• 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.

I challenge you:cite ONE paper that discerns Science from Pseudoscience wth CERTAINTY

Mojo said:
And if someone chooses homeopathy instead of effective treatment?
Click to expand...

That's what my grandfather did. The homeopathy itself didn't kill him; the disease did, but if he'd had actual treatment he could have survived it. So, yes, it's the belief rather than the 'treatment' that can be fatal.

Dave
 
Craig4 said:
(Takes a moment to sob into his hands) Well, yes but in most cases simply putting it back in the fridge won't get you there. You have to do other stuff to it.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what big cheese claims, but there are some mavericks out there working on upending all that so called science that makes cheese safer than really spoiled milk.

If only they could get the same funding that those clowns studying the nature of consciousness are raking in.
 
devhdb said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/5CJGKZ8.jpg[/qimg]

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think that you have failed to realize that you are talking against your own argument.

The basic fact is that in order to post such anti-science inanity, that you are actually using some of the most advanced tools that science can provide to you.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Well, that's what big cheese claims, but there are some mavericks out there working on upending all that so called science that makes cheese safer than really spoiled milk.

If only they could get the same funding that those clowns studying the nature of consciousness are raking in.
Click to expand...
The smart cheese chemists figure things out sometimes. True story: back around the turn of the 20th century, my granfather, a chemist, was trying as hard as he could to unlock the secret of Roquefort cheese, so as to initiate a Roquefort industry in his cheesy home state of Indiana. He worked for the USDA for a while, and never got very far, but started finding that the little fungi involved had some other interesting properties (you know, penicillium roqufortii and all). He started trying to get fungi to grow gluconic acid. He talked a little chemical company in Brooklyn into giving him some space to work, moved there, and although it took him a while to figure out that the accidental errors in his gluconic project had some value, eventually he connected the dots. The company? Pfizer. The eventual product? Citric Acid. He invented the shallow mold process of growing citric acid from molds, and liberated that industry from dependence on the Sicilian lemon crop. Later, of course, Pfizer also found other interesting things to do with fungi such as penicillium. He opted for a stock option and a fairly nice (for the time) bonus, rather than the royalty percentage that would have made him a billionaire, but he did OK anyway.

Cheese. Good for what ails you.

e.t.a. by the way, he did eventually figure out how to get gluconic acid too, and added that to his list of patents.
 
Last edited:
LU09E7V.jpg


;)
 
Last edited:
61DEmPk%2B9aL.jpg


"Consider Wittgenstein's paradigmatic question about defining "game." The problem is that there is no property common to all games, so that the most usual kinds of definition fail. Not every game has a ball, nor two competing teams; even, sometimes, there is no notion of "winning." In my view, the explanation is that a word like "game" points to a somewhat diffuse "system" of prototype frames, among which some frame-shifts are easy, but others involve more strain."

Marvin Minsky, in reference to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, in "Jokes and their Relation to the Cognitive Unconscious" (1980)


What if God was actually a GAME, how would you define/deny/affirm/prove/disprove Him/Her/That?

8fCSBNG.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism)

More food for thought.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
devhdb said:
[qimg]https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61DEmPk%2B9aL.jpg[/qimg]

"Consider Wittgenstein's paradigmatic question about defining "game." The problem is that there is no property common to all games, so that the most usual kinds of definition fail. Not every game has a ball, nor two competing teams; even, sometimes, there is no notion of "winning." In my view, the explanation is that a word like "game" points to a somewhat diffuse "system" of prototype frames, among which some frame-shifts are easy, but others involve more strain."

Marvin Minsky, in reference to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, in "Jokes and their Relation to the Cognitive Unconscious" (1980)


What if God was actually a GAME, how would you define/deny/affirm/prove/disprove Him/Her/That?

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/8fCSBNG.jpg[/qimg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism)

More food for thought.

:cool:
Click to expand...

So the word God has no meaning beyond the role it plays in language games? This is an abandonment of the idea that words are pointers to things in themselves out in the world beyond human experience (essentialist notions). How does it play out with “God.” What remains of God in this stance? Not much at all. It is quite the pragmatist/idealist retreat from the realist accounts that I suspect appeal to you.

You seem to be the last person I would expect to be quoting Wittgenstein.
 
Last edited:
devhdb said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/LU09E7V.jpg[/qimg]

;)
Click to expand...

In the last stage of his life Wittgenstein accentuated a mystical fever that had already come to him before (specially in his youth). It seems that the mysteriousness of life began to grip him. It was his problem.In any case, he never said that this mystery could be known in the form of a god, a religious faith or a mystical ecstasy. Just the mystery.


As always, you throw a sentence out of context and then turn it off as soon as you have to explain.Until you vanish into thin air as the consistency of your arguments, if there are any, which I do not see.


Anyway, this sentence is not very mystical, shall we say. This phrase refers to the primitive people's fear of nature. Wittgenstein says that the impression given by science is that it has mastered nature, but that perhaps we should think that we have reason to fear it. I think Covid-19 has proved him right. Or climate change. To speak only of attacks by nature on a global scale.
The full text can be found here:
 
I personally don't know how I can manage to do it, but I only have to read an article's title and the first 2 paragraphs to decide whether it is genuine science , or probably just pseudoscience.

In general, if the article is about health and diet, and it talks about "quantum something" then I would know that this is crap.

If it is an article about nutrition and diet, then I take everything it says with a grain of salt, especially if it promotes a book or product.

If it is scientific article promoting a faith or religion or propaganda, then I don't read it at all, because I know that the author would be very biased to their view.

In general, always look for references and check the original papers. Because sometimes, the journalist may misunderstand the subject matter, and write an article that appeals to the audience based on his personal preferences of what feels exciting.


And always be skeptical of news that seem too far fetched and too promising, about quantum who-knows-what, a conscious Universe...etc , because the real Universe is so damn boring and cold... But guess what, that's what makes the real Universe far more beautiful than any CGI movie or epic music.

Just beware of exciting news and shiny titles.
 
Look for the third paragraph reveal. That's where a news report or article will casually mention where their data comes from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom