[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > Is this what you are accusing me of? Ho ho, does she think > > poetry can prove reincarnation? > > Yes and no and neither do I. And neither did Wordsworth. Can > you imagine that - writing verse about something that *can't be > proved*? What a waste of time! Why bother? Erm, it was you who brought the subject up and even warned me to avert my eyes. > Do you think that only what is provable is a worthy candidate > for what we might suppose to be the case? (I suspect that very little, > if anything, is provable) Well if you are going to hamstring yourself like that... Try assuming that some things do exist and are provable and then see what is worth considering. The way I look at unprovable things like reincarnation is by seeing what we'd have to throw away by accepting something that contradicts what we are rather sure about. For any sort of life after death it seems to me that an awful lot of useful and well tested explanations have to go in the bin, including some of my favourites. I'd be a bit annoyed to have to jettison Darwinism because people decided en mass to teach Dr Eber instead because it's more romantically satisfying. What do we gain in return? A bit of comfort? Of course, the world could be stranger than anyone can imagine and heaven and hell exist and even reincarnation at the same time, or maybe Ron Hubbard is right. Seems that a lot these ideas fit a similar meme and come from the same emotional place and thus fit into the same section of the venn diagram where they will stay. At least until everything we base our rather well sussed view of the world has turned out to be crap or at least shown how it could co-exist with this stuff. Which seems the less likely option to me, but here's hoping! It'd be quite a paradigm shift . If you do think that, or something like > it, is that belief in itself provable? Or should that faith of yours > be consigned to the Venn diagram of unproveable bollocks (religious > bollocks presumably)? I have no faith. There is merely what is most likely given current knowledge. By all means add to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. > > Start wherever you like on the diagram. > > > > > > > > There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I "don't > > > > believe" in more than you (take "Scientism" for a start). > > > > > > Scientism? Ah yes, that weird sickness creationists like to > > > accuse the rational of suffering from. > > > > Ah, "the rational". > > http://youtu.be/cAgAvnvXF9U > > > > Is this your thought process? > > > > :: Creationists make accusations of scientism. > > :: Creationists talk bollocks > > :: This is an accusation of scientism > > :: So this is bollocks > > > > Hardly an advertisement for the rational higher ground? > > > > Susan Haack: Six Signs Of Scientism: > > > > > > 1. Using the words "science," "scientific," "scientifically," > > "scientist," etc., honorifically, as generic terms of > > epistemic praise. > > > > 2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical > > terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real > > usefulness. > > > > 3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a > > sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and > > "pseudo-scientific" imposters. > > > > 4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the > > "scientific method," presumed to explain how the sciences have > > been so successful. > > > > 5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond > > their scope. > > > > 6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other > > kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human > > activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. > > Is this what you are accusing me of? Ho ho, does she think > poetry can prove reincarnation? Yes and no and neither do I. And neither did Wordsworth. Can you imagine that - writing verse about something that *can't be proved*? What a waste of time! Why bother? Do you think that only what is provable is a worthy candidate for what we might suppose to be the case? (I suspect that very little, if anything, is provable). If you do think that, or something like it, is that belief in itself provable? Or should that faith of yours be consigned to the Venn diagram of unproveable bollocks (religious bollocks presumably)?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > wrote: > > > > > > > > If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. > Start wherever you like on the diagram. > > > > > > There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I "don't > > > believe" in more than you (take "Scientism" for a start). > > > > Scientism? Ah yes, that weird sickness creationists like to > > accuse the rational of suffering from. > > Ah, "the rational". > http://youtu.be/cAgAvnvXF9U > > Is this your thought process? > > :: Creationists make accusations of scientism. > :: Creationists talk bollocks > :: This is an accusation of scientism > :: So this is bollocks > > Hardly an advertisement for the rational higher ground? > > Susan Haack: Six Signs Of Scientism: > > > 1. Using the words "science," "scientific," "scientifically," > "scientist," etc., honorifically, as generic terms of > epistemic praise. > > 2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical > terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real > usefulness. > > 3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a > sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and > "pseudo-scientific" imposters. > > 4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the > "scientific method," presumed to explain how the sciences have > been so successful. > > 5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond > their scope. > > 6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other > kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human > activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. Is this what you are accusing me of? Ho ho, does she think poetry can prove reincarnation?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever you like on the diagram. > > > > There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I "don't > > believe" in more than you (take "Scientism" for a start). > > Scientism? Ah yes, that weird sickness creationists like to > accuse the rational of suffering from. Ah, "the rational". http://youtu.be/cAgAvnvXF9U Is this your thought process? :: Creationists make accusations of scientism. :: Creationists talk bollocks :: This is an accusation of scientism :: So this is bollocks Hardly an advertisement for the rational higher ground? Susan Haack: Six Signs Of Scientism: 1. Using the words "science," "scientific," "scientifically," "scientist," etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise. 2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness. 3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and "pseudo-scientific" imposters. 4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the "scientific method," presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful. 5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope. 6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. From: http://goo.gl/9K7hS (pdf) Professor Haack ain't no stinkin' "creationist": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Haack
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
rightdoes the bollocks diagram contain itself in which case we enounter a paradox. The way to effectively evade the paradox is to call a Venn diagram of "everything...relative and Absolute"; the "Class of All Sets". The mathematician Cantor came up with a mathematical equivalency. Label the Class of All Sets E. Conceptualize "Infinity" and the infinite set of all Infinities. Conceptualize such an infinite set of Infinite Sets but include the transcendental Absolute; labeling this "OMEGA". (O). Now "O" includes anything relative and Absolute, as well as finite. Finally, E = O. The Class of All Sets is identical to the Infinite Absolute. For Omega, we can substitute the word "Brahman". ... Corollary: Brahman is holographic and can be depicted by the Gohonzon. (mandala). http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/GohonzonShu/index.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > > > Well stated Richard - that's the first thing i thought when I saw the Venn > > diagram, the Venn diagram wouldn't be complete without the Scientism > > bollocks and the Venn diagram itself. > > (Sharp intake of breath) - What a thought Ravi! (Whose > wee, little toe nail I am not fit to clip). Should that > Venn diagram contain itself as a member? > > If a Venn diagram of bollocks items were to contain > itself within itself, it would be expressing something > true (that the diagram is bollocks). In which case it > would NOT be bollocks and would have to "snap" to a reality > outside the diagram to avoid a paradox. But then... > (rinse & repeat). > > Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves > a member of itself? > > Duz me 'ead in. Mmmm... A nice feeling. Ze. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
Thank you Richard for that little rap and those set of Koans - loved it !!! If only the mystery and complexity of the existence could be so easily resolved through a set of beliefs - in this case Science and their mocking of other non-scientific beliefs through their Venn diagram of beliefs. On Mar 25, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > wrote: > > > > Well stated Richard - that's the first thing i thought when I saw the Venn > > diagram, the Venn diagram wouldn't be complete without the Scientism > > bollocks and the Venn diagram itself. > > (Sharp intake of breath) - What a thought Ravi! (Whose > wee, little toe nail I am not fit to clip). Should that > Venn diagram contain itself as a member? > > If a Venn diagram of bollocks items were to contain > itself within itself, it would be expressing something > true (that the diagram is bollocks). In which case it > would NOT be bollocks and would have to "snap" to a reality > outside the diagram to avoid a paradox. But then... > (rinse & repeat). > > Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves > a member of itself? > > Duz me 'ead in. Mmmm... A nice feeling. Ze. > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > Re: The Venn Diagram Of Irrational Nonsense > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/339067 > > Fowarded to FFL by a shade I met in a dream: > > "My dear FFLers > > Until my eyes died and gave me all-seeing vision I was unaware > of your august journal. But what a shock to my ethereal > system! My life's work, what? "Bollocks"? BOLLOCKS? And all > neatly classified too: "Religious BOLLOCKS", "Quackery > BOLLOCKS", "Pseudoscientific BOLLOCKS" (now there's irony, > ed.), and (Lord preserve us) "Paranormal BOLLOCKS". I am > deeply humbled." > > Poor chap, eh? It seems the deceased was a Professor Archie > Roy: Yeah, poor chap indeed. I'd hate to have spent my entire life studying daydreams. But I only spent my idle teens doing it so I got off lightly. > << A fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and professor of > Astronomy at Glasgow University, Roy was the world authority > on the mechanics of orbits, on which he carried out research > long before computers were capable of doing the work for him. > In the 1960s and 1970s he worked as a consultant to Nasa, > helping to put the first man on the Moon. He also had an > asteroid, 5806 Archie-roy, named in his honour. > > But he became better known among the general public for his > research into the spirit world. This began in the 1950s after > he lost his way in Glasgow's old university library and found > shelves of books on spiritualism and psychical research. Spiritualism. Chortle. What did he think of ectoplasm? > "My first ignorant reaction was 'What is this rubbish doing in > a university library?'," S'funny, that was my first reaction. But many years later and with a complete lack of any reliable evidence for the paranormal I tend to side with the 'it's all bollocks' POV. Until some new evidence comes along that is. Archie never found any. Nor has anybody else. But my mind is always open. But it's got to be good. Nabby's youtube polemics don't cut the mustard. If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever you like on the diagram. How about: Chemtrails Astrology Numerology Hollow Earth Moon landing denial Dowsing Bigfoot Leylines Orgone energy Palmistry Orbs Shouldn't be too hard as so many books and websites have been written about them. In fact these subjects are so well known that it ought to be a breeze to sort the wheat from the chaff. Remember, just because a decorated scientist believes paranormal stuff it don't make it more likely to be true. Look at John Hagelin, he honestly thinks it's possible to predict the future using tea leaves because all subatomic constituents were together during the big bang! PS Do you want to buy my complete collection of The Fortean Times?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
Well stated Richard - that's the first thing i thought when I saw the Venn diagram, the Venn diagram wouldn't be complete without the Scientism bollocks and the Venn diagram itself. On Mar 25, 2013, at 1:51 PM, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > wrote: > > > > If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever > > you like on the diagram. > > There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I "don't > believe" in more than you (take "Scientism" for a start). > > It's not my point that any of those things are true, or > justifiable. But I'm inclined to think that the "they're > all bollocks" reaction is, well, just a little bit > ...I don't know, perhaps "crass" is the word I'm looking > for. > > Reincarnation was on the BOLLOCKS list. Avert your eyes: > > "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The soul that > rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its > setting, And Cometh from afar." > > What a load of bollocks THAT was! Jeez - who writes this > crap? Any in-depth study of New Scientist or Scientific > American shows there is just no bit of the brain that > gets reincarnated. Quod Erat Demonstrandum! > > Or take astrology. You would probably be inclined to mock > the idea of stars "influencing" our lives. Or deploy your > big guns viz. that the astronomy astrology is predicated > on is false and/or incomplete. > > If so you would fail to appreciate the metaphysical subtlety > of (some) believers: > > "Astrology is based on the principle of synchronicity. > The 'influence of the stars' does not exist in a causal > sense. There is no causal influence at all. Astrology > "works" - if this is the right word - in the way inscribed > on the tabula smaragdina: > > What is below is like what is above. > And what is above is like what is below, > so that the miracle of the One may be accomplished." > http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm > > This is a metaphysics that can co-exist quite peacefully > with any aspect of modern science I would have thought. > It just posits the idea of reality as a "totality". > > I'm not saying I believe in it myself. I'm not sure what > I believe in. Or that it has any practical value (I called > it a metaphysics after all). > > I'm just suggesting "Respect", man... > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever > > you like on the diagram. > > There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I "don't > believe" in more than you (take "Scientism" for a start). Scientism? Ah yes, that weird sickness creationists like to accuse the rational of suffering from. > It's not my point that any of those things are true, or > justifiable. But I'm inclined to think that the "they're > all bollocks" reaction is, well, just a little bit > ...I don't know, perhaps "crass" is the word I'm looking > for. It's basically just a joke dude. But someone has thought about it long enough to want to pick a fight with the more credulous. I found it on Richard Dawkin's facebook page, I bet you love him ;-) > Reincarnation was on the BOLLOCKS list. Avert your eyes: > > "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The soul that > rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its > setting, And Cometh from afar." > > What a load of bollocks THAT was! Jeez - who writes this > crap? Any in-depth study of New Scientist or Scientific > American shows there is just no bit of the brain that > gets reincarnated. Quod Erat Demonstrandum! Erm, do poems constitute proof for you then? I see why you struggle so. > Or take astrology. You would probably be inclined to mock > the idea of stars "influencing" our lives. Or deploy your > big guns viz. that the astronomy astrology is predicated > on is false and/or incomplete. > > If so you would fail to appreciate the metaphysical subtlety > of (some) believers: > > "Astrology is based on the principle of synchronicity. > The 'influence of the stars' does not exist in a causal > sense. There is no causal influence at all. Astrology > "works" - if this is the right word - in the way inscribed > on the tabula smaragdina: > > What is below is like what is above. > And what is above is like what is below, > so that the miracle of the One may be accomplished." > http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm > > This is a metaphysics that can co-exist quite peacefully > with any aspect of modern science I would have thought. > It just posits the idea of reality as a "totality". Except for the fact that it's complete bollocks it fits in with modern science just fine. I think for astrology to "fit in" it would have to be have a demonstrable ability to predict and explain. And it doesn't. I can't think of a single way it makes sense. If it was cast- iron dependable and could tell me something about my future I couldn't predict then we'd have to accept it regardless of its lack of an explainable mechanism. The fact that it can't is why it remains on the bollocks list. Or maybe I've got Mars in Sagittarius, bound to make me a bit sceptical wouldn't you say? It would only be metaphysics if it didn't contradict our experience. It can't exist in fairy land, obeying it's own rules and conveniently being unavailable for testing when we look to see if it's there, AND be part of our explanation of the world. Unless there's something *seriously* weird going on... > I'm not saying I believe in it myself. I'm not sure what > I believe in. Or that it has any practical value (I called > it a metaphysics after all). > > I'm just suggesting "Respect", man... I respect people right to believe whatever bollocks they want. I demand a bit of evidence for something to elevate itself from the world of hopes and dreams into the world of 'that's the way it is' you can't keep something as a maybe *just* because there are nice things said about it. Though I do like the nice things too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > I have a bit of experience in a few areas in your list. > > Bigfoot is how chicks know at fist glance that I am goat-like in my > endowments. (I wear clown shoes to bars.) > > Orbs are the delightful things that fill out the upper part of a bikini. I > have done more than my share of making sure they are real by exposing them to > scientific screw-tany. > > Leylines should always be smoothed out in your bed from the last frolic or > the new girl may flee. > > Palmistry is how we all manage between encounters with our partner. > > > Ok not my best but that's what I got. Nice post is really all I wanted to > say. Hey, that was good! I logged back in specifically to mention something I learned about bigfoot but your post made me think that maybe he (or the cosmic joker) was having us on. Maybe not though... I was at a conference of strange phenomena organised by the Fortean Times. One of the speakers was a nice chap called Loren Coleman. He is, or was, the worlds only professional bigfoot hunter, though he might prefer "cryptozoologist". He's never actually seen one himself but he's met a lot of people who have. His lecture was about bigfoot appendages. Really. He started of with a slideshow about how coy people are about genitals generally, showing loads of pics from science textbooks and depictions of early human cavepersons. All of who were turned conveniently to the side or had a leg strategically crossed over their nether regions. His point being it's such a part of culture and so ingrained we don't even notice we are looking the other way. But when he interviewed bigfoot witnesses he'd ask them detailed questions about appearance and movement, noises made etc. Very thorough. He also asked if the witness caught sight of the bigfoot's genitals. Usually they'd blush and say yes and the description given would be written down and left forgotten in notebooks. Weird thing is, the descriptions given were all the same but not in a way you'd expect. Loren would ask if they were like human genitals? No. Chimpanzee or gorilla? If they didn't know he'd give them a description and the answer would be no again. So when Loren asked what sort of animal they most resembled (if any) they would always say "A horse" and not just in size. Apparently bigfoot have a most un-apelike manhood. Pretty weird turn up I thought. Could everyone make up or imagine the same thing? Because of the cultural blindness for genitals he thinks this qualifies as serious evidence as it isn't what you'd expect. Apparently. I don't know what a gorilla's todger looks like myself. Can't say what it proves either, if anything. I can't see how a huge man-ape creature could be living wild in 21st century USA but that doesn't mean they don't. It was food for thought though and a highlight of the weekend for me, something completely unexpected, a world within the world I thought I knew, even if it is mad, deluded seekers running around the woods at night. I've been on ghost hunts and I know how we can kid ourselves when in a strange environment and especially when in a group. Here's the book if anyone fancies a read, he puts it all much better than me: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743469755/cryptozoologi-20 > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > > > Re: The Venn Diagram Of Irrational Nonsense > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/339067 > > > > > > Fowarded to FFL by a shade I met in a dream: > > > > > > "My dear FFLers > > > > > > Until my eyes died and gave me all-seeing vision I was unaware > > > of your august journal. But what a shock to my ethereal > > > system! My life's work, what? "Bollocks"? BOLLOCKS? And all > > > neatly classified too: "Religious BOLLOCKS", "Quackery > > > BOLLOCKS", "Pseudoscientific BOLLOCKS" (now there's irony, > > > ed.), and (Lord preserve us) "Paranormal BOLLOCKS". I am > > > deeply humbled." > > > > > > Poor chap, eh? It seems the deceased was a Professor Archie > > > Roy: > > > > Yeah, poor chap indeed. I'd hate to have spent my entire life > > studying daydreams. But I only spent my idle teens doing it so > > I got off lightly. > > > > > > > << A fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and professor of > > > Astronomy at Glasgow University, Roy was the world authority > > > on the mechanics of orbits, on which he carried out research > > > long before computers were capable of doing the work for him. > > > In the 1960s and 1970s he worked as a consultant to Nasa, > > > helping to put the first man on the Moon. He also had an > > > asteroid, 5806 Archie-roy, named in his honour. > > > > > > But he became better known among the general public for his > > > research into the spirit world. This began in the 1950s after > > > he lost hi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever > you like on the diagram. There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I "don't believe" in more than you (take "Scientism" for a start). It's not my point that any of those things are true, or justifiable. But I'm inclined to think that the "they're all bollocks" reaction is, well, just a little bit ...I don't know, perhaps "crass" is the word I'm looking for. Reincarnation was on the BOLLOCKS list. Avert your eyes: "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The soul that rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And Cometh from afar." What a load of bollocks THAT was! Jeez - who writes this crap? Any in-depth study of New Scientist or Scientific American shows there is just no bit of the brain that gets reincarnated. Quod Erat Demonstrandum! Or take astrology. You would probably be inclined to mock the idea of stars "influencing" our lives. Or deploy your big guns viz. that the astronomy astrology is predicated on is false and/or incomplete. If so you would fail to appreciate the metaphysical subtlety of (some) believers: "Astrology is based on the principle of synchronicity. The 'influence of the stars' does not exist in a causal sense. There is no causal influence at all. Astrology "works" - if this is the right word - in the way inscribed on the tabula smaragdina: What is below is like what is above. And what is above is like what is below, so that the miracle of the One may be accomplished." http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm This is a metaphysics that can co-exist quite peacefully with any aspect of modern science I would have thought. It just posits the idea of reality as a "totality". I'm not saying I believe in it myself. I'm not sure what I believe in. Or that it has any practical value (I called it a metaphysics after all). I'm just suggesting "Respect", man...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: I have a bit of experience in a few areas in your list. Bigfoot is how chicks know at fist glance that I am goat-like in my endowments. (I wear clown shoes to bars.) Orbs are the delightful things that fill out the upper part of a bikini. I have done more than my share of making sure they are real by exposing them to scientific screw-tany. Leylines should always be smoothed out in your bed from the last frolic or the new girl may flee. Palmistry is how we all manage between encounters with our partner. Ok not my best but that's what I got. Nice post is really all I wanted to say. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote: > > > > Re: The Venn Diagram Of Irrational Nonsense > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/339067 > > > > Fowarded to FFL by a shade I met in a dream: > > > > "My dear FFLers > > > > Until my eyes died and gave me all-seeing vision I was unaware > > of your august journal. But what a shock to my ethereal > > system! My life's work, what? "Bollocks"? BOLLOCKS? And all > > neatly classified too: "Religious BOLLOCKS", "Quackery > > BOLLOCKS", "Pseudoscientific BOLLOCKS" (now there's irony, > > ed.), and (Lord preserve us) "Paranormal BOLLOCKS". I am > > deeply humbled." > > > > Poor chap, eh? It seems the deceased was a Professor Archie > > Roy: > > Yeah, poor chap indeed. I'd hate to have spent my entire life > studying daydreams. But I only spent my idle teens doing it so > I got off lightly. > > > > << A fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and professor of > > Astronomy at Glasgow University, Roy was the world authority > > on the mechanics of orbits, on which he carried out research > > long before computers were capable of doing the work for him. > > In the 1960s and 1970s he worked as a consultant to Nasa, > > helping to put the first man on the Moon. He also had an > > asteroid, 5806 Archie-roy, named in his honour. > > > > But he became better known among the general public for his > > research into the spirit world. This began in the 1950s after > > he lost his way in Glasgow's old university library and found > > shelves of books on spiritualism and psychical research. > > Spiritualism. Chortle. What did he think of ectoplasm? > > > "My first ignorant reaction was 'What is this rubbish doing in > > a university library?'," > > S'funny, that was my first reaction. But many years later and > with a complete lack of any reliable evidence for the paranormal > I tend to side with the 'it's all bollocks' POV. Until some new > evidence comes along that is. Archie never found any. Nor has > anybody else. But my mind is always open. But it's got to be good. > Nabby's youtube polemics don't cut the mustard. > > If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever > you like on the diagram. How about: > > Chemtrails > Astrology > Numerology > Hollow Earth > Moon landing denial > Dowsing > Bigfoot > Leylines > Orgone energy > Palmistry > Orbs > > Shouldn't be too hard as so many books and websites have been > written about them. In fact these subjects are so well known > that it ought to be a breeze to sort the wheat from the chaff. > > Remember, just because a decorated scientist believes paranormal > stuff it don't make it more likely to be true. Look at John Hagelin, > he honestly thinks it's possible to predict the future using tea > leaves because all subatomic constituents were together during the > big bang! > > > PS Do you want to buy my complete collection of The Fortean Times? >
