↧
Funny image thread
↧
Microtus pennsylvanicus
by Gord (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:21 am)
They can, but it's painful. I know they can 'cause I've seen one do it. I think he was the most retarded mouse in the world, though. He'd chew, then jump back like he'd been shocked; then he'd go back and chew again. It was the sound that drew my attention: At first all I heard was "thump...thump...thump" from him jumping away after trying to chew it.
Well at least he'll be clean. Hey! I just remembered! I put my Smurfs through the dishwasher earlier, and I forgot about them!
Read Main Topic
fromthehills wrote:They can't chew through the steel wool.
They can, but it's painful. I know they can 'cause I've seen one do it. I think he was the most retarded mouse in the world, though. He'd chew, then jump back like he'd been shocked; then he'd go back and chew again. It was the sound that drew my attention: At first all I heard was "thump...thump...thump" from him jumping away after trying to chew it.
Pyrrho wrote:Mouse moved into the dishwasher.
Well at least he'll be clean. Hey! I just remembered! I put my Smurfs through the dishwasher earlier, and I forgot about them!
Read Main Topic
↧
↧
'62 fatal sea serpent attack.still think dragons dont exist?
by Matthew Ellard (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:43 am)
Read Main Topic
Good for you MarkgaB5.Cobalt6 wrote: It would appear that you had mis-read my previous post. I never stated that McCleary was involved in a court hearing. He testified to authorities but was never actually in court yet his story shows multiple in consistences for me to dismiss it.
That's right. We showed "both of you at the same time" the inconsistencies in his story.MarkgaB5 wrote: McCleary sent a letter to Tims Dinsdale and excerpts of it can be found online, as well as in a 1965 issue of FATE magazine. There are also news snippets which show him offering a different story entirely.
Read Main Topic
↧
Most Recent Mailing
by kennyc (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:00 am)
There is a contact page here: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/contact_us/
Read Main Topic
Lifetimer wrote:Can someone please get word upstairs that the latest Skeptic Society "Note from Michael Shermer" newsletter is littered with spelling errors.
There is a contact page here: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/contact_us/
Read Main Topic
↧
Lectures, Learning and Holodecks
by Matthew Ellard (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:13 am)
Read Main Topic
Yes. I think of lectures as the "abstract", where the basic concepts are set out and interaction with the lecturer gives a hint on "how the topic should be thought about". But then it's back to solo study to grasp and remember all the detail. The tutorial was a "get together" to see if we had strayed from the basic outlines given in the first lecture. It could be four months between the first lecture and the end of term exam on that topic.kennyc wrote:I think lectures work, I also think other methods work and may be dependent on learning style.
Read Main Topic
↧
↧
What makes human cells so resistant to extreme temperatures?
by Poodle (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:24 am)
Pixie scans are confidential too. The Pixie scan which was done isn't in the public domain, but it's reported that it shows that the burning actually happened on the far side of the sun.
Note to Mark - I made that up, but I'm sticking to it as non-existent evidence. Just like you're doing with the non-existent MRI scan.
Pray tell, Mark - exactly why would an MRI scan, even if it was physically and temporally possible, be requested for a case of minor burns?
Read Main Topic
Pixie scans are confidential too. The Pixie scan which was done isn't in the public domain, but it's reported that it shows that the burning actually happened on the far side of the sun.
Note to Mark - I made that up, but I'm sticking to it as non-existent evidence. Just like you're doing with the non-existent MRI scan.
Pray tell, Mark - exactly why would an MRI scan, even if it was physically and temporally possible, be requested for a case of minor burns?
Read Main Topic
↧
Blind chance vs Teleology and God
↧
This and that from Neil deGrasse Tyson……
by nmblum (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:11 am)
……what one of America's preeminent voices for and about Science is thinking about now, from today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/books/review/neil-degrasse-tyson-by-the-book.html?ref=books&_r=0
NMB
Read Main Topic
……what one of America's preeminent voices for and about Science is thinking about now, from today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/books/review/neil-degrasse-tyson-by-the-book.html?ref=books&_r=0
NMB
Read Main Topic
↧
Skepticism on height increasing methods
by Gord (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:12 am)
I am a lay troll, JOnumbers is a person.
Read Main Topic
Skeptic-Tom wrote:I thought this forum was filled with people of science and intellect, not trolls and lay people. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
I stand corrected!
I am a lay troll, JOnumbers is a person.
Read Main Topic
↧
↧
Good/Bad New Moviez
by Monster (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:32 am)
Saw Gravity in 3D. It didn't suck, amazingly, like I was expecting it to. The 3D was actually good and it added to the movie.
Saw The Hobbit. It was excellent. I liked it a lot. And the best character in the movie was Smaug, by far. Way too much whisper dialog and overacting, unfortunately. gods, I hate whisper dialog.
Saw The Mist again. It's quite a good movie.
