When I first heard FTL I really appreciated them for their willingness to be criticized and admit when they were wrong, and for the way they looked at issues from a standpoint of evidence. Does the government suck? Yes! How do we know? Mountains of evidecne here and here and here.
In the last few months I've become less and less enamoured with them. In past they, espeically mark, would appeal to science and medicine in certain situations, but lately when it's come to vaccines, the Law of Attraction, ClimateGate, BigPharma, etc., they aren't using their critical thinking skills and actually going for teh easy positions, and they start to sound nutty. It makes it hard to enjoy the show anymore.
FTL is pretty good on psychology.
It's just that with other science topics, they often aren't very critical
FTL is pretty good on psychology.
It's just that with other science topics, they often aren't very critical
You're right.
The SGU is one of the best podcasts out there, especially for becoming science literate. Shermer is great, I've read several of his books. He sometimes gets flak from skeptics about being a libertarian, but I became a libertarian because I'm a skeptic.
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
Science is a method, not an orthodox faith where whatever Mommy Government says is right! Free competition of ideas is an essential part of the scientific method, and claiming that the opposition to popular opinion is "anti-science" is in fact itself anti-science! And since Mommy Government funds such an overwhelmingly high fraction of the studies, and has such tremendous influence on academic culture the world-over, deceptions on a massive scale are not outside the realm of possibility.
Yes, anyone who buys into any of the latest Socialism-to-Save-The-World hysteria is doing so entirely based on uncritical faith in the government institutions putting out this alarmism - the fox guarding the hen-house.
Yes, anyone who buys into any of the latest Socialism-to-Save-The-World hysteria is doing so entirely based on uncritical faith in the government institutions putting out this alarmism - the fox guarding the hen-house.
Then what's your problem with FTL's coverage of ClimateGate, which you've mentioned in your original post?
Then what's your problem with FTL's coverage of ClimateGate, which you've mentioned in your original post?That some of the people involved with FTL think that ClimateGate "proves" that it is all a scam. |
That shows a mis-understanding of science.
It's sad how the concept of "burden of proof" still escapes you...
That shows a mis-understanding of science.
It's sad how the concept of "burden of proof" still escapes you...
In that case the "burden of proof" is on those nay-sayers to show how Climate gate e-mails "proves" the science behind climate change to be faulty.
Scott in Winnipeg,
You are an idiot.
Wait, what?
The burden of proof is on whoever is making a positive claim. "X is true." "X is false." "X exists." "X doesn't exist." Those are all positive claims. The "positive," by the way, means you're making an assertion about reality. "I don't know" or "I doubt that is true" do not carry any burden of proof, as they are merely statements about how (un)convinced you are.
Scott in Winnipeg, |
You are an idiot.
Yay, I win :)
No you don't, and by resorting to a childish rebuttal instead of trying to correct your error you come off as twice the idiot you were before.
An atheist need not prove the non-existence of God to free himself from whatever religious cults torment him!
Just a reminder that the burden of proof is on the alarmists to prove that: climate change is occurring AND that it is anthropogenic AND that the change is economically significant AND that it's harmful AND that it can be altered through human behaviour AND the socialist plan they're pushing would be effective AND that their plan will do more good than harm AND that their plan is the best of all alternatives, including the free market / property rights based ideas on how to attribute liability for externalities like pollution.
They can't even prove their first point without a massive amount of government bullying and deceit!
Being a scientist, I will say that you should not take everything a scientists says as fact. We are prone to mistakes.
True. That's why being peer reviewed and having your work repeasted is a manner of controlling for those mistkaes correct?
True. That's why being peer reviewed and having your work repeasted is a manner of controlling for those mistkaes correct?
I think you need to repeast your work and correct your miskaes. :lol:
(just teasing)
FTL is anti-TYRANNY. When science is abused for tyrannical purposes, it is reasonable to rebel.You mean like preventing disease? Preventing disease is tyrannical!
FTL is anti-TYRANNY. When science is abused for tyrannical purposes, it is reasonable to rebel.
FTL is anti-TYRANNY. When science is abused for tyrannical purposes, it is reasonable to rebel.You mean like preventing disease? Preventing disease is tyrannical!
FTL is anti-TYRANNY. When science is abused for tyrannical purposes, it is reasonable to rebel.
Sure, rebel against the people doing the tyranny, not the legit tools they use. By your logic, FTL should rebel against guns since the state uses them to enfoce tyranny on people.
Science is "legit." Abusing science and claiming science when it's not are not "legit." I have no problem with people rebelling against the state. People get to have an opinion.
More to the point, abuse of "science" is not new. The Roman Catholic Church, for example had "science" which was wrong, and called people who spoke out "heretics." Many scientific advances were laughed at and doubted by "scientists" in the past, in that context and others. This is how the damage is done by people claiming to have the "science" on their side, and calling others "cynics" or "deniers."
Even if the unbelievers are WRONG, like, say flat earthers...they have a right to their wrong opinion, and you don't have a right to persecute them for it.
Science is "legit." Abusing science and claiming science when it's not are not "legit." I have no problem with people rebelling against the state. People get to have an opinion.
More to the point, abuse of "science" is not new. The Roman Catholic Church, for example had "science" which was wrong, and called people who spoke out "heretics." Many scientific advances were laughed at and doubted by "scientists" in the past, in that context and others. This is how the damage is done by people claiming to have the "science" on their side, and calling others "cynics" or "deniers."
Even if the unbelievers are WRONG, like, say flat earthers...they have a right to their wrong opinion, and you don't have a right to persecute them for it.
What counts as "persecution"? Mocking someone for believing something absurd? If so, I claim the right to "persecute" as much as I want. I haven't seen any flat earthers being dragged off to the gulags lately.
Even if the unbelievers are WRONG, like, say flat earthers...they have a right to their wrong opinion, and you don't have a right to persecute them for it.
Even if the unbelievers are WRONG, like, say flat earthers...they have a right to their wrong opinion, and you don't have a right to persecute them for it.
Incorrect, I do have the right to (since I can open my mouth and speak or type words) and I will point out their error if I care enough about a certain subject.
Voicing your opinion, just like them voicing their opinion, is not persecution.
[...] That's why being peer reviewed and having your work [repeated] is a manner of controlling for those [mistakes] correct? [...] |
Voicing your opinion, just like them voicing their opinion, is not persecution.
Okay, apparently you weren't as clear as you thought, so please clarify-- what counts as persecution?
Voicing your opinion, just like them voicing their opinion, is not persecution.
Okay, apparently you weren't as clear as you thought, so please clarify-- what counts as persecution?
No, apparently you are being belligerent. What part of look it up didn't you understand? Do I have to provide you a link to Merriam Webster's web site?
Main Entry: per·se·cute
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-si-ˌkyüt\
1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief.
You see, it's this playing dumb at some times and playing smartass at others that makes you the cunt you are. Yes, that's exactly the definition I had in mind. Given the context of "not having a right" on a message system discussing libertarianism do you honestly think I'm referring to harsh fucking language? I most certainly am not.
It's shit like this:
Soros: Climate financing dispute could wreck talks (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091210/ap_on_sc/climate)
COPENHAGEN – The $10 billion a year proposed by rich nations to help the poor adapt to climate change is "not sufficient" and the gap between what's offered and what's needed could wreck the Copenhagen climate conference, American billionaire George Soros said Thursday.
...snip...
"It is possible to substantially increase the amount available to fight global warming in the developing world," he said. "All that is lacking is the political will. Unfortunately the political will will be difficult to gather because of the mere fact that it requires congressional approval in the United States."
I suppose he could dig into his pocket and convince his friends to do the same.
Being a scientist, I will say that you should not take everything a scientists says as fact. We are prone to mistakes.
True. That's why being peer reviewed and having your work repeasted is a manner of controlling for those mistkaes correct? What kind of science do you do?
History is filled with examples of the "best minds" of every society being waaay off on very important things, and using state / church violence to enforce their folly on others. Scientists are not immune to groupthink - especially when their institutions are funded and regulated by a single self-serving power monopoly, and especially when the difference between being labelled a "genius" / "hero" or a "quack" / "killer" depends on following the party line. Being a climatologist and not pushing global warming means voting against your own job security and your self-esteem, as well as those of your colleagues, who would ostracise you, knowing that if the sky wasn't falling they'd be stuck teaching 7th grade science instead!
This is why the free marketplace must be the final phase of any review process (ex. whether the benefits of getting a flu-shot is worth the costs and the risks involved), but the use of blunt government force makes this test impossible, and thus makes the whole review process unscientific.
WTFK only likes submissive women, it's not your fault.
WTFK only likes submissive women, it's not your fault.
You obviously haven't met my wife.
Wait, what?
The burden of proof is on whoever is making a positive claim. "X is true." "X is false." "X exists." "X doesn't exist." Those are all positive claims. The "positive," by the way, means you're making an assertion about reality. "I don't know" or "I doubt that is true" do not carry any burden of proof, as they are merely statements about how (un)convinced you are.
Are you familiar with the term "irony"?
The positive assertion here is that human action causes climate change.
WTFK only likes submissive women, it's not your fault.
You obviously haven't met my wife.
Oh comon I was just trolling for old times sake.
The positive assertion here is that human action causes climate change.
Michael Shermer is a good example of a skeptical, science-minded libertarian type person. Maybe we should all read his book The Mind of the Market (http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Market-Biology-Psychology-Economic/dp/0805089160/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260207288&sr=8-3) and call the show about it. :)
CaptMarvel1966 -
In your last posts you seem to have missed the substance of our argument. I am not denying that there are some crackpots out there making inaccurate claims (and defenders of government force love to nitpick and popularize the craziest ones), I am arguing for people's Natural Right to decide what is being put into their (and their children's) bodies - no matter what their reasoning is based on. The free market in vaccines would lead to a myriad of alternatives: different vaccination methods, schedules, dozes, preservatives, quality assurance / transparency techniques, and so on. The free market is also able to leverage the expertise of a polycentric mesh of competing medical certification authorities, which are far less susceptible to corruption and groupthink, and it can use non-violent pressure from concerned market entities (private school enrollment criteria, homeowners' association charters, insurance policies, and so on) to entice people to do their part for whatever "herd immunity" benefits various immunization choices bring.
Only when individuals have the freedom to choose for themselves can rational evolution of ideas take place. Stifling this freedom gives way too much power to the power-hungry elite, and can only lead to disaster in the long term.
Before you start using Quackwatch as some sort of legitimate source you might want to know who is behind it.
Failed MD Stephen Barrett
What kind of man would drop out of the medical profession and dedicate his life to STOPPING advancement in the health sciences?
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Location of Stephen Barrett's "quackwatch.com" - the basement of his home at 2421 West Greenleaf Street, Allentown, PA 18104
"Quackbusting" - is a Profitable Business...[/i][/color]
Okay so whats wrong with running a business first off...especially if you are trying to assist people. Besides when did I get charged for visiting quackwatch or reading it?
I'm a bit more inclined to listen to someone openly endorsed by like James Randi.
Exposing out and out quackery is not hindering medical science, unless you consider frauds like Kevin Trudeau advanced medical science ...if you look at a number of the articles on quackwatch they are from more reputable sources.
Also here's the response to Tim Bolen; if Barret had something to hide he's not doing a great job.
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/fonorowsuit.html
Frankly, "quackbusting" is a profitable industry, and Stephen Barrett plays it to the hilt.
In a Canadian lawsuit (see below) Barrett admitted to the following:
"The sole purpose of the activities of Barrett & Baratz are to discredit and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative health therapies or products available, and advocates of non-allopathic therapies and health freedom."
................................................
Stephen Barrett - Professional Crackpot...
The Internet needs health information it can trust. Stephen Barrett doesn't provide it...
Barrett is one of those people whose ambitions and opinions of himself far exceeds his abilities. Without ANY qualifications he has set himself up as an expert in just about everything having to do with health care - and more.
And this from a man who is a professional failure.
Records show that Barrett never achieved any success in the medical profession. His claim to being a "retired Psychiatrist" is laughable. He is, in fact, a "failed Psychiatrist," and a "failed MD."
The Psychiatric profession rejected Barrett years ago, for Barrett could NOT pass the examinations necessary to become "Board Certified." Which, is no doubt why Barrett was, throughout his career, relegated to lower level "part time" positions.
Barrett, we know, was forced to give up his medical license in Pennsylvania in 1993 when his "part-time" employment at the State Mental Hospital was terminated, and he had so few (nine) private patients during his last five years of practice, that he couldn't afford the Malpractice Insurance premiums Pennsylvania requires.
In a job market in the United States, where there is a "doctor shortage," Stephen Barrett, after his termination by the State mental Hospital, couldn't find employment. He was in his mid-50s at the time. He should have been at the top of his craft - yet, apparently, he couldn't find work.
It is obvious, that, after one humiliation after another, in 1993 Barrett simply gave up his medical aspirations, turned in his MD license, and retreated, in bitterness and frustration, to his basement.
It was in that basement, where Barrett took up "quackbusting" - which, in reality, means that Barrett attacks "cutting-edge" health professionals and paradigms - those that ARE achieving success in their segment of health care.
And there, in "quackbusting" is where Barrett finally found the attention and recognition he seems to crave - for, a while, that is, until three California Judges, in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court decision, took a HARD look at Barrett's activities, and declared him "biased, and unworthy of credibility."
Bitterness against successful health professionals is Barrett's hallmark. To him they're all "quacks." In this, his essays are repetitive and pedestrian.
MORE INFO on your Guru (http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm)
So, I figured it out while listening to last night's podcast, as Sam was redirecting the conversation fromNot once did any of them say they believed that remote healing worked beyond a placebo effect. How can you demand or obtain evidence of remote healing really working or not working on a radio show to begin with? Most likely it is the placebo effect that results in any improvement for these patients. The placebo effect has been scientifically studied. "Belief is powerful medicine, even if the treatment itself is a sham. New research shows placebos can also benefit patients who do not have faith in them." Placebo Effect: A Cure in the Mind (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=placebo-effect-a-cure-in-the-mind) So it has been proven scientifically that the mind can in many cases actually heal the body or do seemingly amazing things.magicremote burn healing tomagicEdgar Cayce. I'm sure others have already made this observation, but their (Sam, Ian, et al.) problem—or rather, our problem with them—seems to stem from their lacking a standard of evidence. Instead, the amount of scrutiny claims get seems to be inversely proportional to how much these people want them to be true! They even implicitly acknowledge this on occasion, with statements like "the human body can do amazing things..."
