Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Hippiekinkster -> Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/8/2008 10:45:07 PM)

Perhaps I should post this after the list of Fallacies I have in my DB, but wtf.
http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/Quack.html

There are a couple posters here who really should stick to fluff threads, like "I made a post! Wooohooo!". This link will be wasted on them, if indeed they are capable of clicking on a link. I hope it will be useful for those who are capable of changing their minds to accomodate evidence contrary to their beliefs. Namaste

WTF, edit time. Here's a quote from the treatise:

"Another example is the frequent claims for a carburetor or other gizmo which will make an automobile get an incredible number of miles per gallon. Simple calculations reveal that the engine needs to operate at higher than Carnot efficiency. Personally, if I knew a way to run a heat engine at higher than Carnot efficiency and thus ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I would have better things to do than waste my time building a carburetor factory."

Goddess, no kidding. I'd have WAAAAY better things to do.




Alumbrado -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/8/2008 11:42:08 PM)

http://www.randi.org/joom/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,80/




DomKen -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/8/2008 11:44:04 PM)

Nice link I'm saving it for future use.

It will however fail to make any headway with most of the true believers around here.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 4:18:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Nice link I'm saving it for future use.

It will however fail to make any headway with most of the true believers around here.
Glad it was useful. I think I addressed the "twue Beweivers" in paragraph 2.

Got a post coming up on Logical Fallacies and one on simple Math.




Alumbrado -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 1:24:11 PM)

And for some strange reason, this thread isn't picking up nearly the lively discussion of threads on say....sports, or sound bites, or overweight subs....

Things that make you go 'Hmmmmmm'.





SinergyNstrumpet -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:00:10 PM)

quote:

There are a couple posters here who really should stick to fluff threads, like "I made a post! Wooohooo!". This link will be wasted on them, if indeed they are capable of clicking on a link. I hope it will be useful for those who are capable of changing their minds to accomodate evidence contrary to their beliefs. Namaste


Namaste....hmmmm... how strange to see that word after reading the above paragraph.

Sinergy's strumpet




kittinSol -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:07:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

And for some strange reason, this thread isn't picking up nearly the lively discussion of threads on say....sports, or sound bites, or overweight subs....



This thread is the empirical evidence which proves that discussions of an abstract nature don't generate as much controversy as those that are concerned with more... prosaic matters...

Thank you for a bloody useful link, Hippie :-) .




Alumbrado -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:12:47 PM)

quote:

(JO) Namaste....hmmmm... how strange to see that word after reading the above paragraph.


Given the literal meaning of Namaste ('Salutations'), and the further meaning of 'salutation' as a method for cleaning up communications errors between different computer devices, it seems quite appropriate.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:16:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

And for some strange reason, this thread isn't picking up nearly the lively discussion of threads on say....sports, or sound bites, or overweight subs....



This thread is the empirical evidence which proves that discussions of an abstract nature don't generate as much controversy as those that are concerned with more... prosaic matters...

Thank you for a bloody useful link, Hippie :-) .
You are quite welcome, kitten. Now I'm going to search for the one on basic math and innumeracy.




SinergyNstrumpet -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:22:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

(JO) Namaste....hmmmm... how strange to see that word after reading the above paragraph.


Given the literal meaning of Namaste ('Salutations'), and the further meaning of 'salutation' as a method for cleaning up communications errors between different computer devices, it seems quite appropriate.


Not that wiki is the end all be all of places to look for things... if you can find something better please post it... here is what wiki says

quote:

Namasté or Namaskar (नमस्ते [nʌmʌsˈteː] from internal sandhi between namaḥ and te) is a Nepali and Indian greeting as well as a gesture. Namaskar is considered a slightly more formal version than Namaste but both express deep respect. It is commonly used in Nepal and India by Hindus,Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, and many continue to use this outside the Indian subcontinent. In Indian and Nepali culture, the word is spoken at the beginning of written or verbal communication. However, the same hands folded gesture is made wordlessly upon departure. Taken literally, it means "I bow to you". The word is derived from Sanskrit (namas): to bow, obeisance, reverential salutation, and (te): "to you".[1] When spoken to another person, it is commonly accompanied by a slight bow made with hands pressed together, palms touching and fingers pointed upwards, in front of the chest. The gesture can also be performed wordlessly and carry the same meaning.


To me it is a salutation of respect or even meaning peace be with you, I found ending this paragraph  that way extremely ironic considering it was insulting people who like to post to meaningless threads on the internet. As if one who likes to engage in meaningless pastimes cannot also be intellectually capable of even opening his link... whatever floats a boat. I have seen this attitude repeatedly among academics, and personally I find it to be a bit condescending and arrogant.

Believe it or not, just because people have a broad range of interests does not make them intellectually challenged nor lacking in critical thinking skills.

Just me, etc

Sinergy's strumpet




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:35:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinergyNstrumpet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

(JO) Namaste....hmmmm... how strange to see that word after reading the above paragraph.


Given the literal meaning of Namaste ('Salutations'), and the further meaning of 'salutation' as a method for cleaning up communications errors between different computer devices, it seems quite appropriate.


Not that wiki is the end all be all of places to look for things... if you can find something better please post it... here is what wiki says

quote:

Namasté or Namaskar (नमस्ते [nʌmʌsˈteː] from internal sandhi between namaḥ and te) is a Nepali and Indian greeting as well as a gesture. Namaskar is considered a slightly more formal version than Namaste but both express deep respect. It is commonly used in Nepal and India by Hindus,Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, and many continue to use this outside the Indian subcontinent. In Indian and Nepali culture, the word is spoken at the beginning of written or verbal communication. However, the same hands folded gesture is made wordlessly upon departure. Taken literally, it means "I bow to you". The word is derived from Sanskrit (namas): to bow, obeisance, reverential salutation, and (te): "to you".[1] When spoken to another person, it is commonly accompanied by a slight bow made with hands pressed together, palms touching and fingers pointed upwards, in front of the chest. The gesture can also be performed wordlessly and carry the same meaning.


To me it is a salutation of respect or even meaning peace be with you, I found ending this paragraph  that way extremely ironic considering it was insulting people who like to post to meaningless threads on the internet. As if one who likes to engage in meaningless pastimes cannot also be intellectually capable of even opening his link... whatever floats a boat. I have seen this attitude repeatedly among academics, and personally I find it to be a bit condescending and arrogant.

Believe it or not, just because people have a broad range of interests does not make them intellectually challenged nor lacking in critical thinking skills.

Just me, etc

Sinergy's strumpet

Is picking flyshit out of pepper one of your hobbies? Should I have signed off with Fick sie?

I'll write any way I choose.

At any rate, you managed to completely misread that paragraph.




Alumbrado -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:38:38 PM)

You might want to read the entire Wiki article (including the links),before pontificating.

"Taken literally, it means "I bow to you". The word is derived from Sanskrit (namas): to bow, obeisance, reverential salutation, and (te): "to you"....."

"Salutation in computing is a technique for service discovery and service management"

"The Service Location Protocol (SLP, srvloc) is a service discovery protocol that allows computers and other devices to find services in a local area network without prior configuration...."




SinergyNstrumpet -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:41:15 PM)

Well it is totally possible I misread it, and I would never tell someone how to post... I certainly post the way I like, within the purview of my Daddy, that is. I suppose people who state someone does not have the brains to open a link, that isn't meant to be an insult at all...That is completely and absolutely possible it wasn't meant to be insulting...

Namaste... and I do mean it sincerely.

~Sinergy's strumpet~




JimNastics -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:42:54 PM)

I love these debates about what words mean.[:D]




Alumbrado -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:52:25 PM)

Better get some popcorn and settle in then.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:52:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinergyNstrumpet

Well it is totally possible I misread it, and I would never tell someone how to post... I certainly post the way I like, within the purview of my Daddy, that is. I suppose people who state someone does not have the brains to open a link, that isn't meant to be an insult at all...That is completely and absolutely possible it wasn't meant to be insulting...

Namaste... and I do mean it sincerely.

~Sinergy's strumpet~

That very much is an insult to those who simply are unable to carry on a rational, science-based conversation EVEN THOUGH they have been provided several links explaining the science and engineering. There's a moron like that on B.com. too.
The afforementioned moron, replying to a post in which a person quoted T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) about warfare, said:
"Who is this clown, and what are his credentials?" It's been a running joke (and so has that poster been) ever since.

Do you need an example from CM? Frieden und Glück




Alumbrado -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 3:55:57 PM)

Hey!!  The Gluecks had impeccable credentials.[:D]




luckydog1 -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/9/2008 6:23:07 PM)

But where do the beings from other planes that intrevene in our materialistic world, allowing the existance of free will, fit into this?   Oh that's right you threw insults to make your point.  That is covered in your cited article isn't it?




Alumbrado -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/10/2008 4:47:21 AM)

Where in my cited article is that covered?   Or are you just making up non-existent stuff again?




Real0ne -> RE: Cain't hep mahself... part one: Quackery (3/10/2008 8:27:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Perhaps I should post this after the list of Fallacies I have in my DB, but wtf.
http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/Quack.html

There are a couple posters here who really should stick to fluff threads, like "I made a post! Wooohooo!". This link will be wasted on them, if indeed they are capable of clicking on a link. I hope it will be useful for those who are capable of changing their minds to accomodate evidence contrary to their beliefs. Namaste

WTF, edit time. Here's a quote from the treatise:

"Another example is the frequent claims for a carburetor or other gizmo which will make an automobile get an incredible number of miles per gallon. Simple calculations reveal that the engine needs to operate at higher than Carnot efficiency. Personally, if I knew a way to run a heat engine at higher than Carnot efficiency and thus ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I would have better things to do than waste my time building a carburetor factory."

Goddess, no kidding. I'd have WAAAAY better things to do.



Here is another quote from your treatise:
CARTS BEFORE HORSES. Proponents of quack theories are full of excuses for why they have such meagre evidence of their beliefs. These range from "no one funds us" to "the conspiratorial and established institutions ignore us for political reasons." These excuses would not be needed if there were good evidence for the notions in question. The fact that these excuses are offered is almost an admission that the proponent believes despite a lack of good evidence. It it were otherwise, the proponent would focus on the evidence and argue for funding or institutional change because the evidence is so good, rather than excusing the lack of evidence because of these other factors.



So whats your point?  The wardenclif tower did not work so it went unfunded?  Teslas papers and effects all were NOT unlawfully confiscated by the us government?  His lab did not "mysteriously" catch on fire?  He wasnt funded because he was a quack?

Moray was NOT shot and his lab was NOT destroyed eh?

Simply showing that minimun/maximum theoretical limitations exist is not the same as showing what the minumum/maximum theoretical IS with any hard numbers now is it.  

your link offered no proof what so ever though some people are gullible enough to believe the mere mention of the topic as "proof".

There will always be hoaxters including hoaxter debunkers who in both cases dismiss reality in the process of promoting their position.

You are correct about this site as I see most of the cheerleaders all lined up. (4 of em seemed to miss the rally though)

I suppose you feel you are somehow doing science a favor with these sweeping generalizations.

A final thought and a quote from the treatise:
"Russell Turpin's "Characterization of Quack Theories"
"This site rated two stars by Mental Health Net"


Dont forget to post your math for my review of the gas milage limitations of a given engine or take your own suggestion and stick to the "fluff" threads.

























Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125