Saw Microcosmos. It's a French movie about little bitty bugs. Lots of bugs. It's very cool. The amount of speaking is incredibly little, so if you saw it in French with no subtitles, it wouldn't matter.
Saw Grabbers. It's a horror/comedy, but it's light on the comedy. It's a good movie. Fun to watch.
Read Main Topic
Saw Gravity in 3D. It didn't suck, amazingly, like I was expecting it to. The 3D was actually good and it added to the movie.
Saw The Hobbit. It was excellent. I liked it a lot. And the best character in the movie was Smaug, by far. Way too much whisper dialog and overacting, unfortunately. gods, I hate whisper dialog.
Saw The Mist again. It's quite a good movie.
Saw Microcosmos. It's a French movie about little bitty bugs. Lots of bugs. It's very cool. The amount of speaking is incredibly little, so if you saw it in French with no subtitles, it wouldn't matter.
Saw Grabbers. It's a horror/comedy, but it's light on the comedy. It's a good movie. Fun to watch.
Read Main Topic
↧
Planes aren't flown by people anymore. Is Air Travel unsafe?
by Gord (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:38 am)
Since every plane now flies straight into the ground killing all aboard, I think we can conclude that air travel is unsafe.
Read Main Topic
Since every plane now flies straight into the ground killing all aboard, I think we can conclude that air travel is unsafe.
Read Main Topic
↧
Should autistic people be quarantined/removed from society?
by Monster (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:38 am)
No.
Read Main Topic
Cobalt6 wrote:Should autistic people be quarantined/removed from society?
No.
Read Main Topic
↧
Favorite anecdotes from the world of Science….
by nmblum (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:40 am)
This is one: A conversation between Leo Szilard, physicist and mathematician ( an Hungarian refugee from the Nazis, one of the instigators and stars of the Manhattan Project, recruited by Enrico Fermi ) and his good personal friend, the physicist Hans Bethe.
Szilard announced that he was going to keep a diary: "I don't intend to publish . I am merely going to record the facts for the information of god."
"Don't you think god knows the facts? He is, after all, god."
"Yes" said Szilard, " He knows the facts, he just doesn't know this version of the facts…"
(as quoted in "Taming the Atom," by Hans Christian von Baeyer)
And more on the life and sometimes overlooked work of Leo Szliard:
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/09/17/anniversary-80-years-ago-leo-szliard-envisioned-neutron-chain-reaction/
NMB
Read Main Topic
This is one: A conversation between Leo Szilard, physicist and mathematician ( an Hungarian refugee from the Nazis, one of the instigators and stars of the Manhattan Project, recruited by Enrico Fermi ) and his good personal friend, the physicist Hans Bethe.
Szilard announced that he was going to keep a diary: "I don't intend to publish . I am merely going to record the facts for the information of god."
"Don't you think god knows the facts? He is, after all, god."
"Yes" said Szilard, " He knows the facts, he just doesn't know this version of the facts…"
(as quoted in "Taming the Atom," by Hans Christian von Baeyer)
And more on the life and sometimes overlooked work of Leo Szliard:
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/09/17/anniversary-80-years-ago-leo-szliard-envisioned-neutron-chain-reaction/
NMB
Read Main Topic
↧
↧
A parable, a parable…
by nmblum (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:07 am)
No, JO… that was another, although possibly just as great in her own way, lady.
That was xXx
My cousin was xxx……someone else entirely..…
And because she was actually married three times, she was Victoria Nyla XXX.
NMB
Read Main Topic
No, JO… that was another, although possibly just as great in her own way, lady.
That was xXx
My cousin was xxx……someone else entirely..…
And because she was actually married three times, she was Victoria Nyla XXX.
NMB
Read Main Topic
↧
Magnetic Water Scam
by Pop Haydn (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:29 am)
http://youtu.be/8JRXt3QSh0c
http://youtu.be/6Y2cYMBM3e0
Read Main Topic
http://youtu.be/8JRXt3QSh0c
http://youtu.be/6Y2cYMBM3e0
Read Main Topic
↧
What TF Are You Watching?
by fromthehills (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:13 am)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQq_zZ1dHH8
Good {!#%@}.
Read Main Topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQq_zZ1dHH8
Good {!#%@}.
Read Main Topic
↧
Ideas for trick to convince person to be more rational?
by A Cup of Skepticism (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:21 am)
Rapidfire arguments from incredulity are amazing at this.
Use between 2-4 at a time, once every two weeks or so, and you should notice the irrationality going down.
Read Main Topic
Rapidfire arguments from incredulity are amazing at this.
Use between 2-4 at a time, once every two weeks or so, and you should notice the irrationality going down.
Read Main Topic
↧
↧
What I believe without evidence pt.1
by A Cup of Skepticism (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:22 am)
Not sure what you mean
Read Main Topic
scrmbldggs wrote:And does that also involve sending fear signals in any way?
Not sure what you mean
Read Main Topic
↧
Science vs. Pseudoscience
by A Cup of Skepticism (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:29 am)
I think there's more. There's certainly a bit of...defensiveness about my theism. Or at least, a sense of subliminal negativity towards it.
So it's not just people asking questions, it's people asking pointed questions. There's subterfuge going on there. Here's some of my paranoia coming out. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.![;)]( "Wink")
But from personal experience, I don't really have a problem with the kooks who believe in UFOs and the like. I realize it's not a view predicated on rationality, but on feelings. A lot like atheism.
As long as they keep to themselves and don't cause problems or start asserting nonsense, I think it's best to leave them be. The moment they get aggressive with their kookiness, I find rational analysis of their claims a lot more useful than mere skepticism. I think skepticism is a bit more limited in scope, while a broader rational analysis has tools including skepticism itself, with which to deal with erroneous beliefs.
I think once you talk to these people you find that it's not rationality that convinces them at all.
Read Main Topic
octopus1 wrote:A Cup of Skepticism wrote:
That's some pretty delusional use of the word "we" in "all we've ever asked for." Different people have asked for different things. If you are speaking for other people, perhaps you ought to take on their posting duties as well.
The questions may be different. But "expecting an answer" is a pretty common theme Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.But maybe we just see this forum differently. I've seen very few people who can be "on" at all, let alone "on" all the time! Or, they are "on" for one or two posts, and then start malfunctioning two or three posts into the conversation. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
But I'll take your word for it- the few incompetents I've talked to probably aren't incompetent. Perhaps there's a "competence of the gaps" that I have to have faith in. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
But I'll take what you're saying. It's not nearly as irrational and paranoid as you were about my theism earlier. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Who do you recommend as a substantive author or person whose work most rigorously defines skepticism?
I cannot answer that question (although note that I'm not dodging it), because I'm one of the "casual" ones.
I'm unfamiliar with any major treatise on the subject. Although I'm sure that they exist. I'm one of the ones who doesn't think that an exhaustive knowledge of complex philosophy is required to dispute UFO or ghost stories - First of all, because I only have a conversational level in philosophy, and secondly (perhaps more crucially) the "type" of people who post wacky questions about 'little green men' are unlikely to appreciate or comprehend pure logic... Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
I'm going to have to fall back on a staple technique here Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
"I saw an alien in my garden!"
"Here are some Venn diagrams which prove you're wrong."
"Uhh... yeah, about four feet tall with glowing eyes?"
Sometimes, I suggest, "being rational" actually means just saying "stop BS" to people who are. People like (currently lurking here) Markga5.
[EDIT: Yup, you guessed it. Quoting error Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.]
I think there's more. There's certainly a bit of...defensiveness about my theism. Or at least, a sense of subliminal negativity towards it.
So it's not just people asking questions, it's people asking pointed questions. There's subterfuge going on there. Here's some of my paranoia coming out. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
But from personal experience, I don't really have a problem with the kooks who believe in UFOs and the like. I realize it's not a view predicated on rationality, but on feelings. A lot like atheism.
As long as they keep to themselves and don't cause problems or start asserting nonsense, I think it's best to leave them be. The moment they get aggressive with their kookiness, I find rational analysis of their claims a lot more useful than mere skepticism. I think skepticism is a bit more limited in scope, while a broader rational analysis has tools including skepticism itself, with which to deal with erroneous beliefs.
I think once you talk to these people you find that it's not rationality that convinces them at all.
Read Main Topic
↧
Evolution and Religion
by arviguji13 (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:31 am)
People seemed to have misunderstood what I said. No I didn't say Westerners actually 'created' new religions.
They came to these different places like India, China, Africa and whatever practices they saw there, they saw it as religion. For example, when a British trader came to 16th century India and saw an Indian bowing before a statue/idol of Ganesha, he immediately sees and labels it as a religious practice. He doesn't even consider the possibility that this might not be a religious practice.
So they didn't invent actual religions, Westerners just described how they experienced these different cultures and in the process 'invented' concepts like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism. These entities only exist in universities and textbooks. There is no correspondence between the concept of Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and any reality in the world.
These so called religions do not exist.
Read Main Topic
People seemed to have misunderstood what I said. No I didn't say Westerners actually 'created' new religions.
They came to these different places like India, China, Africa and whatever practices they saw there, they saw it as religion. For example, when a British trader came to 16th century India and saw an Indian bowing before a statue/idol of Ganesha, he immediately sees and labels it as a religious practice. He doesn't even consider the possibility that this might not be a religious practice.
So they didn't invent actual religions, Westerners just described how they experienced these different cultures and in the process 'invented' concepts like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism. These entities only exist in universities and textbooks. There is no correspondence between the concept of Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and any reality in the world.
These so called religions do not exist.
Read Main Topic
↧