I spent most of the two years in his class doubting - and often resisting - everything he said.
Perhaps I should be thankful, after all he pushed me directly to the path of thinking for myself. But meh, he's too much of an asshole to be thought of with any warm feelings.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 15, 2010 12:11 AM
I would worry that, at worst, I would burst out laughing - and, even if I could keep that under control, I have serious doubts that (despite being an actor) my incredulity wouldn't show on my face. It's bad enough when an acquaintance who takes astrology very seriously starts talking about that.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 15, 2010 12:18 AM
Weed Monkey, you describe almost exactly what happened with me. Growing up as I did, in Texas, I was often confronted with people who were cruel and ugly. They used religion, and religious threats, all the time. They also used it to validate their ugly political ideals. So it pushed me from being apathetic but willing to avoid discipline, to feeling like I needed to challenge it at least to some extent. Nothing like being pushed to make you push back!
In my case I particularly remember going to the churches of some of my school friends and hearing what the sermon entailed. So horrible and ugly! From instilling fear and rage at other religions (especially Islam), to telling us how we should think and even vote. Not to mention being told outright I could never have authority in the church due to my sex.
It made me start to think about religion and how it was used as a tool to control and dominate people. If not for those experiences I would have thought of it exactly as I thought of the Easter bunny, or Santa.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 15, 2010 12:24 AM
I had this tossed at me twenty fives years ago in college. One of my classmates felt the need to confront me because I was very open about being an atheist. She point at six trees that were in a straight line and asked, "Who put the trees there?".
My reply was simple, "Looks like someone planted them."
I got a very dirty look and she stopped talking to me.
Such a warm and fuzzy memory.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 15, 2010 12:40 AM
Janine - Nice!
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 15, 2010 1:00 AM
I think some of my inability to cope with face-to-face discussion of religion is because it's a very different situation in Australia; we, like the English, are far less likely to be as blatant and confrontational about our beliefs. Church-talk happens at church and that's pretty much it.
However, the down side of that is that it makes us underestimate the numbers of the woo-soaked in our community - the flood of attacks upon the Dawkins and the recent Global Atheist Convention came as a surprise to me because I didn't think it'd attract comments from anyone other than the church leaders - let alone see so many columnists parrot the same weak-sauce drivel that passes for apologetics amongst the equivalent groups in the US.
Posted by: Oneiric
|
June 15, 2010 1:22 AM
Blake Stacey @45
From that post you linked...
Has Lanza been watching too much Stargate? :s
Posted by: Oneiric
|
June 15, 2010 1:32 AM
Me @ 121
For the record, I put that in before reading the SG1 comment at 64...
Posted by: grizzly70
|
June 15, 2010 2:04 AM
So, grandpa simpson grew up near a blacksmith? From my calculations, he spent his childhood either in the 16th century or in world of warcraft. Reminds me of the time i spent pondering the weak electromagnetic force near my towns haberdashery.
Posted by: Ye Olde Blacksmith
|
June 15, 2010 2:30 AM
Finally, I get a chance to actually contribute to a thread in, possibly, a meaningful way. Woot!
I don’t really know much about physics but what Lanza is saying just doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever. Others have already pointed out the many problems with this drivel, but as a working blacksmith, I thought I could come out of my lurking and actually contribute a little this time.
Wrong! There are currently many blacksmiths still in New England, and in fact all over the world. Here is a site directory for local blacksmith groups from all over, if you are interested in learning more about blacksmithing. ABANA Chapters .Stupid! The cap keeps the rain out of your forge. Water + coal ash = rapidly rusted out forge. Not good for a working smith.
Implausable!* If the coals are actually flaming, then the fire is not yet hot enough to do any real work. If “O’Donnell” was an experienced smith, it highly unlikely that he would ever toss steel on a fire that wasn’t ready. (It messes up the necessary airflow for getting a good fire going.)
*Unless said smith is using wood charcoal for fuel, it which case, the coals would already have been flaming from the start.
Plausible.