The placebo effect has been scientifically studied. "Belief is powerful medicine, even if the treatment itself is a sham. New research shows placebos can also benefit patients who do not have faith in them." Placebo Effect: A Cure in the Mind (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=placebo-effect-a-cure-in-the-mind) So it has been proven scientifically that the mind can in many cases actually heal the body or do seemingly amazing things.
Not once did any of them say they believed that remote healing worked beyond a placebo effect.
How can you demand or obtain evidence of remote healing really working or not working on a radio show to begin with?
So it has been proven scientifically that the mind can in many cases actually heal the body or do seemingly amazing things.
WRT Law of Attraction, I don't understand how they can attack religion and embrace what is essentially...religion.+1
The placebo effect has been scientifically studied.
Libman there is a difference between population genetics and individual genetics. |
Just making sure you understand some basic genetics facts. I don't feel like writing another dissertation on vaccines nor do I feel like writing a dissertation on anything for this forum. I'm too burned out from finals. On the plus side I did get an A in upper division genetics.
That's one way to sound like you know something about science without actually saying anything substantive...
The placebo effect has been scientifically studied.
Placedos are limited in what they can affect. They do not heal third degree burns as the caller claimed.
After my experience on the James Randi forums (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=23386.0), I believe they expose quacks for the same reason the Catholic Church or the Communists exposed quacks - to gain credibility for a new generation of quackery that they're pushing. They love to bully harmless (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=31750.15) "faith healers" while doing nothing to discourage -- and thus encouraging -- people's blind faith in government instead!
Yes, billions of lives are ruined by armed faith-healers subjugating humanity to their tyrannical rule, forcefully taking half your income for services you don't want, and maintaining a tight grip on what you're allowed to keep as well, brainwashing your children in public schools, and so on... :roll:
In totally unrelated news, all governments are good and anyone skeptical of them is a quack.
:x
Rillion's business plan to profit from exhibitions of my wisdom, which I freely give away into the Public Domain, is as dim-witted as anything else she ever came up with. :roll:
I never claimed that there existed a contradiction between one's dislike for medical quacks, for example, and my Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy, it's just a matter of priorities!
[...] I never claimed that there existed a contradiction between one's dislike for medical quacks, for example, and my Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy, it's just a matter of priorities!
For example, I was driving with someone recently and when another car failed to signal she went on for like 5 minutes about how black people are bad drivers, to paraphrase it mildly. It's not the first time either, she just seems to be overly fixated on what ethnic group other people happen to be. And she's not that great a driver herself, and her son crashed his car while driving drunk - twice! But apparently the biggest problem in the world, according to her, is black people! Well, I think your priorities are just as screwed up!
It's an internet forum, douchebag-- people are going to talk about what interests them, and contrary to popular opinion bitching about one thing 90% of the time and another thing 10% of the time does not amount to furthering a solution to either problem. And that includes bitching about the people who are doing the bitching.
Faith healers suck. So does tyrannical rule. You can hold and espouse both views simultaneously-- try it! If it seems hard, try watching Penn and Teller for a bit.
Faith healers suck. So does tyrannical rule. You can hold and espouse both views simultaneously-- try it! If it seems hard, try watching Penn and Teller for a bit.
| "If there is life on Mars, I believe we should do nothing with Mars. Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes." -- Carl Sagan, Socialist Jerk (http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/28/carl-sagan-socialist-jerk/comment-page-1) |
I don't like Bill Nye anymore.
That aside, I can't dig up any dirt on Tyson or Feynman (http://mises.org/story/505).
I don't like Bill Nye anymore.you liked him?
I don't like Bill Nye anymore.you liked him?
Must be a young'n
I prefer Bill Nighy.Hey ... wait... izzat ... SLARTIBARTFAST?!?!?!
(http://www.freewebs.com/kickasshorrorreviews/BillNighy.jpg)
Hey ... wait... izzat ... SLARTIBARTFAST?!?!?!
I don't like Bill Nye anymore.
I have liked Bill Nye since I was a lil one ;)
So what did he say that was nationalistic ?
I don't know what gibson thought was nationalistic, but what I thought was nationalistic was that he placed a lot of emphasis on how it should be an American who solves the climate change problem because America is the country of innovation, blah de blah. If climate change really is a problem to be solved, I don't see why it matters who solves it. Innovation isn't a soccer game. People solving problems is a good thing regardless of where they're doing it.