Author Topic: The $%*! frustration thread  (Read 487669 times)

ZombieBucky

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • <insert witty phrase to match above avatar>
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3870 on: September 05, 2009, 12:13:43 pm »
i say that we just run a whole lot of tests to prove if it is real or not. and when these tests reveal the truth -- the absolute truth -- then we can say if esp is real or not. until then, your bickering is useless.

this morning i woke up to find that chrisie had used me as a pillow. it was adorable, but i couldnt breath. and it didnt help that im suffering from some kind of allergy. my nose is running and i have a cough and its tough to breath in general.

alfadorredux

  • Entity
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Just a purple cat
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3871 on: September 05, 2009, 12:18:42 pm »
Relativity was a poorly chosen analogy on my part, really. The Theory of the Four Humours in
medieval medicine is probably better: it was widely accepted in its day, could be used to
explain a great number of phenomena...and happened to be dead wrong.

What you seem to be saying is, "Because I (and whatever science books I've read/scientific
authorities I've consulted) can't figure out a way to make telepathy fit into the laws of
physics as currently understood, it isn't possible for it to do so, therefore it's a waste
of time to conduct experiments regarding it." It's the second and third parts of that that
I see as wrong and pernicious. Limiting the scope of scientific enquiry based on what is
currently understood is (pardon me) stupid. If that were accepted practice, we would still
be living with the Four Humours and the Ptolemic version of the universe wherein the sun
circles the Earth, because people wouldn't be permitted to conduct experiments which
might contradict those theories
.

Allowing people to experiment on whatever the devil they want (within reasonable limits, but
parapsychological experiments don't generally involve vivisection or other gratuitous torture)
means that a certain number of them will be wasting their time, certainly. The problem is that
deciding in advance of experimental results exactly which of them are doing so
taints science itself, because it means that eventually, someone who would have validly
expanded the sum of human knowledge will be refused the opportunity to do so. By all means,
design experiments to prove or disprove the existence of your goblins, if you sincerely
believe in them.

(Just to make things absolutely clear: I don't really give a flying fuck about parapsychological
research. It's just that you seem to be following a certain trend that really bothers me.)

Truthordeal

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • Dunno what's supposed to go here. Oh now I see.
    • View Profile
    • Youtube Account
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3872 on: September 05, 2009, 12:24:00 pm »
Woah! Stop the presses!

'It's scientific because my psych textbook said it was.'  :roll:

And its unscientific because you say so? What authority do you have to make that judgment, may I ask?

The authors of my text book have their respective PhD's along with tenured occupations at San Jose University and certifications in several specialized aspects of their field. As with any other college-level textbook, its peer-edited by members of the American Psychiatric Association.

I'd say that their authority on the matter trumps yours.

MsBlack

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3873 on: September 05, 2009, 01:14:42 pm »
Egads! Repetitions of repetitions!

i say that we just run a whole lot of tests to prove if it is real or not. and when these tests reveal the truth -- the absolute truth -- then we can say if esp is real or not. until then, your bickering is useless.

this morning i woke up to find that chrisie had used me as a pillow. it was adorable, but i couldnt breath. and it didnt help that im suffering from some kind of allergy. my nose is running and i have a cough and its tough to breath in general.

These kinds of ideas have consistently failed to consistently hold up in objective testing. If that's not enough, add that the only reason they're tested and considered at all is their legacy from more superstitious pasts. It's equally likely at this point that goblins exist, but, curiously, I've yet to hear of 'scientists' trying to prove their existence. That's because there's no historical precedent; that's the only reason you're susceptible to 'ESP'--it could just as easily have been goblins if things had been slightly different.

Pretty small if.

Same for my goblins?

Come off it. What's with this sudden nonsense from you?

Limiting the scope of scientific enquiry based on what is currently understood is (pardon me) stupid.

I said 'fancies' specifically because these aren't scientific analyses. These people were trying to find statistical rarities to support fanciful ideas. They weren't observing and trying to explain statistical abnormalities using what they knew; they were trying to find evidence of superstitions.

(Side note: No, I don't believe in telepathy or any of the rest of it...but I do believe that conducting scientific experiments regarding such matters should--indeed, must--be allowed. Call it freedom of speech writ small.)

...I don't really give a flying fuck about parapsychological
research. It's just that you seem to be following a certain trend that really bothers me...

'Yeah, I agree it's dumb, but as soon as anyone actually, ya know, points that out, they're probably freedom-hating intolerant science freaks.'

And its unscientific because you say so? What authority do you have to make that judgment, may I ask?

I said 'fancies' specifically because these aren't scientific analyses. These people were trying to find statistical rarities to support fanciful ideas. They weren't observing and trying to explain statistical abnormalities using what they knew; they were trying to find evidence of superstitions.

The authors of my text book have their respective PhD's along with tenured occupations at San Jose University and certifications in several specialized aspects of their field. As with any other college-level textbook, its peer-edited by members of the American Psychiatric Association.

I'd say that their authority on the matter trumps yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

‘But it’s not a fallacy bla bla bla…’

‘I’d say that the authority of the mainstream scientific community trumps…you get the idea.’

American Psychiatric Association

Waidda minute…

Psychiatric Association

Erm…?

Psychiatric

Better put the glasses on…

Psychiatric

Hm?

scientific analysis

Oh shi—

Superstitious 'psychic' fancies have no place in scientific analysis.

Snap.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2009, 01:19:38 pm by MsBlack »

alfadorredux

  • Entity
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Just a purple cat
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3874 on: September 05, 2009, 02:01:43 pm »
Y'know, MsBlack, proof by assertion (which is all you've offered in support of your premise so far) is a logical fallacy (and you've also managed a couple of ad hominems and probably some others that I'm missing). If you want to convince anyone of your point of view, you're going to have to do more than chant "It's wrong to experiment on what I consider batshit" and quote people out of context.