Plausible for an experienced smith. (I’ll not quibble over the use of “perfect image” with a little pounding. That is, I’m sure, simply hyperbole and will let it slide.)It is my opinion that the entire “O’Donnell” story is as fabricated as the rest of Lanza’s nonsensical vomitous spew.
Posted by: Gordy
|
June 15, 2010 3:03 AM
"Quantum theory ended the classical view that particles exist if we don't perceive them. "
Really? I must have missed that bit.
""Biocentrism" (BenBella Books) lays out Lanza's theory of everything."
Never mind, problem solved!
But seriously, Poe? (I ask in hope more than expectation.)
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
June 15, 2010 5:34 AM
McCthulu @ 106
Yep, we're all venal whores until you need one of us to defend your constitutional rights or your kid is in central booking.
Here are some fun facts to know and tell about lawyers:
66% of lawyers provide pro-bono services. They averaged 39 hours of pro bono work to assist the poor. They provided an additional 38 pro bono hours in aid of civil rights, comunity organizations and non-profits. The American Bar Associatioon and the New York City Bar Association recommend that lawyers give a minimum of 50 hours of their professional time for the public good, for free, every year.
American Bar Association
Posted by: speedweasel
|
June 15, 2010 6:13 AM
I stopped caring too much about this kind of thing a while ago. I'll remain respectful of the person (not necessarily of their ideas) as long as they return the favour but its not my job to protect people from the consequences of their bad ideas.
If you talk insipid nonsense and I burst out laughing, so be it. I'll probably apologise for appearing rude, but I'll probably also be smiling when I do so.
My mother once told me off for scoffing at her belief in astrology. She told me that the horoscope in the paper was often right. I explained that they are written in such a way that any passage could appeal to any person.
She told me that couldn't be the case because *her* horoscope was almost always right. I read her horoscope aloud and when she told me how well it fit, I pointed out that the passage I just read was titled 'Sagittarius'. She's a Libra.
I need a t-shirt that says, "Your cognitive dissonance is not my problem."
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 15, 2010 6:32 AM
Well, the accomodationists do, between their bleating and disingenuous misrepresentations, propose a solution of sorts - that all atheists must repeatedly profess a great humility and even greater sadness about our inability to maintain delusional belief systems. - Wowbagger, OM
QFT. Before I'd heard the terms "accomodationist" or "faitheist" I dubbed these moral and intellectual cowards "Oh-how-I-wish-I-could-share-your-faitheists".
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 15, 2010 6:44 AM
She point at six trees that were in a straight line and asked, "Who put the trees there?".
My reply was simple, "Looks like someone planted them." - Janine, She Wolf of Pharyngula, OM
:D:D:D
Posted by: broboxley OT
|
June 15, 2010 8:08 AM
@Q.E.D # 126
no, then you are MY venal whore, there's a differencesorry couldnt help it and yes lawyers do give a lot of pro bono time
Posted by: CaptSpaulding
|
June 15, 2010 8:10 AM
I read that post, and I thought it was just me.
Posted by: DesertHedgehog
|
June 15, 2010 8:48 AM
I really, really hate the way the anecdote/data line gets thrown around. I did my doctorate in History, and anecdotes are data--- the raw material for doing History.
Whoever may have originally thought of that useless anecdote/data line, I want to go on record as saying that the only quote I'd ever like to find attributed to Robt. Heinlein is one where he (unsuccessfully) pleads for his life before being hanged, drawn, and quartered for book after book of increasingly incoherent, obnoxious, vile, and stupid political and philosophical maunderings.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 15, 2010 8:49 AM
Please? I hear it includes a slap and tickle.
Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded
|
June 15, 2010 8:57 AM
Tis Himself @ 75
QFT.
I later asked the BBQ host, a physicist, what he thought of the "science is confirming the bible" conversation. He just rolled his eyes. Nuff said.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
June 15, 2010 9:07 AM
Incidentally, Deepak Chopra has endorsed "biocentrism", calling it "original and exciting". Strange indeed, isn't it, that for both the thinking and the unthinking individual alike, one endorsement is all that's necessary to form a complete judgement.
