 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
I have noticed a curious pattern that, in average, people who believe in
one kind of pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena are very likely to believe
in a whole array of such claimed phenomena.
For example, someone who strongly believes in the afterlife, ghosts,
psychics and divination, is also very likely to believe in a number of
completely unrelated claims, such as UFOs, cryptozoology (bigfoot, etc)
and homeopathy, even though there's no connection whatsoever between
these things.
Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of pseudoscience
or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of another,
no matter how unrelated they might be.
(A similar phenomenon happens with conspiracy theories. Seldom have I seen
a person strongly believing in one conspiracy theory and seriously doubting
another. It seems to almost always be all-or-nothing. If you believe in
the Moon landing hoax theory, you are very likely to also believe in the
9/11 and the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories as well.)
Sometimes proponents of these things try to invoke argumentum ad populum,
as if popularity of belief would somehow give it credibility. However, the
way I see it is that it's a phsychological phenomenon, where people who are
likely to believe in one type of nonsense is likely to believe in all kinds
of nonsense without much discrimination or critique.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
this reply is far more fun than the table itself:
Anonymous said...
Whoever created this, FUCK YOU for listing Buddhism and Qi energy. I am a
martial Arts practitioner and i experienced the true power of qi through my own
body. Besides it was scientifically proven with thermal imaging cameras years
ago.
18 July 2010 22:47
kamehamehaaa!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 11:20 AM, Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
>
> I have noticed a curious pattern that, in average, people who believe in
> one kind of pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena are very likely to believe
> in a whole array of such claimed phenomena.
>
> For example, someone who strongly believes in the afterlife, ghosts,
> psychics and divination, is also very likely to believe in a number of
> completely unrelated claims, such as UFOs, cryptozoology (bigfoot, etc)
> and homeopathy, even though there's no connection whatsoever between
> these things.
>
> Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of pseudoscience
> or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of another,
> no matter how unrelated they might be.
>
> (A similar phenomenon happens with conspiracy theories. Seldom have I seen
> a person strongly believing in one conspiracy theory and seriously doubting
> another. It seems to almost always be all-or-nothing. If you believe in
> the Moon landing hoax theory, you are very likely to also believe in the
> 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories as well.)
>
> Sometimes proponents of these things try to invoke argumentum ad populum,
> as if popularity of belief would somehow give it credibility. However, the
> way I see it is that it's a phsychological phenomenon, where people who are
> likely to believe in one type of nonsense is likely to believe in all kinds
> of nonsense without much discrimination or critique.
>
Actually, you might think of this as a *necessary* pattern. Basically,
any one conspiracy/woo contains vastly insufficient support for its own
existence, so, by extension, can only be supported by the coexistence of
*other* conspiracies/woo. It doesn't even, in many cases, require that
these things not be mutually exclusive, or directly contradictory, as
long as they support the central premise. For example, two "government
conspiracy" types that disagree on 99.9% of all points, yet feel that
each other's conspiracies collectively "prove" that government
conspiracies exist.
Couple of good sites for this:
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/
has a weekly conspiracy thing they do, and a few posts on the goofy
nature of accepting everything as real, as long as it supports the
"reality" of what ever wooish stuff one started out with.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/
hasn't posted as much recently, but some of the first posts on the site
include detailed analysis of the types, nature, and arguments, made by
people that want reality to differ from itself, so make up either
excuses, or total gibberish, to support their positions.
Its all about confirmation. If evidence and facts won't, then maybe
contradictory, mutually exclusive, nonsense will, even if only as
evidence that one's idea is apposed, therefor *must* have some validity,
or people wouldn't be apposing it.
Sadly, for more of this stuff, it takes a 15 year old (or younger for
the whole theroputic touch craze) to disprove it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/drinking_bleach_is_good_for_yo.php
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 2:04 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
>
> this reply is far more fun than the table itself:
>
> Anonymous said...
> Whoever created this, FUCK YOU for listing Buddhism and Qi energy. I am a
> martial Arts practitioner and i experienced the true power of qi through my own
> body. Besides it was scientifically proven with thermal imaging cameras years
> ago.
>
> 18 July 2010 22:47
>
> kamehamehaaa!!!
>
Ah.. I didn't read the commentary... I was just entertained by the table ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> this reply is far more fun than the table itself:
> Anonymous said...
> Whoever created this, FUCK YOU for listing Buddhism and Qi energy. I am a
> martial Arts practitioner and i experienced the true power of qi through my own
> body. Besides it was scientifically proven with thermal imaging cameras years
> ago.
I find it hilarious how to crackpots any kind of experiment or test which
involves anything physical is immediately an actual "scientific test". It's
like "scientific means that you do something physical" (as opposed to simply
theoretizing verbally).
Of course there are many requisites for a test to have any scientifical
validity or credence.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/10/2010 07:20 PM, Warp wrote:
> I have noticed a curious pattern that, in average, people who believe in
> one kind of pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena are very likely to believe
> in a whole array of such claimed phenomena.
Presumably it takes some kind of mental disorder to actually believe any
of this nonesense. And presumably anybody how has this disorder belives
*all* of it! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/10/2010 08:57 PM, Warp wrote:
> I find it hilarious how to crackpots any kind of experiment or test which
> involves anything physical is immediately an actual "scientific test". It's
> like "scientific means that you do something physical" (as opposed to simply
> theoretizing verbally).
>
> Of course there are many requisites for a test to have any scientifical
> validity or credence.
Really?
What, you mean that "science" isn't just saying about waving expensive
equipment around and saying sciency words at it?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of pseudoscience
> or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of another,
Well, other than organized religion. :-) I know lots of devout religious
people who don't believe in any other religion's supernatural phenomena and
who don't believe in UFOs or other conspiracy theories.
Why yes, Jesus ascended into heaven after coming back from the dead. Golden
plates? Flying horses? What bollocks!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Whoever created this, FUCK YOU for listing Buddhism and Qi energy.
I think that makes my case right there. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
