Actually, there is, and they’re annoying. Fortunately we have few if any Dopers who are guilty of it.
An example, to illustrate my point: the question of tachyons. the hypothetical particles delimited to FTL speeds, and with some peculiar characteristics in consequence, came up. It’s important to note in this regard that they evidently conform to relativity theory – just as no particle with real positive mass can achieve light speed, no tachyon, if they do exist, can slow down to it. Like gravitons ad gluons, they are not directly observable but in theory detectable through their influence on other particles – indeed, the one attempted disproof makes contrary-to-fact assumptions about what that influence on photons would be and uses that to demonstrate their probable non-existence.
Okay? Interesting if abstruse excursion into theoretical physics, right? Along comes a pontificating funda-scientificist (I refuse to use “scientist” of them even as part of a pejorative) and pronounces, with the gravitas of Charlton Heston playing Einstein parting the waters of the ornamental pond at the Institute for Advanced Physics, “They don’t exist, because Einstein proved that nothing can go faster than light.”
:smack: Way to reduce a complex and abstruse bit of fundamental physics to a few words of dogma! :rolleyes:
I would say those are people who just don’t understand science. It’s not that they’re too “fundamentalist” about it, it’s their knowledge is incomplete or mistaken. Proper understanding and adherence to the method does not result in these mistakes.
The problem is if something *can *be defended rationally, it’s no longer “woo”.
It’s similar to the conundrum of psychology: if a biological cause for the dysfunction can be found, treatment is taken over by the endocrinologists or neurologists, leaving only the mysterious stuff the purview of psychologists. Then people complain that psychologists deal with “illnesses” that there is no biological basis for.
And Jackmanni, I know plenty of alt medicine practitioners, including myself, who have spoken out against Essiac and other dangerous “therapies” like Raindrop Therapy. I’ve never even heard of the other one you mention.
I appreciate the Dio Zone and all, but there are in fact. The kind of people who are susceptible to “woo” can latch onto science just as easily–and then they latch onto it at a particular point that they think they understand and all OTHER scientists who progress are just making shit up or trying to discredit their guy etc.
You’ve never met an atheist who thinks quantum mechanics is also woo and won’t accept any evidence otherwise?
I have a tendency to distinguish between “science” the process that results from rational, empirical thinking, and “Science” the set of beliefs that a pseudo-rationalist woo latches onto and worships in the absence of critical thought. No one accuses the latter of actually understanding the “Science” he worships, mind you, although he will tell you he does (better than you, in fact).
Regarding the “fundamentalist” atheists, I just want to point out that for a lot of the usual suspects on this board that don’t believe in God or religion, they sure do seem obsessed by it. Look at Der Tris. Every other post is about God. He’ll go off on a anti-religion screed if somebody mentions that they believe the Angels can win the pennant.* Dan Blather is the same way. It cracks me up that people who profess to not believing in God just can’t stop talking about the concept.
*I’m skeptical, but they are 39-33 so I am not going to rule out the possibility. Call me agnostic.
You exaggerate. But as for my motivation, religion is relentlessly pushed down my throat, and I constantly see believers trying to force their dogma on others and in general making life worse for everyone. My attitude towards religion is a reaction to the religionist’s attitude towards everyone else; which is why it’s religion specifically I talk about so much and not, say, the stupidity of believing in good luck charms. People who believe in lucky rabbit’s feet aren’t trying to write Rabbit’s Footism into law, or killing people over it.
Actually, yes sort of if you could see it at all. As I understand it you’d see it apparently start at its destination and move back to its origin point. (I’m not a physicist though)
I see this from some of the more rabid atheists on this board, but it is bullshit. I live in the bible belt and haven’t been to church in years, but nobody is trying to push religion down my throat. No one talks about religion unless I bring it up, which I never do, so no one actually knows or particularly cares what my beliefs are. You could do the same thing if you didn’t talk about your atheism all the damn time. I have a suspicion that you bring up your atheism in real life just to get people to respond with something religious. That way you can bitch and moan about being persecuted by all these “religionists” and satisfy your pathetic martyr complex.
“Pseudoscience” can describe the beliefs, but really, the “Cult of Science (that is small enough to wrap my brain around)” functions enough like a religion that I think it “deserves” its own name.
Exactly, The fact that you think religion is being shoved down your throat is a faith-based belief, one that you do not test. It is based entirely on confirmation bias. You find religion annoying, so you think every time it is brought up as being shoved down your throat. And thus you respond negatively every time.
It doesn’t matter that your negative responses actually make things worse by making theists defensive, and thus more likely to continue to talk about religion and annoy you.
I will point out though, in Der Trihs’s defense that people in the Bible belt tend to not mention religion as often specifically because we can assume that most people around us agree. People who don’t like religion tend to leave the Bible Belt after highschool.
That sounds quite implausible. And not at all like most people describe life in the Bible Belt.
No, I couldn’t. I almost always am responding to someone else bringing up religion. I post on other forums where religion isn’t typically brought up, and few if any people there know I’m an atheist; I bring up my atheism so often here because the believers wag their religion in front of everyone else so often.
I have no interest in being subjected to prejudice, assault or vandalism so no I don’t mention my atheism near people who can come after me physically.
Why can’t ya be a little more “live and let live” about it? I’m an atheist too, but around here, I seem to spend more time defending believers from some of your more extreme rants. So somebody worships sky fairies. So what? They still like beer, or football, or movies, or sci-fi etc. Why do you have to jump in their shit, instead of just talking with them about more fun stuff?
I hadn’t actually thought of that thread - I was just thinking of the overall tone of this board. I think your representation of the medical community in that thread was fair and realistic - I want very much for liberation treatment to be the real deal, but I know it’s far too early to make any judgements about it.
ivan seemed pretty confident that I am definitely a nobwipe (although I’m still dubious that he’s spelling it correctly), so from that I’m guessing it involves some combination of my three principal qualities: being awesome, crying during sex and spitting when you talk.