Truthordeal

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • Dunno what's supposed to go here. Oh now I see.
    • View Profile
    • Youtube Account
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3875 on: September 05, 2009, 03:40:30 pm »
So psychology is not a science? Fail.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3876 on: September 05, 2009, 10:22:40 pm »
The book for my ethics class has four fucking religious and spiritual leaders on the cover, plus Abraham Lincoln, who's probably feeling mighty lonely. They include:

  • Mother Teresa, who was an evil fraud
  • Gandhi, who had his own quirks of racism and abuse
  • Joseph Smith, who was an utter and total fraud
  • Brigham Young, same story

My, what fine bastions of ethics. Frustrating.

Uboa

  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3877 on: September 05, 2009, 11:37:20 pm »
Sounds like a weird ethics text to say the least.  I didn't expect Mother Teresa, Joseph Smith, and Brigam Young to be big-time academic philosophy headliners.  At least Ghandi seems like a somewhat legitimate philosopher, even if he had his quirks.  Most philosophers did/do.  Descartes skinned cats alive, but most people don't hold that against him these days.

Can you link the book on Amazon?

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile

Uboa

  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3879 on: September 06, 2009, 12:30:34 am »
Makes more sense now seeing as it is a leadership ethics book by two people with connection to BYU/Utah.  Still irksome, though.  I wonder why your professor chose that book.

On a side note, the story of the beginnings of the Mormon religion is actually a pretty fascinating study in leadership.  I believe that Frontline produced a show about it.  I actually would recommend that particular show to anyone.

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8972
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3880 on: September 06, 2009, 01:54:25 am »
Mother Theresa's work with AIDS hospices seems like a humanist thing to do, does it not? I'll give you that the Catholic Church's stance against contraception probably contributed victims to the institutions she helped run. If the textbook is worth its snuff, hopefully it will explore such conflicts of interest. What's on the cover is often there to entice, sometimes the very audience the book is trying to sway the most -- maybe that's partially why Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism has a nude woman on the cover.
 
EDIT: Oh, was it really written by people connected to Brigham Young University? Hahaha, well, I guess it's always possible they could have really liberal professors...? Maybe...?
« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 02:07:05 am by FaustWolf »

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3881 on: September 06, 2009, 02:24:58 am »
Oh, it's just the tip of the iceberg. Since I may bring up Mother Teresa in the ethics class, I went ahead and did some more research based on the two critical books issued after her death (and they contain a wealth of evidence). Someone at Amazon had a neat summary of the book "Mother Teresa: Final Verdict", and I used that + a few additions that I found to make a list I'll take if I get the opportunity.

* Mother Teresa often said that she picked people up from the streets of Calcutta, but she and her order of nuns did not do this. People requesting such service were told curtly to ring 102 (similar to 911).
* While the order owns several ambulances, these are used primarily to transport nuns to and from places of prayer.
* Mother Teresa said that her order fed 4000, 5000, 7000 or 9000 Caltuttans every day (the number varied). The two or three soup kitchens in Calcutta feed a maximum of only 300 people per day. The kitchens will provide food only to people with "food cards" that are distrubuted predominantly to the Catholic poor.
* While Mother Teresa's order has some presence in many countries throughout the world, the majority of these are for training monks or nuns, not for aiding the poor.
* Mother Teresa's shelters will usually only help children if the parents sign a form of renunciation which signs the rights to the children to her organization.
* Mother Teresa often insists that her natural family clinics prevent unwanted pregnancies, but this number is without any basis in truth.
* Mother Teresa insisted that suffering was beautiful as it evoked Christ's suffering, but when ill she visited exclusive, expensive hospitals.
* The hospice in Calcutta through which Mother Teresa gained such wide recognition is very small (80 beds) and provides little medical care. Needles are reused, all patients are forced to have their heads shaven, visitors are forbidden and painkillers are rarely if ever used. The nurses do not speak the language of the people and are not usually involved in the care of the patients. This duty is assumed by volunteers.  People inside had to use a communal toilet and were not given proper bedding.
* Mother Teresa often accepted money from suspicious sources, the most notable of which is Charles Keating, America's most notorious thief, and Francois Duvalier from Haiti, whose fundraiser for the poor she spent in Europe for her own purposes.
* Her charity in India (Missionaries of Charity) the only charity in India without transparent financial records

GenesisOne

  • Bounty Seeker
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • "Time Travel? Possible? Don't make me laugh!"
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3882 on: September 06, 2009, 03:30:58 am »

Wow.  What interesting facts about Mother Teresa.

The one concept of her nature as a Catholic nun that really gets me is her choice of a name.

Mother: She was never married, let alone had any kids.
Teresa: Here real name was Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu.  She borrowed her new name from the patron saint of missionaries.

What do you make of this?

Truthordeal

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • Dunno what's supposed to go here. Oh now I see.
    • View Profile
    • Youtube Account
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3883 on: September 06, 2009, 10:41:22 am »
"Mother" is a name given to a certain rank of nun, moron, much like "father" is for priests, who, similarly, don't have children and can't be married. "Sister" is given to ordinary nuns and "brother" is given to friars and monks.

Likewise, many(I'll refrain from using the word "most") nuns take the name of a patron saint. Mother Theresa took hers from the saint of missionaries because she was a missionary.

That's what I make of that.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3884 on: September 07, 2009, 05:34:20 pm »
My frustration is definitely being sick with the dreaded SWINE FLU. It tarnished my last day of PAX, the Feast afterwards, and has got me completely laid up, which is bad because I need to do work this week. =/