But if you missed it, it couldn't have happened! Oh noes!!
Or maybe The Incredibles . . .
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 15, 2010 9:50 AM
I agree, anecdotes are data. But data is not information. Data is processed to produce information. Some data gets excluded in that process, depending upon usefulness. Sometimes anecdotes are useful, sometimes they are not. When somebody says "strident atheism will never convince anybody!" an anecdote is enough to prove them wrong. When somebody says "my neighbor was dead but then this guy sprinkled some pixie dust on him and prayed and now my neighbor is much better" then an anecdote will do nothing to prove them right.Posted by: ereador
|
June 15, 2010 10:42 AM
This is what I wrote first: It just goes to show you can put any words together that fit syntactically. You can claim that frogs grow from acorns (and that's actually more possible than claims about what happens to the "soul" at death). I especially enjoyed his take on classical v. quantum physics. I guess his point is that everything is whatever you think it is. I guess that means there's no point in collecting data when you can just make it up.
Then I realized that is the beauty of woo -- no evidence is actually the evidence, therefore the position is unassailable. I'm starting my own woo factory, and I already have my cerfiticket from the ULC.
Posted by: pl.werdna
|
June 15, 2010 3:10 PM
@75:
I am an economist. Anyone who claims economics is science is ignorant of science or economics or both.
While I wouldn't say economics is science (a field of study is not the method of approach to the study), I do believe that any field, be it physics, or geology, psychology, or even economics can be approached scientifically in that questions are asked for which answers have empirical implications that can be found. e.g. Is there a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment? That is definitely a question that can be resolved with a scientific, empirical analysis.
Alternatively, each and every one of these fields of study, be it physics, geology, psychology and economics can also be approached non-scientifically, in which one simply makes stuff up. That Deepak Chopra invokes quantum this and that does not mean that quantum mechanics is suddenly unscientific. Likewise, that some economists may draw empirically non-defensible conclusions doesn't rule out that economics can still be approached scientifically.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 15, 2010 3:47 PM
Yep, we're all venal whores until you need one of us to defend your constitutional rights or your kid is in central booking.
Or hold a corporation accountable. It is corporations, especially the insurance industry, that is primarily responsible for the negative view of lawyers -- not much unlike global warming.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 15, 2010 3:49 PM
I should be clearer: it is the anti-lawyer PR campaign, funded and implemented by corporations, that is primarily responsible for the negative view of lawyers.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 15, 2010 4:17 PM
Whoever may have originally thought of that useless anecdote/data line
To repeat: the original line, coined by political scientist Raymond Wolfinger, was in the positive -- "the plural of anecdote is data". Since you agree with it, I wonder why you say it's useless.
I would note that, while an anecdote is a datum, a datum isn't necessarily an anecdote, so the statement isn't literally true. Also, there's a confusion between anecdotes as used by historians -- statements taken as data which are treated skeptically and compared and contrasted to try to eke out historical reality -- and a fact told anecdotally, taken at face value but rejected as an improper basis for generalization. It is in the latter sense that Wolfinger coined his aphorism:
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 15, 2010 4:24 PM
Incidentally, Deepak Chopra has endorsed "biocentrism", calling it "original and exciting". Strange indeed, isn't it, that for both the thinking and the unthinking individual alike, one endorsement is all that's necessary to form a complete judgement.
Heh heh. However, a truly thinking person recognizes that even Deepak Chopra is right about some things (not this one, though).
But if you missed it, it couldn't have happened!
Heh heh heh.
Posted by: truth machine, OM
|
June 15, 2010 4:33 PM
economics can still be approached scientifically
Regardless, no economist should call themselves a scientist without a lot of qualification, even at a backyard cookout.
Posted by: Cygnus Tygger
|
June 15, 2010 4:53 PM
Ah... This reminds me of the first time I died, an unpleasant experience I've only done twice and hope never to have to do again. I hoped time would reboot but instead all time condensed into one point of a vivid of a dirty swan covered in orange and black striped scum swimming through an oil-slick. Being born is much more fun and I'm very glad I've learned how to do it again and again without that icky dieing business in between. When you are born, time indeed reboot, each time thinner than the last but interspersed with olfactory memories interspersed like spun crystal. Which is strange when you think about it because swans aren't particularly known for their senses of smell. Although rebooted time seems fragile after the birthing process and stronger than one might think, and if the rebirthed cygnet fortifies herself by gobbling down a dragonfly or two, although she'd be wise to avoid wrought iron dragonflies for the first week or two, she finds she can weave crystaline time into a sturdy nest upon which she can base the timeframe for the rest of her new life. In the five or six times I've been born I've woven these nests of crystal time into a sturdy dome shaped like an onion and have planted nasturtium and jasmine to vine along the frame. I like the word vine because it is an anagram of the word vein and being born is not unlike opening a vein and letting time spill out like blood until you are giddy with delusion. But it isn't the sleeping deceptively peaceful delusion of your life force slipping away but the giddy delusion of peacefu towers of crystal time and invisible green thoughts raging passively while riding stuffed tigers with latex skins. The tigers (or Tyggers, if one invites six to a vowell party and if one has latex skin) although preditors actually absorb and ingest all they eat. "Give me a tidbit," a Tygger would roar, "for I'm hungry enough to eat a thesaurus and I have a get thirst for knowledge." A Tygger will frequently eat wrought iron dragonflies which will extend their frame so tight that as a baby Sygnet-kytti I would jump on my Tygger nanny and play a drum solo on his ribs. After my second birth, I composed a piece I called "The Armpit of the Swan" under the pseudonym of E.G.Wreght. We had to use pseudonyms in those days because we were all pseudo-intellectuals. The standards for true intellectualism were for more rigorous in those days but really psuedo-intellectualism was much more fun. We used to have P.I barbecues on the beach which is what what we called Gosamore Park in those days. We'd commute in the tube from Circle Quay to Kings Cross until they entire line was replace with the A train to Mayhem. I'd sit on the beach with my pseudo-intellectual peeps and strum my suede covered tamborine until the cows came home. Once a returning cow belched up a dragonfly she had eaten unto the feet of a p-i cygnet-kytti call Annabast, and I knew I had found the true love of my next three lives.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 15, 2010 8:27 PM
Wow. This *is* surprisingly bad.
Okay, time is only a perception of an enternal past present and future all existing at once like a record floating in space. I get that. I mean, we've all considered that at one time or another, haven't we. But this only begs the question. "What happens after death" becomes "what does on consciousness perceive in the times after our death". There is no more reason to assume the one-way phonograph needle of our consciousness gets a chance to start over anymore than there is to believe it gets to jump around at will, which it clearly *doesn't* as I'm a middle-age grouch going forward against my will, instead of a college sophomore repeatedly and repeatingly making out with my dorm-mate for an hour over and over again.
And that story.. yeah, Granpa Simpson's about right...
Posted by: Rrhain
|
June 15, 2010 9:01 PM
Even more problematic is that if you try to correct the errors in physics that Lanza writes, HuffPo deletes your post. I have on numerous occasions pointed out the specific errors in the very science Lanza claims to be an expert in (his byline reads, "Scientist") and every single time, my post gets deleted.
Now, it's probably because I include things like, "He doesn't know what he's talking about," and, "Someone who claims to be a scientist should know this," but it isn't like I'm calling him names.
Woe betide those who cross the woo of HuffPo.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnqvUY0ObkV1-ezWre-VauxoH2r82oTzTg
|
June 16, 2010 11:55 AM
Afin sensacion.
Con la fuerza
de la rima esa
nube de viento
regresa, en el
dulzor de la
mañana; siento
el sabor de
la noche encantada
que lucida viene
regalando la luz.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Posted by: JPooler
|
February 19, 2011 6:53 PM
Guess I'm almost a year late to this party but StumbleUpon showed me this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/the-8-biggest-scientific-myths_b_823696.html and I've been seething about this shithead ever since. What's worse is people in the comments saying things like "I'm such a science geek, can't wait to pick up this book."
How does HuffPo find these clods?