Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Its hardly a wonder people can't tell the difference between science and
> gibberish, which channels that are "supposed to" dedicate themselves to
> science run total bunk all the time.

The Discovery Channel and the Science Channel are "supposed to" entertain the
masses in exchange for advertizing revenue.  That the entertained believe that
they are learning science is an unfortunate cost (worth $0 in the short term)
of business.

I don't know whether one should feel better or worse about this, but it's not
just in the USA.  Britain's _Brainiac_ isn't satisfied with delusions; they lie
outright:

   http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/AlkaliBangs/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> 1) Natural effects tend to leave evidence that is more tangible than lens
>>> flares, overexposed camera straps, and imprints on the reporter's central
>>> nervous system.
>> Some do, some don't. :-)  Look at the long history of things we didn't
>> know about until we got the right measuring instruments. Do you think
>> the placebo effect is supernatural too? :-)
> 
> Effects that are supernatural remain so until proven otherwise.  Or I think
> that's how it goes.

I can't imagine they're actually supernatural if they're *actually* 
effects. :-) I mean, if there's actual effects, it would have to be 
natural, wouldn't it?  Indeed, does the word "supernatural" even make sense?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Either you can measure it, and their for its "material" or you 
> can't, so it isn't. You can't have it both ways. ;)

Sure you can. It's called religion. :-)

> Seriously though, would you prefer "alleged supernatural", since you 
> seem to want to make a court case out of it? jk ;)

Not a court case. More just being silly.  I like investigating the meta 
of such things.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I can't imagine they're actually supernatural if they're *actually*
> effects. :-) I mean, if there's actual effects, it would have to be
> natural, wouldn't it?  Indeed, does the word "supernatural" even make sense?

I think "supernatural" is a way that the superstitious use to circle the wagons
around their beliefs.  Not quite sure what the concept actally means, other
than "I don't know (or don't want to know) how it happened; therefore, it's
supernatural."

....Damn, that's recursive!  Gotta work on that some more...

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Hmm, maybe. Of course, being that they are on Sci-Fi, it is after all 
> just entertainment. Who was that guy, always seemed to wear 
> uncomfortable shirts.. Richards, something or other... can't remember. 
> His show had a talk-show format .. I think I watched it once, and 
> immediately dismissed him as a huckster. He does the very typical 
> "psychic" dance, asks lots of questions, and makes something up on the 
> spot that might be plausible. The one I watched he actually was waaaay 
> off. And yet, he was wildly popular. And pet psychic? give me a break!
> 

Know there was one for a while with the same (almost) unfortunate name 
as a politician running for office at the time (one of them has an 's' 
at the end, the other doesn't, but I can never remember which if which), 
but.. Ironically, I can't remember the name. They would tape 8 hours at 
a time (no wonder some people started to "think" he was getting things 
right, they where all half asleep...), then cut the whole thing down to 
a 1 hour show, by "editing" the footage. See, he would do the whole "I 
sense a P.", BS, then when he missed, jump to someone else, then someone 
else, etc., and after the original victim had more or less forgot what 
they told him, he would jump back to them and announce, "Oh, and Uncle 
Puke said he liked salad forks a lot.", or what ever they had told him 
already, and he would be off on another series of hits, almost hits, 
etc., until he missed, then jumped to someone else again.

The sad thing was, **despite** having 8 hours, a good memory, and the 
ability to edit it, so it "looked like" he was doing well on TV, he 
***still*** sucked at it, getting fewer hits, and generally performing 
far worse, than any one of the professional cold readers out there.. lol

Oh, wait. John Edwards, I think it was...

-- 
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

Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I can't imagine they're actually supernatural if they're *actually*
>> effects. :-) I mean, if there's actual effects, it would have to be
>> natural, wouldn't it?  Indeed, does the word "supernatural" even make sense?
> 
> I think "supernatural" is a way that the superstitious use to circle the wagons
> around their beliefs.  Not quite sure what the concept actally means, other
> than "I don't know (or don't want to know) how it happened; therefore, it's
> supernatural."
> 
> ....Damn, that's recursive!  Gotta work on that some more...
> 
Nope, that is exactly it. Another common "version" of it is, "I don't 
know how it works, but it couldn't work they way you say it does, so 
therefor Goddidit!"

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:

> 
> Oh, wait. John Edwards, I think it was...
> 

That was the one ... Wow. 8 hours of taping..

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message