Review by Mary Midgely
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
sandinista wrote:guess he may be someone to look into. Usually when someone comes up against this kind of response on forums he/she is generally on to something.
Cito wrote:Reeve is a daily reality for girls. I don't know what this implies.
archibald wrote:I don't take Reeve seriously. I don't think he takes himself seriously.
sandinista wrote:guess he may be someone to look into. Usually when someone comes up against this kind of response on forums he/she is generally on to something. Whenever you hear "mainstream scientific community" or "pseudoscience" the subject matter generally has some aspects of validity or interest. Terms like that are akin to "conspiracy theorists", just ways for internet warriors to attempt to "write someone off" with loaded terms. Fortunately it rarely works.
sandinista wrote:Oh yah, forgot "woo" another of those buzz words that don't mean shit, also best when added with copious amounts of smiley faces. This is getting better and better. Love it. Love the link to the TEDX article too, red flag topics, I mean holy shit, yah food as medicine is a red flag. At least the writer lets her bias shine through
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'
sandinista wrote:guess he may be someone to look into. Usually when someone comes up against this kind of response on forums he/she is generally on to something.
Cito wrote:Reeve is a daily reality for girls. I don't know what this implies.
archibald wrote:I don't take Reeve seriously. I don't think he takes himself seriously.
sandinista wrote:Whenever you hear "mainstream scientific community" or "pseudoscience" the subject matter generally has some aspects of validity or interest. Terms like that are akin to "conspiracy theorists", just ways for internet warriors to attempt to "write someone off" with loaded terms. Fortunately it rarely works.
THWOTH wrote:His 10 cleverly crafted 'dogmas of science,' or strawmen as I would call them, his answers to which rely almost exclusively on self-authorising assumptia.
Precambrian Rabbi wrote:
(Stock up on Doritos though - it's gonna be a long ride.)*
*(But not the blue ones - that's where the government puts the mind control powder)
sandinista wrote:Oh yah, forgot "woo" another of those buzz words that don't mean shit, also best when added with copious amounts of smiley faces. This is getting better and better. Love it. Love the link to the TEDX article too, red flag topics, I mean holy shit, yah food as medicine is a red flag. At least the writer lets her bias shine through
sandinista wrote:guess he may be someone to look into. Usually when someone comes up against this kind of response on forums he/she is generally on to something. Whenever you hear "mainstream scientific community" or "pseudoscience" the subject matter generally has some aspects of validity or interest. Terms like that are akin to "conspiracy theorists", just ways for internet warriors to attempt to "write someone off" with loaded terms. Fortunately it rarely works.
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:That was by far one of the most misguided rants I've ever seen. How he came to the conclusion that science "assumes" any of those things is beyond me. Seems as though he just pulled them out of his arse.
What is all this "science assumes materialism" crap? I mean if you define supernatural as "undetectable" that comment might make sense, but if you do that then the concept of supernatural effects are effectively useless to us.
You see it is a trade off. The more detailed definition of materialism you use, the more wrong that statement becomes (because science doesn't exclude "immaterial" objects that are having an effect on us), but the more vague you make the definition of materialism, the more correct that statement becomes (because common fucken sense would tell you that science can't discover things that simply don't exist).
sandinista wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO4-9l8IWFQ[/youtube]
interesting little talk here
sandinista wrote:of course...because 'science' is infallible, I think you are just proving his point.
WayOfTheDodo wrote:sandinista wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO4-9l8IWFQ[/youtube]
interesting little talk here
What on earth is that fraud Rupert Sheldrake doing at a TED talk? (Edit: Ah, it's a TEDx talk, which is apparently not a "real" TED talk.)
As always, he's spewing lies and straw men, and being a general dickhead.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests