Agora explores the clash between science, philosophy, and religious dogma in ancient Alexandria, following the female philosopher Hypatia’s struggle to preserve knowledge as the city descends into turmoil. It is a story about the enduring conflict between reason and fanaticism.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Friday, October 3, 2025
Thursday, October 3, 2013
RAW - Religion for the Hell of it & the Disinfo talk
This is the talk from Disinfo Con 2000, watch it while it's still up. All the Disinfo Con talks keep getting removed from Youtube, I really wish they'd stop doing that.
More RAW goodies tomorrow, don't wanna overload you all at once! BTW if anyone knows a site that actually succeeds at downloading a youtube video please share. I tried eight that didn't work so far... update: Thanks to David for letting me know about the Firefox extension downloadhelper for anyone who wants to save vids too.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Age of Unreason - The governments of Britain, Canada and Australia are trying to stamp out scientific dissent.
The governments of Britain, Canada and Australia are trying to stamp out scientific dissent.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 1st Ooctober 2013
It’s as clear and chilling a statement of intent as you’re likely to read. Scientists should be “the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.”(1) Vladimir Putin? Kim Jong-un? No, Professor Ian Boyd, chief scientific adviser at the UK’s department for environment.
Boyd’s doctrine is a neat distillation of government policy in Britain, Canada and Australia. These governments have suppressed or misrepresented inconvenient findings on climate change, pollution, pesticides, fisheries and wildlife. They have shut down programmes which produce unwelcome findings and sought to muzzle scientists. This is a modern version of Soviet Lysenkoism: crushing academic dissent on behalf of bad science and corporate power(2).
Writing in an online journal, Boyd argued that if scientists speak freely, they create conflict between themselves and policy-makers, leading to a “chronically deep-seated mistrust of scientists that can undermine the delicate foundation upon which science builds relevance”(3). This, in turn, “could set back the cause of science in government”. So they should avoid “suggesting that policies are either right or wrong”. If they must speak out, they should do so through “embedded advisers (such as myself), and by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.”
Shut up, speak through me, don’t dissent, or your behaviour will ensure that science becomes irrelevant. Note that the conflicts between science and policy are caused by scientists, rather than by politicians ignoring or abusing the evidence. Or by chief scientific advisers.
In an online question and answer session hosted by his department, Professor Boyd maintained that 50% of tuberculosis infections among cattle herds are caused by badgers(4). He repeated the claim in an official document called “Science to inform TB Policy”(5). But as the analyst Jamie McMillan points out, the figure has been sexed up from inadequate data(6). Like the 45-minute claim in the Iraq debate, it is “spurious, simple to take on board, and crucial in convincing Parliament.”
The badger cull as a whole defies the findings of the £49m study the previous government commissioned. It has been thoroughly dissected by the leading scientists in the field, which might explain why Boyd is so keen to shut them up(7,8). It’s one of many ways in which his department has binned the evidence in setting its policies.
On Sunday, Boyd’s boss, Owen Paterson, told the Conservative party conference not to worry about global warming. “I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.”(9) A few weeks ago on Any Questions, he managed to repeat ten discredited claims about climate change in one short contribution(10).
His department repeatedly misrepresents science to appease industrial lobbyists. It claimed that its field trials of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees showed that “effects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances”(11). Hopelessly contaminated, the study was in fact worthless, which is why it was not submitted to a peer-reviewed journal(12).
Similar distortions surround the department’s refusal to establish meaningful marine reserves(13), its attempt to cull buzzards on behalf of pheasant shoots(14,15) and its determination to allow farmers to start dredging streams again, turning them into featureless gutters(16).
There’s one consolation: Ian Boyd, in his efforts to establish a tinpot dictatorship, has not yet achieved the control enjoyed by his counterparts in Canada. There, scientists with government grants working on any issue that could affect industrial interests – tar sands, climate change, mining, sewage, salmon farms, water trading – are forbidden to speak freely to the public(17,18,19). They are shadowed by government minders and, when they must present their findings, given scripts to memorise and recite(20). Dozens of turbulent research programmes and institutes have either been cut to the bone or closed altogether(21).
In Australia, the new government has chosen not to appoint a science minister(22). Tony Abbott, who once described manmade climate change as “absolute crap”(23), has already shut down the government’s Climate Commission and Climate Change Authority(24). But at least Australians are fighting back: the Climate Commission has been reconvened as an NGO, funded by donations(25). Here, we allowed the government to shut down the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Sustainable Development Commission with scarcely a groan of protest(26).
Cameron’s government claimed that the tiny savings it made were required to reduce the deficit. Yet somehow it manages to fund a lavish range of planet-wrecking programmes. The latest is the “Centre for Doctoral Training in Oil and Gas” just launched by the Natural Environment Research Council(27). Its aim is “to support the oil and gas sector” by providing “focused training” in fracking, in exploiting tar deposits and in searching for oil in polar regions. In other words, it is subsidising fossil fuel companies while promoting climate change. How many people believe this is a good use of public money?
To be reasonable, when a government is manipulating and misrepresenting scientific findings, is to dissent. To be reasonable, when it is helping to destroy human life and the natural world, is to dissent. As Julien Benda argued in La Trahison des Clercs, democracy and civilisation depend on intellectuals resisting conformity and power(28).
A world in which scientists speak only through their minders and in which dissent is considered the antithesis of reason is a world shorn of meaningful democratic choices. You can judge a government by its treatment of inconvenient facts and the people who expose them. This one does not emerge well.
Source (with the footnotes)
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 1st Ooctober 2013
It’s as clear and chilling a statement of intent as you’re likely to read. Scientists should be “the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.”(1) Vladimir Putin? Kim Jong-un? No, Professor Ian Boyd, chief scientific adviser at the UK’s department for environment.
Boyd’s doctrine is a neat distillation of government policy in Britain, Canada and Australia. These governments have suppressed or misrepresented inconvenient findings on climate change, pollution, pesticides, fisheries and wildlife. They have shut down programmes which produce unwelcome findings and sought to muzzle scientists. This is a modern version of Soviet Lysenkoism: crushing academic dissent on behalf of bad science and corporate power(2).
Writing in an online journal, Boyd argued that if scientists speak freely, they create conflict between themselves and policy-makers, leading to a “chronically deep-seated mistrust of scientists that can undermine the delicate foundation upon which science builds relevance”(3). This, in turn, “could set back the cause of science in government”. So they should avoid “suggesting that policies are either right or wrong”. If they must speak out, they should do so through “embedded advisers (such as myself), and by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.”
Shut up, speak through me, don’t dissent, or your behaviour will ensure that science becomes irrelevant. Note that the conflicts between science and policy are caused by scientists, rather than by politicians ignoring or abusing the evidence. Or by chief scientific advisers.
In an online question and answer session hosted by his department, Professor Boyd maintained that 50% of tuberculosis infections among cattle herds are caused by badgers(4). He repeated the claim in an official document called “Science to inform TB Policy”(5). But as the analyst Jamie McMillan points out, the figure has been sexed up from inadequate data(6). Like the 45-minute claim in the Iraq debate, it is “spurious, simple to take on board, and crucial in convincing Parliament.”
The badger cull as a whole defies the findings of the £49m study the previous government commissioned. It has been thoroughly dissected by the leading scientists in the field, which might explain why Boyd is so keen to shut them up(7,8). It’s one of many ways in which his department has binned the evidence in setting its policies.
On Sunday, Boyd’s boss, Owen Paterson, told the Conservative party conference not to worry about global warming. “I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.”(9) A few weeks ago on Any Questions, he managed to repeat ten discredited claims about climate change in one short contribution(10).
His department repeatedly misrepresents science to appease industrial lobbyists. It claimed that its field trials of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees showed that “effects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances”(11). Hopelessly contaminated, the study was in fact worthless, which is why it was not submitted to a peer-reviewed journal(12).
Similar distortions surround the department’s refusal to establish meaningful marine reserves(13), its attempt to cull buzzards on behalf of pheasant shoots(14,15) and its determination to allow farmers to start dredging streams again, turning them into featureless gutters(16).
There’s one consolation: Ian Boyd, in his efforts to establish a tinpot dictatorship, has not yet achieved the control enjoyed by his counterparts in Canada. There, scientists with government grants working on any issue that could affect industrial interests – tar sands, climate change, mining, sewage, salmon farms, water trading – are forbidden to speak freely to the public(17,18,19). They are shadowed by government minders and, when they must present their findings, given scripts to memorise and recite(20). Dozens of turbulent research programmes and institutes have either been cut to the bone or closed altogether(21).
In Australia, the new government has chosen not to appoint a science minister(22). Tony Abbott, who once described manmade climate change as “absolute crap”(23), has already shut down the government’s Climate Commission and Climate Change Authority(24). But at least Australians are fighting back: the Climate Commission has been reconvened as an NGO, funded by donations(25). Here, we allowed the government to shut down the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Sustainable Development Commission with scarcely a groan of protest(26).
Cameron’s government claimed that the tiny savings it made were required to reduce the deficit. Yet somehow it manages to fund a lavish range of planet-wrecking programmes. The latest is the “Centre for Doctoral Training in Oil and Gas” just launched by the Natural Environment Research Council(27). Its aim is “to support the oil and gas sector” by providing “focused training” in fracking, in exploiting tar deposits and in searching for oil in polar regions. In other words, it is subsidising fossil fuel companies while promoting climate change. How many people believe this is a good use of public money?
To be reasonable, when a government is manipulating and misrepresenting scientific findings, is to dissent. To be reasonable, when it is helping to destroy human life and the natural world, is to dissent. As Julien Benda argued in La Trahison des Clercs, democracy and civilisation depend on intellectuals resisting conformity and power(28).
A world in which scientists speak only through their minders and in which dissent is considered the antithesis of reason is a world shorn of meaningful democratic choices. You can judge a government by its treatment of inconvenient facts and the people who expose them. This one does not emerge well.
Source (with the footnotes)
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Mysterious Voynich manuscript has 'genuine message'
The message inside "the
world's most mysterious medieval manuscript" has eluded cryptographers,
mathematicians and linguists for over a century.
And for many, the so-called Voynich book is assumed to be a hoax.But a new study, published in the journal Plos One, suggests the manuscript may, after all, hold a genuine message.
Scientists say they found linguistic patterns they believe to be meaningful words within the text.
Article at BBC News
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Have you had a “bad trip” on psilocybin mushrooms? If so, please take this anonymous Johns Hopkins survey, and please tell others about it.
Have you had a “bad trip” on psilocybin mushrooms?
If so, please take this anonymous Johns Hopkins survey,
and please tell others about it.
I filled it in, I've only ever had one bad trip and tried to be as descriptive and helpful as possible! Please do the same, for science!
Via the Psychedelic Salon.
The Rosenhan Experiment
Rosenhan's study was done in two parts. The first part involved the use of healthy associates or "pseudopatients" (three women and five men) who briefly simulated auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different States in various locations in the United States. All were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had not experienced any more hallucinations. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release. The average time that the patients spent in the hospital was 19 days. All but one were diagnosed with schizophrenia "in remission" before their release. The second part of his study involved an offended hospital challenging Rosenhan to send pseudopatients to its facility, whom its staff would then detect. Rosenhan agreed and in the following weeks out of 193 new patients the staff identified 41 as potential pseudopatients, with 19 of these receiving suspicion from at least 1 psychiatrist and 1 other staff member. In fact Rosenhan had sent no one to the hospital.
The study concluded "it is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals" and also illustrated the dangers of dehumanization and labeling in psychiatric institutions. It suggested that the use of community mental health facilities which concentrated on specific problems and behaviors rather than psychiatric labels might be a solution and recommended education to make psychiatric workers more aware of the social psychology of their facilities. However, the study has been critiqued and accused of being pseudoscience presented as science. Almost everytime science is used for the benefit of the people and not the authorities or corporations it gets the label pseudoscience, how convenient. Wikipedia is almost as bad as the mainstream media in their foul misuse of language. Read more.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Psychiatrists under fire in mental health battle
There is no scientific evidence that psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are valid or useful, according to the leading body representing Britain's clinical psychologists.
In a groundbreaking move that has already prompted a fierce backlash from psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society's division of clinical psychology (DCP) will on Monday issue a statement declaring that, given the lack of evidence, it is time for a "paradigm shift" in how the issues of mental health are understood. The statement effectively casts doubt on psychiatry's predominantly biomedical model of mental distress – the idea that people are suffering from illnesses that are treatable by doctors using drugs. The DCP said its decision to speak out "reflects fundamental concerns about the development, personal impact and core assumptions of the (diagnosis) systems", used by psychiatry.
Dr Lucy Johnstone, a consultant clinical psychologist who helped draw up the DCP's statement, said it was unhelpful to see mental health issues as illnesses with biological causes.
"On the contrary, there is now overwhelming evidence that people break down as a result of a complex mix of social and psychological circumstances – bereavement and loss, poverty and discrimination, trauma and abuse," Johnstone said. The provocative statement by the DCP has been timed to come out shortly before the release of DSM-5, the fifth edition of the American Psychiatry Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
The manual has been attacked for expanding the range of mental health issues that are classified as disorders. For example, the fifth edition of the book, the first for two decades, will classify manifestations of grief, temper tantrums and worrying about physical ill-health as the mental illnesses of major depressive disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder and somatic symptom disorder, respectively.
Some of the manual's omissions are just as controversial as the manual's inclusions. The term "Asperger's disorder" will not appear in the new manual, and instead its symptoms will come under the newly added "autism spectrum disorder".
The DSM is used in a number of countries to varying degrees. Britain uses an alternative manual, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) published by the World Health Organisation, but the DSM is still hugely influential – and controversial.
The writer Oliver James, who trained as a clinical psychologist, welcomed the DCP's decision to speak out against psychiatric diagnosis and stressed the need to move away from a biomedical model of mental distress to one that examined societal and personal factors.
Writing in today's Observer, James declares: "We need fundamental changes in how our society is organised to give parents the best chance of meeting the needs of children and to prevent the amount of adult adversity."
But Professor Sir Simon Wessely, a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and chair of psychological medicine at King's College London, said it was wrong to suggest psychiatry was focused only on the biological causes of mental distress. And in an accompanying Observer article he defends the need to create classification systems for mental disorder.
"A classification system is like a map," Wessely explains. "And just as any map is only provisional, ready to be changed as the landscape changes, so does classification."
In a groundbreaking move that has already prompted a fierce backlash from psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society's division of clinical psychology (DCP) will on Monday issue a statement declaring that, given the lack of evidence, it is time for a "paradigm shift" in how the issues of mental health are understood. The statement effectively casts doubt on psychiatry's predominantly biomedical model of mental distress – the idea that people are suffering from illnesses that are treatable by doctors using drugs. The DCP said its decision to speak out "reflects fundamental concerns about the development, personal impact and core assumptions of the (diagnosis) systems", used by psychiatry.
Dr Lucy Johnstone, a consultant clinical psychologist who helped draw up the DCP's statement, said it was unhelpful to see mental health issues as illnesses with biological causes.
"On the contrary, there is now overwhelming evidence that people break down as a result of a complex mix of social and psychological circumstances – bereavement and loss, poverty and discrimination, trauma and abuse," Johnstone said. The provocative statement by the DCP has been timed to come out shortly before the release of DSM-5, the fifth edition of the American Psychiatry Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
The manual has been attacked for expanding the range of mental health issues that are classified as disorders. For example, the fifth edition of the book, the first for two decades, will classify manifestations of grief, temper tantrums and worrying about physical ill-health as the mental illnesses of major depressive disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder and somatic symptom disorder, respectively.
Some of the manual's omissions are just as controversial as the manual's inclusions. The term "Asperger's disorder" will not appear in the new manual, and instead its symptoms will come under the newly added "autism spectrum disorder".
The DSM is used in a number of countries to varying degrees. Britain uses an alternative manual, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) published by the World Health Organisation, but the DSM is still hugely influential – and controversial.
The writer Oliver James, who trained as a clinical psychologist, welcomed the DCP's decision to speak out against psychiatric diagnosis and stressed the need to move away from a biomedical model of mental distress to one that examined societal and personal factors.
Writing in today's Observer, James declares: "We need fundamental changes in how our society is organised to give parents the best chance of meeting the needs of children and to prevent the amount of adult adversity."
But Professor Sir Simon Wessely, a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and chair of psychological medicine at King's College London, said it was wrong to suggest psychiatry was focused only on the biological causes of mental distress. And in an accompanying Observer article he defends the need to create classification systems for mental disorder.
"A classification system is like a map," Wessely explains. "And just as any map is only provisional, ready to be changed as the landscape changes, so does classification."
Alien Nation: Have Humans Been Abducted by Extraterrestrials?
A prestigious Harvard psychiatrist, John Edward Mack, thought so. His sudden death leaves behind many mysteries. Interesting article at Vanity Fair of all magazines.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Tiny Alien from Sirius documentary is most likely a human mutation
From a Belgian news site, can't find a decent similar english story at first glance. The specimen has human DNA and Garry Nolan of Stanford University who did the DNA tests says it's probably an interesting human mutation. I've downloaded a flash version of the Sirius docu from torrents, but it's not high on my to-watch list to be honest.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Scientists Intervene in TED Controversy
There was a stunning intervention in the TED controversy by 19 leading
scientists.
In brief it looks like TED Curator Chris Anderson opened Pandora's Box
-- further details below -- when he authorised the removal of talks by
myself and Rupert Sheldrake from the TEDx Youtube channel. Rupert's talk
was entitled "The Science Delusion", my talk was entitled "The War on
Consciousness", and both can be viewed, in context -- scroll down on this TED blog page.
The reason the talks are still on the TED website at all (even if sequestrated to the blog) is because of the internet furore that erupted following the removal of the talks from the TEDx Youtube channel. Let me put on record here how deeply grateful I am for the solidarity and intelligent, well thought-out intervention of many members my online community. Without this I believe TED would have been able to sweep the whole matter under the carpet. And I note how dismissive and insulting TED were: "Graham Hancock put out an immediate alert that he was about to be 'censored' [and] his army of passionate supporters deluged us with outraged messages". See here.
There's a lot to be learnt about TED's attitude towards the general public from that short phrase, which does not recognise the intelligence, integrity and independent thought of the thousands who wrote to them but instead lumps all together as an "army of passionate supporters". I for my part feel honoured to have been given that support but I recognise that it was never about me; rather it was about the ideas and principles that are at stake. Even so, TED demonstrated its contempt by refusing to answer the appeals that I and Rupert Sheldrake made for an open, live debate on the core issues (see here, and here) and by ignoring all the thousands of posts put on their blog by members of the general public (SEE HERE: http://www.ted.com/conversations/17190/the_debate_about_graham_hancoc.html
AND HERE: http://www.ted.com/conversations/17189/the_debate_about_rupert_sheldr.html
AND HERE: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/
AND HERE: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/18/graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake-a-fresh-take/)
Perhaps by turning a deaf ear to criticism TED hoped they would get away with it. But it is clear now that they are not going to be allowed to do so.
The mainstream media picked up the story on 7 April with this article in one of Britain's leading national newspapers, the Independent on Sunday. The article also appeared in the Belfast Telegraph three days later on 10 April.
Then the following happened in quick succession:
(1) On 18 April an open letter to TED deeply critical of TED's decision to remove talks by myself and Rupert Sheldrake from the TEDx Youtube channel was published in the Huffington Post. The letter was written by Deepak Chopra, MD, Stuart Hameroff, MD (Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director of Consciousness Studies, at the University of Arizona), Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D (Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor in Computational Physics, Director, Center of Excellence, Chapman University), Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D (Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University and Director of the Genetics and Ageing Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital), and Neil Theise, MD (Professor, Pathology and Medicine, Beth Israel Medical Center -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York).
(2) On 19 April Ted Curator Chris Anderson replied in the Huffington Post with some slick, evasive PR-speak (coupled with a pinch of the give-away sneering and high-handedness that he has resorted to again and again throughout this controversy).
(3) The same day, 19 April, Chopra, Hameroff, Kafatos,Theise, and a stunning array of 15 other immensely qualified and experienced scientists, came back with a devastating response to Anderson's letter.
The reason the talks are still on the TED website at all (even if sequestrated to the blog) is because of the internet furore that erupted following the removal of the talks from the TEDx Youtube channel. Let me put on record here how deeply grateful I am for the solidarity and intelligent, well thought-out intervention of many members my online community. Without this I believe TED would have been able to sweep the whole matter under the carpet. And I note how dismissive and insulting TED were: "Graham Hancock put out an immediate alert that he was about to be 'censored' [and] his army of passionate supporters deluged us with outraged messages". See here.
There's a lot to be learnt about TED's attitude towards the general public from that short phrase, which does not recognise the intelligence, integrity and independent thought of the thousands who wrote to them but instead lumps all together as an "army of passionate supporters". I for my part feel honoured to have been given that support but I recognise that it was never about me; rather it was about the ideas and principles that are at stake. Even so, TED demonstrated its contempt by refusing to answer the appeals that I and Rupert Sheldrake made for an open, live debate on the core issues (see here, and here) and by ignoring all the thousands of posts put on their blog by members of the general public (SEE HERE: http://www.ted.com/conversations/17190/the_debate_about_graham_hancoc.html
AND HERE: http://www.ted.com/conversations/17189/the_debate_about_rupert_sheldr.html
AND HERE: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/
AND HERE: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/18/graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake-a-fresh-take/)
Perhaps by turning a deaf ear to criticism TED hoped they would get away with it. But it is clear now that they are not going to be allowed to do so.
The mainstream media picked up the story on 7 April with this article in one of Britain's leading national newspapers, the Independent on Sunday. The article also appeared in the Belfast Telegraph three days later on 10 April.
Then the following happened in quick succession:
(1) On 18 April an open letter to TED deeply critical of TED's decision to remove talks by myself and Rupert Sheldrake from the TEDx Youtube channel was published in the Huffington Post. The letter was written by Deepak Chopra, MD, Stuart Hameroff, MD (Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director of Consciousness Studies, at the University of Arizona), Menas C. Kafatos, Ph.D (Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor in Computational Physics, Director, Center of Excellence, Chapman University), Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D (Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology at Harvard University and Director of the Genetics and Ageing Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital), and Neil Theise, MD (Professor, Pathology and Medicine, Beth Israel Medical Center -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York).
(2) On 19 April Ted Curator Chris Anderson replied in the Huffington Post with some slick, evasive PR-speak (coupled with a pinch of the give-away sneering and high-handedness that he has resorted to again and again throughout this controversy).
(3) The same day, 19 April, Chopra, Hameroff, Kafatos,Theise, and a stunning array of 15 other immensely qualified and experienced scientists, came back with a devastating response to Anderson's letter.
Friday, April 19, 2013
TED flirts with Scientism
Scientism is an ideology that attempts to apply conventional scientific principles to fields of knowledge where it has no business being. Scientism is an exaggerated belief in the knowledge that science provides and the ability of science to use that knowledge to solve all manner of problems, human and otherwise. Hardcore scientism asserts that scientific knowledge is the only real knowledge. Only science can provide access to truth. All other forms of human inquiry and experience are not to be trusted.Read more at Reality Sandwich.
"I loathe science and am always keane to attack it in most situations (...)
but I love reason and I'm perfectly aware of the difference."
Terence Mckenna
but I love reason and I'm perfectly aware of the difference."
Terence Mckenna
Friday, April 12, 2013
John Stewart describes how the Monsanto Protection Act was snuck in under our noses
Some sound issues with the clip though. Here's the video at the official site but it's 2 minutes shorter.
Pretty baffled they did this, baffled anytime money > food...
...anonymously! "ooooh!" Holy shit
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Ideas worth spreading - You're doing it wrong!
TED is revoking the license of TEDxWestHollywood, just a couple of weeks before their event, "Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm?" without offering a reason, beyond a vague statement suggesting that the program is not sufficiently scientific. This occurred just two weeks before the April 14 event, after over a year of preparation. If you're feeling a sense of déjà vu, that's because they used this same line of reasoning to pull videos by Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake just a few weeks ago, an incident that sparked wide controversy.Read more here at "TED rejects new Paradigm" - Reality Sandwich.
The irony...
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Everything
The entire quote:
“Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”
Monday, March 25, 2013
Scientists want to bring 22 animals back from extinction
Article here. In my opinion science should occupy itself with interesting and useful things to help humankind evolve, not just "pulling shit because they can."
They chose the animals using the following criteria: Are the species desirable – do they hold an important ecological function or are they beloved by humans?Okay to the first - and good luck with that cause I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than *respawn & transport here and it all works out*, but "are they beloved by humans?" Science, ladies and gentlemen. At the bottom of the post are two related TED talks, I don't really care enough to watch them myself though and all I can think of is Umbrella Corp creating genetic clusterfucks.
"I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility... for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it."These are all quotes by Dr. Ian Malcolm, if you don't realize who he is, this next quote should help:
"The complete lack of humility for nature that's being displayed here is staggering."
"Yeah but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think if they should."
"God help us we're in the hands of engineers."
"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs." Dr. Ian Malcolm
"Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth." Dr. Ellie Sattler
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Mind Blown! Machine Elves dance around the Fermi paradox
The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations. The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, are:
- The Sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older;
- Some of these stars likely have Earth-like planets which, if the Earth is typical, may develop intelligent life;
- Presumably some of these civilizations will develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now;
- At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in just a few tens of millions of years.
According to this line of thinking, the Earth should have already been colonized, or at least visited. But no convincing evidence of this exists. Furthermore, no confirmed signs of intelligence elsewhere have been spotted, either in our galaxy or the more than 80 billion other galaxies of the observable universe. Hence Fermi's question "Where is everybody?".
From the Psychonaut Subreddit: All I'm saying is... Machine Elves.
More! the Transcension Hypothesis by futurist John Smart, video by Jason Silva:
Now that's some tasty brainfood!
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Graham Hancock talking about his banned TED talk, psychedelics and the global awakening
Graham Hancock talking about his banned TED talk, psychedelics and the global awakening. On the Progressive Radio Network's Lifeboat Hour with Michael C Ruppert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)