Get Some Science, Stupid!

Listed on Humor-Blogs.com

Thanks to science, you can read this blog, build a particle collider in your yard or watch streaming digital video of David Hasselhoff, drunk off his ass, eating a cheeseburger on the bathroom floor.

Science, ironically, allows for the creation of Wikipedia.

Science is the great provider of the post-Christendom era. Germ theory, industrial capacity and the very infrastructure of our society have their basis in science. Now you may very well be an anti-intellectual, Luddite, but if you are and you are also reading this, then you also are kind of a hypocrite, who knows? Well, for you, I guess that God knows…so there we are.

This space was going to be used to wittily ponder some amazing discovery by the Nerd Brigade in the name of science and greater human knowledge. Sadly, it turns out that your humble scribe is too stupid to do that. Much too stupid.

Serious science writing requires talent and an unfortunate abundance of stuff that you learned while not skipping all of your high school classes and not drinking too much before seminars during grad school. As the 2.3 readers of this blog know, some of us have little use for talent and no inclination whatsoever for facts that do not originate in our own butt, or in the butt of a trusted adviser.

To do science writing, a person must have a broad conceptual base of technical knowledge that encompasses slide rules, dinosaur droppings and massive vector bosons.

Two of those things are entirely mysterious and ‘massive vector bosons’ just sounds naughty. Perhaps, upon sober second thought, the casual observer will give up on being a real science writer who writes about real science (…while you consider that, please click on humor-blogs.com because frankly, I deserve it…).

Moving on, that same casual observer might be able to write about bad science instead. Yes Jim, they just might.

The prudent reader asks: “If you, SinisterDan, are unqualified to write about science how could you possibly have the critical skills needed to distinguish between cogently researched material and the thinnest veneer of pseudo-scientific technobabble?”

Well, the prudent reader should go pound sand for asking such a question. But like the purveyors of bad science some of us are full of shit and as such, know what it smells like.

(…by way of an apology to this blog, click on humor-blogs.com – seriously, I’m dying over there…)

To wit, let us consider homeopathy.

Homeopathy is the belief that small amounts of substances that cause symptoms similar to what ails you will cure you. Poison Ivy could be used to cure a rash, or Amy Winehouse DNA could cure you from being a drunken, heroin zombie. What’s more, since some of these things can be dangerous, homeopaths sensibly require that the solutions be diluted. Please note that “dilute” is being used here in the same sense, that when speaking of crack cocaine, we note that it is “mildly habit forming”.

In some instances of “serial dilution” the ingredient has been watered down to the point where it is unlikely to even be in there.

But don’t worry, the water (or whatever) retains the memory of the active ingredient even after it’s gone. It should be noted that a prominent British scientist calculated that one molecule in every liter of water in the UK had likely passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell. To the credit of homeopaths, this Cromwell Preparation has been has huge success; no one been diagnosed with Rump Parliament Disorder in over 350 years.

Solutions retain memory of the active ingredients because of some kind of vibration energy and quantum mechanics. How could you not know that? I am shocked—SHOCKED —that you did not know that.

It’s always frikkin’ quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics are to bad science what girls kissing is to porn.

Don’t have any better idea: Sindy, Foxxxy? Please show us your bosons…

Thankfully, much of this is pretty harmless, and when you rub homeopathic wax on your forehead, it will make you feel better at the same rate as any other placebo.

But its not all harmless. There are still those who will sell it to people with autoimmune disorders and asthma patients. Of course, no harm could come from giving people quantum energized sugar pills so that they don’t suffocate. Others, likely the Field Marshals in the Army of Crapulence, will tell you that vibrated tap water will increase your chances of beating cancer.

There is not a pit of shame deep enough. Well, there is, but I already made one Amy Winehouse reference.

Also, your humble scribe, as a result of having practiced careful homeopathic campaigning is now the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States. Sadly, in the absence of current research, homeopathic donations will not be accepted.

After all, that’d be stupid.

The Best Medicine (except for antibiotics) is Humor-Blogs.com !!

Mitt Romney Destroys America!!!

Listed on humor-blogs.com…

This is almost something I never do – I’m going to write about something that happened today. I know how you feel…I was surprised too.

Consider it an early Christmas present. Or consider it a pre-Triassic mammal that looks like a hamster but has a really impressive name like verymightyandvirilehampsteradon.

It’s really up to you.

Mitt “Mittens” Romney delivered a speech today in which he hoped to dispel the fears of non Mormon Christians by not talking about the fact that he is a Mormon. This is very much like what I do when my daughter asks me where I’m going as I sneak outside to smoke.

“Daddy, where are you going?”

“Hey Look! Dora is on!”

This works pretty well for now, but I obviously need to quit smoking.

In the same vein it is widely perceived (especially by Governor Romney’s pollsters) that many fundamentalist Christians have concerns about the specific differences of the Mormon Church. Can this speech allay their fears?”

So Mittens says, “Freedom requires religion.”

Wait…what?

Freedom requires religion? Freedom REQUIRES religion? Freedom frikkin’ requires frikkin’ religion!?!

Religion requires freedom in order to be practiced and this is a no-brainer that most people respect without much in the way of an argument. Not that there aren’t people who don’t agree, but instead of forming a carefully worded explanation, they explode. Or they turn into Christopher Hitchens. (Ha! Irony!)

I understand that is just pandering to religious conservatives and Baptist hair engineers. However, when a person states that religion is a necessity for a civil society, I’m inclined to gag.

Gagging requires inclination…no scratch that, gagging is a reflex.

The last time freedom required religion was back when the Catholic Church owned all the printing presses and wouldn’t let anyone learn to read Latin. Wait…that doesn’t sound right.

That must be because it’s wrong. Of course, so is Mittens.

On its face, what Mittens said is like stating that we must have diapers in order to have shit.

Personally, I only need diapers when I want to feel extra confident around the office, but that’s not the point.

Freedom comes first in the order of things, not religion. Humans have appetites: we want things. Be it personal safety, personal expression, chili fries or the completely denuded skull of Ben Affleck, we are creatures who seek out goals that we perceive to be good. This applies to very high minded things like universal human equality, but it also applies to having shiny, moistened gherkins slowly inserted into our nostrils by a prostitute. It also applies to religion and wanting to be President.

Freedom is nothing more or less than the ability to pursue these goals unimpeded. It’s basic, it’s primeval and it comes well before things like ladders, rain coats, tacos, accounting tables and anyone’s belief in any god. Religion is not a prerequisite for freedom; it is just an expression of freedom. Civil society and the application of freedom are the best things that ever happened to religion.

So, I would argue (and I would win) that religion is closer to the hooker with the glistening nose gherkin than it is to one of the basic engines of human nature such as the freedom of the individual.

I guess it probably doesn’t need to be pointed out that when Mittens says ‘religion or ‘faith’ what he likely means is ‘Christianity as practiced by those who can vote’. This is all about how Mittens is not a weirdo because he’s a Mormon, and that ‘regular’ Christians should just still vote for him. (As opposed to Democrat Mike Gravel, who is a weirdo because he eats urinal cakes…)

If he were really talking about no faith in particular then I think that he would also be a liar. Do we think that Mittens finds Islam, Wicca, Christianity and Norse polytheism to be equally vital to the continued existence of freedom?

If so, I’m assuming he’d appoint a Supreme Court Justice who wanted to swear his oath while holding a replica of Odin’s eye patch.

Does religion remain necessary to freedom if it promotes violence?

Does religion remain necessary to freedom when it discriminates?

Does a lame, church-pandering, politically calculated speech by Mitt and his Important Hair warrant this much bitching and moaning on my part?

Actually it does.

In the practice of moderate and reasonable people, religion is just dandy even if I disagree with the premise. Heck, in some hands, religion is genuinely noble. But if freedom requires religion then your government needs religion to keep you free. If your government has religion then the one freedom it can never give you is freedom from religion, and that pretty much rips the guts out of your freedoms entirely. So really, as far as government is concerned, the only thing that freedom needs is for someone like Mittens to leave you alone.

Now get those pickles out of your nose, you pervert.

Oh yeah, Mittens? Please shut the hell up.

 

 

 

Exercise Your Freedom and Visit Humor-Blogs.com !!

Do You Know Something?

“There is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses.” – Aristotle

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” – Aristotle

I like Aristotle’s work and I expect that I always will - the idea that the starting point for knowledge is invariably the real world always seemed so sensible. Conversely that filthy Hellenic ingrate continues to ignore me – would it kill him to return my calls or answer the letters so lovingly burned in my backyard goat-shrine? Same goes for Katie Couric – she has become very distant since realizing she sucks at being a news anchor.

When I first started studying philosophy (yes, I accept your barely hidden mockery…) the amount of rhetorical nonsense that flew around me was staggering. Everyone spoke in coded analogies about how you could never really know something for sure:

“Knowledge is like driving a car through the desert and then getting out of that car to understand how the hitch-hiker sees the cactus differently than you see the steering wheel of your car…you can’t know his cactus and he can’t know your steering wheel – that’s what I’m saying“

I wish I could say that I had built that paragraph from scratch.

Relativism and subjectivism ultimately teach us that unless we know virtually everything, we can’t really know much of anything. Also, if you can never ‘know his cactus’, you can hardly say that it’s a bad cactus, can you? The unknowable cacti of the world could be committing genocide or encouraging people to watch professional hockey and you can’t say anything because you have never known, and can never know another man’s cactus (I’m tempted to get that put on a tee shirt).

I didn’t need to spend any time or money on higher education in order to not know things. I came up with much better excuses as to why I didn’t know something than I ever heard from the great mass of ‘whatever’ relativists who were inhaling my tuition and my oxygen. Many of these excuses involved Jack Daniels or accidentally burning off my mandatory (grad student uniform code) university beard with a cigar, but they were convincing works of misdirection all the same and did not require the accreditation of a major university.

David Hume, by comparison weakly claimed that just because something appeared to cause an event ninety-nine times we could never be entirely sure that it would cause the same event on the one-hundredth time. Hume said that we invented an ironclad relationship when all we really did was learn to anticipate something that felt like a relationship. In other words, you can never directly witness cause and effect but you can predict it.

If I ever get to meet David Hume, I will swing an axe into his groin. If he fears the bifurcation of his pubic arrangement, he will attempt to dodge me (-3 modifier on d20 since he is dead and a Scot). This is because your anticipation of my axe splitting your kindling does not need to be one hundred percent. Ninety or ninety-five percent will be plenty for you to form the habit of not getting jabbed in the biscuit if you can avoid it.

To be fair, I’d get the hell out of the way for about one-in-a hundred.

We are what we do and we decide what to do because we accept that “it might be possible” is not enough for us to risk getting our naughty bits twinned. We dodge because we know, and we know because we perceive and then think about it — amazing, eh?
Now, I know what you’re thinking; “Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?”

No, I am not. But every day, I drive to work in my car – yes, yes now you get it!

You don’t? Oh…

Every morning I rise as late as I possibly can and only after a lot of bitching and moaning (Pardon me — link war…) I drag my big, Sinister butt to work. My commute lasts almost exactly twenty-five minutes and covers precisely the same forty-five kilometers of highway every day. Every day I smoke two cigarettes on this drive and drink about half of my giant, palpitation-inducing travel mug of coffee. Taking into account the accidental variations of the seasons, and the occasional moose, I see basically the same thing every day, and perform essentially the same actions.

…and so would you…

Where I see a small church with a badly degraded parking lot, you would not see guitar demigod Mark Knopfler breaking into that really great solo from the end of Telegraph Road. Nor would you see something more regular like a gas station or a coffee shop in place of that little, white church.

Or if you did, you’d be wrong – and we could prove it.

You could claim that it really is Mark Knopfler and that it’s just possible that we are both viewing the same thing and coming up with different results because of pure subjectivity. We could ask passers-by, nearby residents and as each replied “church, dumb ass” we could make your option of seeing Mr. Knopfler ever more remote.

You could still claim that ‘it’s always possible’ and technically, you’d be right. However, the possibility you’re banking on is so unlikely as to make it effectively useless. The church would be a church, Mark Knopfler would be nowhere in the area and you would just be wrong – there would be no mystery of epistemology or ontology, you would just be wrong.

But well before we got this far, I’d be forced to get my axe…and you *would* try to avoid it.

LISTED ON HUMOR-BLOGS.COM

I Don’t Believe in Your Beanie.

…Metaphor torture for beginners…

There’s an entire mash of concepts and proposals that I don’t believe. People are always saying things without the benefit of proof or substantiation of any kind. Sadly, this does not include the local constabulary when they remind me that the restraining order is still in effect.

This cannot be news to any of you (not the restraining order, certainly…), since at some point everyone is exposed to some kind of premise that is either not proven or something that is unprovable. For example;

Unproven; “I think I’m sexually attracted to the planet Jupiter.”

Unprovable; “The ghost of Bill Bixby keeps shouting at me.”

Now you may very well have a deep, groin-oriented passion for The King of the Planets and I suppose that you could even measure it empirically but under no circumstances will I help you in any way, pervert. Regardless, as ludicrous as it appears on its face, it is possible that you want to nuzzle that big, red dot.

On the other hand, there is no system of measure or calculation in existence that can determine if Bill Bixby even has a ghost, much less that the ghost is shouting at you in humorous exasperation (My Favorite Martian) or in anticipation of radioactive, wall-smashing fury (The Courtship of Eddie’s Father).

Either way…well, let’s just say I’m not going to get you to help my daughter do her homework.

It may not come as a big surprise that I kind of feel the same way about gods, angels, psychics and what the Amazing Grumpy poetically calls “woo-woo”. Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not going to pull a Richard Dawkins and claim that if you’re religious that you have the evolutionary equivalent of scurvy, but I will remain politely skeptical of your beliefs.
At the end of the day though, what I cannot get around in my own clouded mind is that any god (say, your god) is not only no more likely than any other god (say, Hermes) but is in fact no more likely than the shouting ghost of Bill Bixby. Neither is testable, and neither can be either proved or disproved. No real evidence supports the belief that gods of any kind are real (same for Bill’s ghost), nor that any god or divine influence has ever actually done anything that can be proven (again,ditto for the spirit of Bixby). Even if we just stick to the realm of abstract logic, there’s no real imperative to show that your god, or the shrieking Bixby poltergeist, are real.

As a result, in addition to being Sinister, I am also (by definition) a skeptic. That’s me, The Sinister Skeptic (I even wear a cape and tights to fight crime…well, I wear a cape and tights). I feel the need to reiterate that I am not against religion, even though I don’t happen to be a member of the gang myself.

In that regard, I guess my feelings on religion are very much like my feelings on funny hats. I think you should be free to wear the product of the strangest haberdashery that fills your prescription.

I may not be inclined to wear a jester’s cap or a gorilla head with integrated antennae, but I sincerely hope that you will grab whatever headgear moves you and cram it into your eschatological situation.

For the sake of full disclosure, I did once own a funny hat and wear it on a regular basis – I really liked that hat too, it was comfortable and I had nicely broken it in. Alas, the funny hat eventually seemed too ostentatious, and I could no longer justify its enormous ornamentation so I downgraded to something a little more sublime. Eventually, I started questioning the need for funny hats altogether (even those small, Asian hats that only look funny when you get really close) and finally I just took the damn thing off.

While I am not asking you to take your hat off, I am asking you not to use it as a reason to make other people do things. My daughters should not have to wade through your pseudo science on how the Great Haberdasher created English muffins. I understand that some people think that the verdict is out on baking and that the entire school of making farinaceous foods is full of holes - don’t take my word for it, just look at bagels (ha!).

You and your hat-wearing pals should not get a tax break when those of us with nude heads do not. Your hat should not tell you how to vote and your hat should certainly never tell me how to vote. Your hat should not sell magnets and tell me that they cure migraines. Your hat should not lie to me and claim that it can bend spoons or predict the future with the power of The Hat.

Your hat has no place near the altar or the bedroom unless they are your own. Should your hat ever make you hurt anyone, take it off and burn it.

If you insist on doing these things in the name of your hat, I’ll have no choice but to get Bixby’s ghost to yell at you.

And remember, you wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.