• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

13 things that don't make sense

This cannot be complete.

I didn't see "David Hasselhoff's career" anywhere on there.


N/A
 
1) It is not her most recent paper. She has published several articles since that paper in 2001! Here is her page at the university:
http://www.med.qub.ac.uk/staff/staffpage.asp?id=209

2) The result were NOT replicated as described here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml

Also, even though she is on the editorial advisory board of the Homeopathy Journal ( http://www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/homp/board.cfm )... I do not see much in her newest papers involving homeopathy.
 
aerocontrols said:
This is your reward for reminding me that he exists.
Click to expand...


Ah-ha ha!

Like I'd click on any link in that context.



You have been foiled, sir -- FOILED, I tell you.


Now, try not to think of him singing "California Dreamin'."

(Sorry for the thread partial de-railment. It has been a long week and I plead inanity.)



N/A
 
NoZed Avenger said:

(Sorry for the thread partial de-railment. It has been a long week and I plead inanity.)
Click to expand...
What's a Hasslehoff derailment between friends?*

*Rhetorical question, no need to actually answer.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
This cannot be complete.

I didn't see "David Hasselhoff's career" anywhere on there.


N/A
Click to expand...

That is because Hasselhoff's career can be explained using one word: bpesta.
 
I just love how all the "worship at the altar of science" types at Jref, when confronted with "difficult" data, resort to namecalling and other such diversions.

These are great:

FOR more than a decade, physicists in Japan have been seeing cosmic rays that should not exist.

Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths' claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.

The trouble was, nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was. And they still can't. Although researchers have made many suggestions about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is no consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding.

FOUR years ago, a particle accelerator in France detected six particles that should not exist.

In fact, physicists are so completely at a loss that some have resorted to linking this mystery with other inexplicable phenomena.

IT IS one of the most famous, and most embarrassing, problems in physics. In 1998, astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at ever faster speeds. It's an effect still searching for a cause - until then, everyone thought the universe's expansion was slowing down after the big bang. "Theorists are still floundering around, looking for a sensible explanation," says cosmologist Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
 
jay gw said:
I just love how all the "worship at the altar of science" types at Jref, when confronted with "difficult" data, resort to namecalling and other such diversions.
Click to expand...

Wow. I thought skeptics were the ones who were supposed to have no sense of humor.


Another myth shattered.
 
SquishyDave said:
New scientists list of 13 things that don't make sense.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524911.600

Help me out with number 4 guys. Any holes in the process of this experiment? Or is still up in the air with other labs yet to figure out what happened?
Click to expand...

I'm particularly fascinated by #13! I would love to have reproducible experimental results that fly in the face of every smug physicist and skeptic on the planet.
 
clarsct said:
Need we say more? Of COURSE she found something, she has a vested interest in doing so.
Click to expand...

By the same token, one could say of the experiment done with Randi to replicate the results: "Of COURSE they found nothing, Randi had a vested interest in not giving the $1,000,000 away".

You're basically arguing that the results of the experiment are not valid based on a current association (and by extrapolation a "vested interest") of one of the primary researchers. But according to the article, prior to doing these experiments, she was adamantly against the idea of homopathy. I don't know whether the article is incorrect or whether the association came after her experiment was conducted, but it doesn't really matter. Just as Randi's vested interest doesn't matter. If the experiment was well constructed and conducted properly, then the results are valid and truly inexplicable.

Beth
 
Beth said:
By the same token, one could say of the experiment done with Randi to replicate the results: "Of COURSE they found nothing, Randi had a vested interest in not giving the $1,000,000 away".

You're basically arguing that the results of the experiment are not valid based on a current association (and by extrapolation a "vested interest") of one of the primary researchers. But according to the article, prior to doing these experiments, she was adamantly against the idea of homopathy. I don't know whether the article is incorrect or whether the association came after her experiment was conducted, but it doesn't really matter. Just as Randi's vested interest doesn't matter. If the experiment was well constructed and conducted properly, then the results are valid and truly inexplicable.

Beth
Click to expand...
And apparently unrepeatable...
 
Beth said:
By the same token, one could say of the experiment done with Randi to replicate the results: "Of COURSE they found nothing, Randi had a vested interest in not giving the $1,000,000 away".
Click to expand...

Randi played no part in the conduct experiment. He was an onlooker only.

He did agree the protocol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom