Science fills us all with great wonder and it has done so for generations, but there have been an incredible number of “scientific discoveries” which were later found to be completely false. This list looks at ten of the more fascinating cases of scientific falsehoods from history.
“Rain Follows the Plow” is the name given to a climatology concept which is now completely debunked. The theory said that human settlement caused a permanent increase in rainfall – thus enabling man to move to areas previously considered arid. It is this 19th century theory that brought about the settlement of the Great Plains (previously known as the Great American Desert), and parts of South Australia. The theory was eventually refuted by climatologists, and in the settled areas of South Australia, drought brought an end to the attempted settlements.
This strange theory has a relatively normal name, but rest assured, the concept is far from it. Hans Hörbiger (pictured above), an Austrian engineer and inventor received a vision in 1894 which told him that ice was the substance of all basic substances and had created the ice moons, ice planets, and a “global ether”. He said “I knew that Newton had been wrong and that the sun’s gravitational pull ceases to exist at three times the distance of Neptune[.]” Unbelievably this theory got a great deal of support. One of the strongest supporters of the concept was Houston Stewart Chamberlain (British born posthumous son-in-law of composer Richard Wagner) who went on to become one of the leading theorists behind the development of the Nazi Party in Germany.
Alchemy has its roots (in the Western world) in Ancient Egypt where it combined with metallurgy in a form of early science. The Egyptian alchemists discovered the formulas for making mortar, glass, and cosmetics. From Egypt it eventually spread to the rest of the Ancient world and led to modern alchemy in which men would try to turn metals into gold, to conjure up genies, and perform all manner of bizarre not-so-science-like activities. While it has contributed in some ways to modern science, the discipline of true science caused the death of alchemy which could not stand up to the rigorous testing of its pseudoscience.
From the 16th century, European experts in geography were convinced that California was an island separate from the North American mainland. Maps of the time show a large island on the left of the land mass and California continued to appear this way even into the 18th century. There was at the time also a rumor that California was an earthly paradise like the Garden of Eden or Atlantis. A romance novel from 1510 describes it thus:
Know, that on the right hand of the Indies there is an island called California very close to the side of the Terrestrial Paradise; and it is peopled by black women, without any man among them, for they live in the manner of Amazons. – Las Sergas de Esplandián by Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo
The matter was finally put to rest indisputably on the 1774-1776 expeditions of Juan Bautista de Anza. Interestingly, it is likely that within 25 million years, Baja California and part of Southern California really will separate from North America due to tectonic plate movement.
Geocentricity is the concept which states that the earth is the center of the Universe and that all other objects move around it. The view was universally embraced in Ancient Greece and very similar ideas were held in Ancient China. The idea was supported by the fact that the sun, stars, and planets appear to revolve around Earth, and the physical perception that the Earth is stable and not moving. This was combined with the belief that the earth was a sphere; belief in a flat earth was well gone by the 3rd century BC. The geocentric model was eventually displaced with the work of of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler in the 16th Century.
In classical antiquity right up to modern times, it was believed that the body contained four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. It was believed that the right balance of these four humors made a person healthy but an excess or decrease in any one of these would cause illness. Because of this belief, treatments of sickness would include bloodletting, purges, and emetics. Occasionally a mixture of herbs would be used to restore the balance. The humors were also applied to foods – for example wine was choleric (yellow bile). This classification still exists today to some extent, as we refer to some foods as “hot” and others as “dry”. The concept of humors was not replaced until 1858 when Rudolf Virchow published theories of cellular pathology.
Vitalism states that the functions of living things are controlled by a “vital force” and not biophysical means. Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies – and it has ties to the four humors. It is sometimes referred to as a “life spark” and even as the soul. In the Eastern traditions it is essentially the same thing as “qi” or “chi”, which is heavily tied in to oriental medicinal methods. The concept is (as can be expected) completely rejected by most mainstream scientists. In 1967, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, stated “And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.”
Maternal Impression is an old belief that a mother’s thoughts while pregnant can impart special characteristics on the child in her womb. For many years this idea was used to explain congenital disorders and birth defects. Maternal Impression was used to explain the disorder suffered by the Elephant Man: it was suggested that his mother was frightened by an elephant while she was pregnant with him – thereby imprinting the memory of an elephant on her child. Depression was also explained in this manner. If a mother had moments of strong sadness during pregnancy, it was believed that her child would ultimately suffer from depression in later life. Genetic theory caused the almost complete eradication of this belief in the 20th century.
The theory of phlogiston dates to 1667 when Johann Joachim Becher (a German physicist) suggested that there was a fifth element (phlogiston) to go with the four classical elements (Earth, Water, Air, Fire) which was contained within objects that could burn. It was believed that when an object burned, it released its phlogiston (an element without taste, mass, odor or color) and left behind a powdery substance called calx (what we now know to be oxide). Objects that burned in air were considered to be rich in phlogiston and the fact that a fire burned out when oxygen was removed was seen as proof that oxygen could only absorb a limited amount of the substance. This theory also led to the idea that the human need to breathe had a sole function which was to remove phlogiston from the body. The entire concept was superseded by Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier’s discovery that combustion could only occur with the help of a gas such as oxygen.
Before microscopes and theories of cells and germs, man had other ideas about the creation of living things. He bizarrely believed that life arose from inanimate matter (for example, maggots come spontaneously from rotting meat). Proponents of this view (virtually everyone) used the Bible as a source of evidence, due to the fact that God made man from dust. However, the view did exist before Christianity and Aristotle said, in no uncertain terms, that some animals grow spontaneously and not from other animals of their kind. Earlier believers had to come up with some pretty strange ideas to make their theory work: Anaximander (a Greek philosopher who taught Pythagoras) believed that at some point in man’s history, humans had been born from the soil spontaneously in adult form, otherwise they could never have survived. Before we laugh too hard at the ancients, we should note that many Scientists right up to the 19th century believed this, and some even wrote recipe books for making animals. One such recipe (to make a scorpion) calls for basil, placed between two bricks and left in sunlight. The theory was not finally put to rest until 1859, when Louis Pasteur proved it wrong once and for all.
Contributor: JFrater
























January 20th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Wow, great list. The only one i already knew of was the four humors.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:18 am
wow interesting! didn’t know most of these
January 20th, 2009 at 2:33 am
I have to say that I didn’t know most of them when I started researching the list either!
January 20th, 2009 at 2:36 am
I think you can add Global Warming to that list also…soon to be debunked if not already…
Take care
January 20th, 2009 at 2:37 am
Rubbish list apart from childern are impressionised in the womb. True, dont know if it is thoughts, outside stimulie or whatever but this one cant be disregarded,
January 20th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Dev – it would cause a scandal if I said I agree with you – so I won’t
January 20th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Interesting list, but how many of these were “scientific” in the way that we would understand the word, and how many would better be called “philosophical” (for the want of a better word)?
(“Posthumous son-in-law” sounds a bit strange!)
January 20th, 2009 at 2:48 am
I’ll say it jfrater, i agree with Dev, and i’d say its been debunked. Just dont ask any scientists under Gore’s payroll.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:52 am
BTW, I have been to the site in photo #10. My family used to live in the town closest to that.
If I weigh into the Global Warming side-discussion I am going to get very angry, so I won’t.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:53 am
astraya: he was a posthumous son-in-law because Wagner was dead when the guy married his daughter
As for how many were science – “scientia” means knowledge – so all of them are by the broad definition of the word.
Rascalian: thanks
January 20th, 2009 at 3:05 am
very good list. the whole nature of science is that observations (knowledge) accumulate over time and shape our view of reality. NOTHING is ever proven, merely found NOT to be supported by further observation: dis-proven. all “facts” are open to review, but the collateral evidence tends to support some theories over others.
happy inauguration day to the USA! hope it’s good for the whole globe
rock on listverse
January 20th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Im glad u mentioned god in #1…
but he should have got an special place just for him, he is so debunked.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Shouldn’t creationism be here somewhere? Lol.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:28 am
It turns out, maternal impression may be revived. Studies have shown that the emotional and physical state of the mother during certain periods of pregnancy can trigger the turning on or off of genes in the child. The study is called epigenetics.
look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Transgenerational_epigenetic_observations
January 20th, 2009 at 3:29 am
Regarding number one: I have vague recollections of an ancient Greek philosopher believing that frogs came from mud.
And there was something about barnacle geese coming from driftwood.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:41 am
9. astraya-
i SO agree about leaving “the Global Warming side-discussion” to the side, or “I am going to get very angry”! complete agreement here.
let’s have this list live in theories of the past. if someone wants to make a “currently controversial science” list (could be SO fun
) and give it to jfrater, power to them, and let’s have a comment storm over there, then.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Without a doubt, religion should be in the number one spot on this list. It truly has been debunked and is only followed by those with minds that are easily manipulated. It’s about time people stopped taking religious practitioners seriously. Why should they be allowed to have any influence on political issues, or any other issues affecting the mainstream population?
January 20th, 2009 at 3:55 am
WHAT! THE WORLD ISN’T FLAT?!
January 20th, 2009 at 4:03 am
Religion is not a science. Or at least it’s not by my understanding of the word. It might be by Jamie’s. Creationism isn’t a science, either.
Jamie: you didn’t mention anything about ’scientia in the broad definition of the word’ in your introduction, so I understood “science” in the modern meaning. I’m sure an actual scientist like Anon will be able to explain ’scientific method’ far better than a classical muso English teacher like I can, but it has to do with repeated, repeatable, verified, verifiable observations, hypotheses, experiments and not manipulating the results to fit with a previously-held theory (eg geocentricism).
Can any scientist here create a list of “ancient scientific beliefs that were discovered surprisingly early and which have stood the test of time”?
January 20th, 2009 at 4:12 am
Geocentricity:
The ancient Greek did NOT believe in geocentricity. Check it
January 20th, 2009 at 4:18 am
What about the theory of the ‘travelling womb’ to explain hysteria in women?
January 20th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Astraya: accepted – religion is not science, but as creationism and the reference to a god were brought up by other commenter’s, I thought I’d add my bit. I wonder what other readers think…
January 20th, 2009 at 4:31 am
19. astraya -
here is a very nice, basic diagram of “the scientific method” -yes, it’s an actual process, a way of thinking (astraya, i KNOW you know this, so no offense at all, please. perhaps others -lacking a real science education here in the states??- do not
)
what is the scientific method?
designed for kids doing science-fair projects. basic, but accurate.
(hey, i’m a botanist too, like anon. though a newer presence here at LV)
January 20th, 2009 at 4:33 am
crap, the link didn’t work, try this:
http://tinyurl.com/4j8jwj
January 20th, 2009 at 4:43 am
where science ends, religion begins.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:53 am
I believe that to call religious practitioners “easily manipulated” is out and out, rude. Were the scientists that believed in the theories we laugh at today just “easily manipulated”?
That said, I don’t think spontaneous generation is really even dead. It’s just been fluffed up and repackaged as molecules to man evolution. Isn’t it the same principle? Life form in-animate matter?
Also interesting that the spontaneous generation of the day was debunked by the law of biogenesis which states that life can only come from life. Molecules to man evolution has still to “debunk” that scientific fact but I’m sure the effort will go on.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Jfrater, always with your subtled comdemnations against science and atheism, and of course the apologetic nature of your religious comments. First off, Alchemy was never a science, second, the beauty of science is that it keeps building on prior knowledge, with the help of knew thechnologies, while erroneous articles are then removed.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:55 am
Well what about Maxwell’s and Einstein’s theory about light?
)
According to Maxwell light is waves, according to Einstein light is particles. Almost everyone believed Maxwell untill it was proved that Einstein was right
January 20th, 2009 at 5:03 am
Stizzy: I don’t see calling religious practitioners “easily manipulated” as being rude – it’s just my personal opinion. I’m sure many of those practitioners have their own views, probably quite strong views in many cases. The main point I am making is that they should not have any influence on others around them.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:05 am
I was going to be highly upset if Spontaneous generation wasn’t on this list, that one is very obvious.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Fodland: Doesn’t quantum physics now say that light can be both a wave and a particle? I forget the technicalities of it but I think that’s the accepted theory now.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Just because it’s your personal opinion, doesn’t make it any less rude. There are easily manipulated people in all walks of life, yet you paint all people who believe in a deity with the same brush. And if all these people are just “easily manipulated” you need not worry about them influencing those around them, because surely they’ll only influence the easily manipulated right?
January 20th, 2009 at 5:27 am
19. astraya -
p.s. your definition of science is spot-on,
“it has to do with repeated, repeatable, verified, verifiable observations, hypotheses, experiments and not manipulating the results to fit with a previously-held theory (eg geocentricism).”
so no knocking yourself for being “a classical muso English teacher”! whatever country you reside in, and whatever discipline you teach now, is very lucky to have you
January 20th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Stizzy: Ahh, but they do influence those around them. How many countries laws are guided by religious goals; how many times does the Church of England get involved in political issues; how many times does the Vatican get involved in non-religious issues; how many Americans try to use their religious influence in everything from selecting their politicians to what their children are taught in schools?
January 20th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Lol, someone in my sister’s year 11 geography class genuinely thought the Earth was flat, just like on a map. She also thought Rainbows were a source of renuable energy and Hawaii was next to Bali.
Good list. I like the science type ones…
January 20th, 2009 at 5:34 am
what about phrenology. People used to believe the shape of your head determines all of your characteristics and what jobs you should do.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:46 am
That chick from The View Sherry Shephard said she thought the world was flat just recently. Hilarious!
Oh, and global warming hysteria will soon go the way of global cooling.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:28 am
But see your starting assumption is that all their influence is negative. Countries laws are guided by religious principles, are all these principles bad? People have imposed their own suppositions on top of them, but when you get to the core, are they such a hazzardous influence? Many of the positive principles we take for granted today were founded on said “religious” principles”.
As the Church of ENGLAND, should it not have something to say about political matters? Should the Vatican, within an increasingly non-religious world, stay silent or contribute thought? Does an American parent not have the right to raise up their child with knowledge of God?
It is true that many people have used their influence for selfish and greedy reasons. They put their own wrappings on top of the core fruit of those foundational principles. But should we be so hasty as to throw out the baby with the bathwater? The church has become an institution, but is this the fault of Jesus / God or people?
I once heard of a bumper sticker slogan that said “God, save me from your followers” Sadly, many can relate to this, even those within this circle of “followers”. People are pricks end of the day, and they will prickify everything they can. But when you get back to the core of the issue, you find something positive which has profoundly affected the world.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Although Isaac Newton is known as one of histories greatest scientists the vast majority of his work was alchemy. in fact after his death his body was found to contain large amounts of mercury due to these pursuits. He also wrote a number of religious texts in his later life.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:22 am
I would say that astrology belongs on this list but so many people still believe that bunk…
BTW, greetings from America only 2 hours and 38 minutes until our long national nightmare is over!!!!!
January 20th, 2009 at 8:18 am
God and religion should be number one?? lol @ the smug little atheists
January 20th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Spontaneous generation was the example used to teach us the scientific method when I was in… fourth grade, maybe? I remember thinking at the time that while the theory technically made sense, it was so easily disproven it seemed highly unlikely that no one prior to the 19th had noticed. As for calling the Theory of Evolution Spontaneous Generation 2.0, that’s just silly.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:37 am
As I have said to so many people: “Global warming and global cooling are natural processes.” However, I do agree that it should be given it’s own spot on a different list.
Religion, on the other hand, is a horrible contrivance. It is a science too. It involves the science of Sociology and Psychology, and is used as a means of socio-economic control. This is why church leaders always hold the ears of those in power. It isn’t because those in power are believers, but because they recognize and respect the influence of those religious leaders. The obvious exception being in Muslim countries.
So, I do support religion being an honorable mention, if for no other reason than that it uses science to accomplish its unstated goals. If you doubt this, just ask yourself: Why does the Vatican hold a non-voting seat in the UN? Why do Evangelists have political backing and power? Why do huge churches wield any power in government?
The Roman Catholic church paved the way for the merging of the power of church and state. All any of them have done in recent years is change their methods, and gone about their tasks much more quietly as the population becomes more intolerant of the knowledge of such manipulation and control.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:03 am
I have one thought on the matter of Global warming.
Scenario if global warming is real-We will have to stop using fossil fuels and start using other sources of energy.
Scenario if Global warming isn’t real-Fossil fuels run out and we have to use different source of energy.
Either way we are going to have to change what fuel we use.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Was it just me or did the site go down for a while?
Good list by the way
January 20th, 2009 at 10:18 am
If the four humors don’t exist, how do you explain that stuff that comes up in the back of my throat every time the ShamWow guy appears?
January 20th, 2009 at 10:31 am
On global warming, of course it is real. Everyone believes that about 12000 years ago there was an ice age that covered a much greater area with ice than it currently does. That is to say the Earth warmed up. It has been warming up for thousands of years and will probably continue, until at some point it will start to cool and return to another ice age. It has happened several times before and it will happen again.
Now, is man responsible for it…no! Gore is just making a ton of money as are these other Chicken Littles and they aren’t going to shut up about it as long as the money flows.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:34 am
By the way jfrater, great site! I loved the books of lists when I was younger, I own at least 3 (don’t know if there’s more than that). Found your site about a week ago and have been having a ball catching up.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Duufnick I like the way you think. My friends all think I’m crazy when I tell them that it’s a load of bunk.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:37 am
blitz, I realize that “where science ends, religion begins” is a common saying, but I hope you also realize that it is a huge logical fallacy.
It is not logical to say, for example, “science can’t currently explain to my satisfaction why black holes exist, therefore ALIENS!!! And ghosts!!”
January 20th, 2009 at 10:41 am
preach the good word Duffnick.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Rain follows the plow…. as a resident of South Australia, I can tell you it is indeed completely debunked. There’s many ghost towns north of the Goyder line that testify to that.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:49 am
jamie I just sent you an email about registration troubles..I’m telling you here so you know it’s me and not some fake Callie.
This was an informative list..I didn’t know most of these.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I just spewed yellow and black bile after reading comment #40
January 20th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Does it need to be fresh basil?
January 20th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I have to take issue with this list, in that very few of these beliefs were actually the product of SCIENCE per se; that is to say, they were either not concepts developed by actual scientists (such as the World Ice Theory) with knowledge of the fields that were pertinent to each question, but rather the invention of lay people and such—or they were simply NOT products of the scientific method, in that they were not verified by observation and experiment, nor was evidence built under them to support them without bias or dogmatic influence.
I’d also take issue with #6, Jamie, where you state that “…the view” (that the earthw as the center of the universe) “was universally embraced in Ancient Greece”. No it most certainly was NOT. Aristarchus was just one–and not the only one–of the ancient Greek philosopher/scientists who believed otherwise–that the earth moved around the sun, and that the sun was in fact an immense ball of burning gas. Other Greeks, its true, stood against this idea, and of course for a time they won out. But at any event, the view was certainly not “universally” embraced. The dissent of many learned Greeks is what laid the groundwork for Copernicus and Kepler, much later.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:04 am
JFrater: I wish you reconsidered Alchemy a little. First of all Alchemy is not a science, except as for a set of practices which were the basis for modern chemistry. But that’s not the core of Alchemy. Alchemy is essentially a philosophy, and a set of practices whose ultimate goal was not physical Transmutation (“turning whatever into gold”), but rather discovering spiritual truths represented by Transmutation: the capacity of the human being to transcend physicality and reach ultimate wisdom and spiritual immortality.
Of course science will say that all this is rubbish, but that doesn’t mean that it has been debunked by science. It just means that Alchemy, like religion and philosophy, transcends the realm of Science and works on a higher realm where Science still hasn’t been able to even glimpse.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Maternal Impression is just another way for men to label women for anything that might be wrong with the baby. What a load of horseshit! That’s kind of like if I keep thinking that I am going to have a child that will be a genius with no side affects while I’m pregnant means I will get that? Like pre-ordering a kid through a catalog! (although that might be fun!) How someone thinks doesn’t affect the baby inside….if that is true than my kid would have been an axe murder by now! I had a horrible pregnancy and I had nasty thoughts about everything because I was so sick and in pain for 5 months. Needless to say the kid is wholesome and sound and is a great student! So take that, Maternal Impression!
btw…love this list…it was fun to see what people will swallow! (agree with the global warming being bunk!)
January 20th, 2009 at 11:24 am
To be honest, I’ve never heard of “maternal impression” as a theory, but I was afraid when I was pregnant that my moods might affect the baby. Or that maybe if I enjoyed some peach skoal my baby would end up a bedwetter until she was thirteen.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“This is when science didn’t have to have any specific purpose.”
Even though I am a great believer in science and a skeptic, part of me can’t help but be a little disappointed that “science” isn’t practiced so loosely and creatively as it once was. Spontaneous generation? World Ice Theory? I could have come up with that! To think, I could have been a scientific genius in the 18th century! Either that, or be burned as a witch.
Actually, probably the latter now that I think of it…I’m a single, mouthy woman covered in moles. I wouldn’t have stood a chance.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
the maternal impression theory still holds some water you know. Even geneticists will admit that even with the most identical genetic material major deviations can occur. These are listed under post-miotic changes, and they range from maternal upbringing to random gene translocation. So further genetics might prove old genetics false in discounting maternal impression.
I also notice you didn’t mention that fact that Einstein’s theory of relativity was later debunked by his successor’s theories of “special relativity” and that we only use Einstein’s in the college and highschool level.
And lastly I have heard most of these theory’s pop up in the history of sciences. Chemistry and Biology owe a lot to the people who studied spontaneous generation. And imagine you lived thousands of years ago without the aid of microscopes or even the belief that anything exists that you cannot sea? water generating frog spawn and rotten meat generating maggots is still a practical belief in your everyday life.
oh and ps. after reading #40 I thought “and now America’s nightmare begins…”
January 20th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I saw a few previous comments on the whole light being a wave or a particle so I thought I would just clear it up…
Wave-Particle Duality
Its been shown that light acts as both a wave and a particle under different circumstances. So both Maxwell and Einstein were correct and their theories, equations, and formulas continue to be used to this day. The key idea is that light is an electromagnetic wave that propogates through space in discreet packets or “quanta.” These packets are the “particles” or “photons” we talk about when we talk about light. Now its important to recognize that light is just a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum that our eyes perceive as visible light. The rest of the spectrum includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared, UV, x-rays and so on. One thing to note is that “light particles” (photons) have no rest mass. However, light is not the only thing to demonstrate this wave-particle duality. The deBroglie hypothesis states that all matter behaves in this way. And was later verified by an electron (which has rest mass) observed as both a wave and a particle. More recently, more massive objects have been shown to demonstrate the same duality characteristics. And this really leads into a lot of theoritcal discussion about the nature of the universe which is interesting but way past the scope of this discussion…
And I know I shouldn’t but I’m going to add my thoughts about “Global Warming” without (hopefully) offending some people…
I don’t like the term “Global Warming” because it is a political term used for propoganda. However, we can’t escape the fact that the Earth undergoes climate change. It has in the past, it will in the future and there’s nothing we can do about it. Which is why it upsets me when so-called “scientists” propose these crazy plans to combat it. We really don’t understand the Earth’s climate well enough to influence it. Our computer simulations are crude approximations at best and are no indication of what will happen in the future. I actually heard a proposal to put a huge shield in space to partially block the sun’s rays… Absolutely ludicrous… It stupid reasoning like this that could result in a mass extinction of the human population. The best thing to do would be to stop arguing over what’s causing “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” but rather prepare for the future and to learn to live with a changing climate.
As for the use of fossil fuels, the issue shouldn’t be whether we’re running out or not. It’s a crude form of energy. I know we as humans can come up with better alternatives that are more efficient and environmentally friendly. I sometimes think that way in the future, kids will be learning about the primitive 20th century, and think of us as crude cavemen or something…
Well there’s my $.02…
Oh and I love the site Jaime, I’m just sad I read through all the old lists already, I quite enjoyed doing it, now I have to wait a day for a new list, lol…
January 20th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
randall: LOL! i knew that jayfray’s comment about the greeks was gonna ruffle your feathers.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
~sigh~
How can the posts degenerated so badly, so quickly?
January 20th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
19. Astraya
One bit of science that has stood up to the test of time was the work of Eratosthenes some time around 250BC who used pretty good scientific method – devised a hypothesis based on observations and a test of his hypothesis – to calculate the approximate circumference of the Earth. He wasn’t too far away from the modern measured distance of roughly 40000km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
January 20th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“phlogiston (an element without taste, mass, odor or color)”
Ha Ha! that’s convenient!
January 20th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
well, there goes my memberships to the Flat Earth Society, the Alchemy Association of America, the Meyers-Briggs test (which is based on the 4 humors), and the Earth-Centered Holistic Organization (ECHO).
I think I’ll pack my bags for California Island, where Global Warming seems to have no effect.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
why are all the “personality” tests so popular, if the Four Humors concept has been debunked??
Aren’t the Meyers-Briggs and other ITEJ-type tests really based on there being four “personalities” (aka humors)??
January 20th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Bartenders are today’s “alchemists”…
January 20th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I’m studying oceanography and our tutor suggested we read a book – for pleasure rather than for much scientific value – by Robert Kunzig called Mapping The Deep. It essentially charts the development of oceanography from the late 18th century to the modern day. It’s interesting to see how early oceanographers developed hypotheses (or in some cases made up wild claims based on dodgy assumptions), how they were accepted and eventually debunked as scientific method became more rigorous and technology more advanced. I think we were all a little surprised to see how recently things we take for granted such as mid ocean ridges and plate tectonic theory were completely unknown.
Coolest thing about science – it never stops going forward. (As long as funding and stuff remains available – but that’s way off topic!)
January 20th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Danger(55) – Actually, I think it depends on how the basil is prepared. Try the following for the specified results:
1. bleached basil = pale white scorpions
2. fresh basil = green scorpions
3. stale dried out basil = brown scorpions
4. burned basil = black scorpions
5. chili-basil hybrid = red scorpions
Good luck with them bricks!
January 20th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
The beginnings of Philosophy were basically Science. Though the Pre Socratic philosophers were wrong in most of their theories like Anaximander was of human life, they are still quite interesting…
January 20th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
A word about religion and science.
Never, never, never speak of the two as aspects of the same or similar thing.
Religion (organized superstition) deals purely with human belief. Belief is 100% subjective and that makes it philosophical by nature. There are no tests, experiments, no technology to prove or disprove anything.
Science is based on objective thought, theory, experimentation, documentation, and most importantly – unrestrained peer review. It exists independently of any individual or group of individuals.
Philosophy and science are completely different disciplines and never the twain shall meet.
P.S. – human caused global warming is purely subjective
P.S.S. – 02/20/09 has the USA changed? philosophically maybe, scientifically – not at all
January 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
That was a dirty trick rushfan. You get the bucslim ‘Wiener of the Day’ prize. Now go sit in the corner until you’re called.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
For number 6, you can’t forget about the accomplisments of Tycho Brahe! Kepler is under some suspicion of killing Brahe to take his post and take over his work.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I think Kepler was after Brahe’s beautiful silver nose!
January 20th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Even IF you don’t believe global warming is caused by mans’ activity (and womans’ for that matter), are not the measures taken to combat global warming good ANYWAY? Surely reducing foreign dependency on oil, reducing pollution, being more efficient with out energy and changing our sources of energy to clean renewable ones good for WHATEVER reason?
THe key difference between science and religion is that science is FALSIFIABLE and TESTABLE; religion is neither.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
that was meant to read “with OUR energy” not out…wooops
January 20th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
NO
January 20th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Brilliant list! Being a Physics teacher, I’d heard of all these but its great getting some links to read more!
Can I suggest the addition of JJ Thompsons ‘Plum Pudding Model’ for atomic structure?
January 20th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
if global warming were ever proved to be wrong, that still doesn’t provide an excuse for us to continue with our wasteful, inefficient ways; i totally agree with cymraegbachgen87 on that one.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
67. copperdragon: I think I’ll pack my bags for California Island, where Global Warming seems to have no effect.
****
No effect?
We have essentially two seasons, spring and summer, summer and spring, with the very occasional autumn day thrown in for variety’s sake.
No effect?
My Narcissus, Tulips, and Amaryllis belladonna are sprouting like crazy!
No effect?
It’s January and I’m still wading in the ocean almost daily.
If this is no effect, I’d hate to see what happens when global warming finally catches up with us!
January 20th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
you anti-religion people are funny. go out and live a little and find things you cannot explain with science. You are obviously not listening to the right people when it comes to religion. You would be in the very very small percentile of atheists, so I guess if you were right about this then you would be right more than the other 90 some percent that believe in something. So, since you is so smart can you help me with this programming software, I can’t find the autotuner…help! Overboard, but would love to see their “proof”.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Nor should you (Comment 29) Tom. Sounds like you are what you hate. Someone who doesnt want religion pushed to them, but you pull religion away from other people. Real smart genius.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.”
swap “vitalists” with “religious” and that’s uncannily accurate
January 20th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
funny – I was thinking:
“And so to those of you who may be Globwarmists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.”
Oh, and by the way, on the subject of humans being the center of the global ecosystem – the ultimate result of extreme specialization of a species is – Guess what????
(drum roll) ! ! ! ! ! EXTINCTION!!! yeeaaa
The human race is goners – Done Deal – and no exaltation of the human species above all other living creatures can stop it.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Scientific beliefs?! Most of these were beliefs accepted by religion, not science.
The list universe has fallen in my esteem by allowing that ridiculous title to this list.
I smell a creationist. Go tell it to the Discovery Institute. This is their kind of list.
Sorry no patience to day with delusional self-important religionists.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Sherry – I am not quite sure how you managed to think I was a creationist – but I am not. Virtually every item on this list was accepted by the majority of mainstream science at the time – nothing here has anything to do with religion.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
the discussion indeed digressed -
apologies to jfrat
January 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I was also surprised that Phrenology was not on the list.
Astrology REALLY should have been on the list. I have two words for anyone who thinks Astrology is real. STELLAR DRIFT!
Check this out…
http://thebarefoot.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/naked-eye-astronomy-birthday-edition/
I used to play a trick on people who believe in astrology. I would ask them what their sign was and then read them their horoscope from the newspaper. They would usually tell me how accurate it was. I would then reveal to them that I had read them the wrong one! Man would they get ticked off!
Re: Vitalism. Does it annoy anyone else that so many martial artist believe that CHI is what enables them to break boards and bricks when really it’s just plain old physics?
Re: Rain Follows the Plow. I watched a program called Black Blizzard on the History Channel that included “Rain Follows the Plow” as one the causes of the Dust Bowl in the 1930’s. http://www.history.com/genericContent.do?id=60648
January 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
#36. danmoo
what about phrenology. People used to believe the shape of your head determines all of your characteristics and what jobs you should do.
Agreed- they went so far as to steal Haydn’s skull from his grave Read about it here
Also, I suspect reflexology will make its way to this list ere long.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
These aren’t scientific beliefs. They’re just beliefs.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Senor Shutter, thank you… I can’t believe we’re the only ones to mention astrology!!
And Bucslim, are you losing your bile over my disbelief in sign reading or is it my loathing for arguably the worst leader we have ever had?
January 20th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Global warming anyone?
January 20th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
MW…….is it REALLY?…………..
January 20th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
nice list.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Milos I’m far from a Bible thumper but isn’t it arrogant to assume you know so much about the nature of the universe and our existence? If you really think you are the one with such scathing wisdom please provide answers to all the universal mysteries I’ve been confused about a few things. Thanks, Im sure you’ll be most helpful.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Lately I’ve heard a lot of athiests trying to tear down religious beliefs of other people and what they fail to realise is that they are no better than any biggot or Bible beating fundamentalist, including the Islamic fundamentalist factions in the middle east. It matters so much less what the belief is, the crux of the offense is in the pseudoknowledge that one’s beliefs are so obviously right that if they feel absolutely entitled to be inconsiderate, which leads quickly to inhumane actions, then they are warranted in doing so. I have yet to hear an athiest come up with a tolerable code for living, and don’t blame religions for the problems in the world blame people, the New Testament isn’t exactly an example of violence promoting literature. “Alas dear Brutus the problems are not in our stars but in ourselves.”
January 20th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I don’t care if I sound rude or not.
Religion should be left in the “Stupid Ages” with the rest of mythology.
That isn’t my opinion, that is just the way it should be.
And those that don’t believe in Global Warming seriously need to grow up , take a science classs and stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
The USA is the ONLY country in the world where Global Warming is even debated.
It is a fact.
End of statement.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I guess UmmmNo showed us!
January 20th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
UmmmNo… that wasn’t rude.
Ignorant? Yes, but not rude.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
oh lordy was it really necessary to pull out the religion discussion???? I think its only appropriate to whip out your personal beliefs when someone ASKS YOU your opinion, otherwise it becomes a ridiculous waste of energy and time on all parts.
I’ve heard of most of these “scientific beliefs”, but i do agree with what ….someone…said, that basically every scientific belief works this way; someone comes up with a theory and until something comes along to disprove it, then people just go with it.
On the topic of this wonderful “global warming”, i never really bought into it, until i went to do a research paper debunking it for an environmental studies course. apparently a lot more than just “al gore’s people” are buying into it, and most nations recognize something needs to be done to cut back on CO2 emissions. one of the interesting things i found was that we’re apparently causing the temp. to increase by .02 degrees each decade, and even if we (had) cut back on these emissions completely by the year 2000, it would continue to warm by .06 degrees because it takes the environment so long to adjust.
even still i have an underlying belief that its mostly just a natural occurrence, but hey, i’m not a scientist, and frankly i dont really give a crap.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
and… *wince* UmmmNo is pretty much right, on the whole US thing. We’re by far the greatest contributers of CO2 emissions, so if there really IS a problem, its mostly our fault.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Great List – especially liked #10 for the picture of Kanyaka Homestead. Visited Kanyaka in 2002 on a trip up through Central Australia – fascinating place with an incredible history – Aboriginal massacres (that is massacres OF Aboriginals by whites), tragic drownings and ultimately – drought.
Place is kinda eerie, too; you can feel the presence of the people who lived and died there – never got that feeling again until I walked the streets of Pompeii – - – same feeling.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Stop contributing to CO2 emissions – ok, everybody, stop breathing! Especially the Americans.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
UmmmNo: “Religion should be left in the “Stupid Ages” with the rest of mythology.
That isn’t my opinion, that is just the way it should be.”
how is that not an opinion?
January 20th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
lo – Thank you. That’s possibly the nicest thing that anyone has ever said to me. I thought about putting that on my resume, but quoting “a complete stranger half way around the world that I’ve never met and am never likely to, who I correspond with on an internet discussion site” on a job application may not get me very far.
vintage-lace @ 35 – The main bookshop of Seoul has a large number of globes of the world. I wonder how many classrooms have globes in them, compared to maps, or to how many school children carry atlases with them every day. I can’t remember any of my classrooms having globes in them. I have always wanted to buy one.
Various people – The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is not based on the 4 humours, though admittedly it bears some resemblance to them. It is based, essentially, on how people take in information, and how they process it and come to decisions. 2 scales, 2 choices = 4 basic types. Put any 2 x 2 matrix on top of any other 2 x 2 matrix and there will be similarities sooner or later. In one of Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars novels some of the characters discuss personality types. They divide people into introvert and extrovert, and emotionally stable and emotionally labile (it sounds better than “emotionally unstable”!). They then note that the results map onto the ancient 4 humours.
My own take on the 4 humours is that psychologically, they got it approximately right – various people do have basic personality characteristics, which are similar in some ways and different in other ways from other people’s basic personality characteristics – but scientifically they got it woefully wrong – there is no such thing as black bile, for instance; it was simply assumed to exist because they needed it to explain their model. Myers-Briggs doesn’t require non-existent substances – it is based on the self-evident fact that different people behave in different ways.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
What about the opposite? Like the Pythagorean Theorem? It hasn’t been “proven” yet
January 20th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
caStroY (62),
“I don’t like the term “Global Warming” because it is a political term used for propoganda. However, we can’t escape the fact that the Earth undergoes climate change.”
Probably one of the most restrained and sensible comments on the subject (considering it has been raised) in this thread so far.
Well, we’ve had a bit written up about scientific methods here. So perhaps all you brilliant specialist authorites who’ve spent a lifetime absorbing and investigating climate study would like to present us with some of your evidence to totally deny any exceptional change. Presumably your years of intensive research will have left you with plenty? Unnecessary of course, for as we all know ultimate science is nutshelled in penetratingly intellectual comments such as “… soon to be debunked, if not already.” and “… already debunked”. I don’t doubt there are citations to support those extremely knowledgeable and unquestioning statements, aren’t there?
I will just say this. As a resident of Chile I know our glaciers are disappearing almost faster than you can blink. A professional academic Chilean glaciologist has testified that all scientific evidence of climate as far back as it goes indicates that they have never before retreated at this rate. I know the Antarctic ice is following suit, including falling away in massive chunks. So too is the ice of the northern hemisphere. But of course all that’s utterly irrelevant and leaves anyone here free to state that climate change is sheer and utter bunk. Jolly good show, chaps.
Do any of you people have the faintest idea just how thoroughly exhaustive evidence has to be against a hypothesis or even an idea before it can be totally rejected by the scientific community at large? I think not. It interests me how those who are ‘against’ so-called global warming (actual climate change) may comment that it’s far too complex a subject to have an opinion on. Yet almost to an individual they make totally closed statements: i.e. it’s untrue – I know it’s wrong – it’s an invention (of Al Gore) – etc. Now I have to say that tells me a great deal more about people than it does about climate. No wonder one worried scientist has said it reminds him of how so many in the 1930s wanted to pretend Hitler was no sort of threat.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Vera lynn, gravity hasnt been proven either
January 20th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Wow, UmmmNo, you are not insensitive to anyone’s religion at all. You are a great role model I want all my kids to grow up to be like you.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
riiiight bucslim, cause the problem is us breathing. good one.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
What about the theory stating that dinosaurs died out because you touch yourself at night?
January 20th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Bob- that made me laugh out loud!
January 20th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I never said I wasn’t going to be insensitive.
Religion is a big problem in this world, and it needs to be stopped.
I don’t believe in being “PC” simply because people’s feelings might be hurt.
The truth hurts. Religion is bad for this world now. It keeps people in the dark. It keeps them from growing as individuals. It is just another roadblock in the path of peace and understanding.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Hellacat Honey – so 6 billion people exhaling CO2 every second isn’t contributing?
On second thought, screw it, I already stated my position in the Your View section on Global Warming and what horseshit I thought it was there. I would say that I really could care less, but it just burns my ass when policy is going to be set.
Out of respect for my boy Anon, I will say here what I said there and let it go. There IS data out there that is debatable. That isn’t my opinion, it is a fact. It just doesn’t get the press that the other side of the debate gets. And it won’t change anyone’s mind either when I state that we are in the middle of one of the coldest winters in a very long time.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
So UmmmNo is it true the absence of religion is the true path to peace and understanding? Yeah, so with that logic the former Soviet block must have been the most peaceful and civilized nation to grace us in the history of mankind. Other than state sponsored churches, they damn near outlawed religion. And we all know what peaceful and understanding chaps those dudes were.
I’m sure old Joe Stalin was just trying to keep people from being in the dark and was helping them grow as individuals.
Do you actually read what you type or is it a spasm?
January 20th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
“118. bucslim -
Do you actually read what you type or is it a spasm?”
ROFLMFAO! no freaking idea about the commentary going on here but this line jumped up and tickled my funny bone…ty! absolutely priceless quip.
*may have to steal it*
January 20th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Cyn, you have my leave to steal anything that comes from my walnut sized hamster brain.
I am your humble comment posting bitch.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
120. bucslim -
‘I am your humble comment posting bitch.”
oh, i like that one too.
somebody w/ more time than sense and more retentive than anal really should compile a LV lexicon/phrase book or something or other. fav quotes. blah..blah..blah. (can you tell i’m tired?)
but seriously..we need to put our ‘words’ (asshat and retart)and quotes and true confessions re: dream content involving LV into some semblance of coherency. oh..like a list?
c’mon now…somebody step up to the plate.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Dammit, dammit, dammit!
Within the last few days I’ve been considering starting a forum called “What is the all-time funniest comment on LU” (List UUUUniverse, please!), with special reference to tracking down the first ever use of the word “retarded”.
Now it looks like Cyn’s idea!
Not fair!!!! Just because I’m on holidays and have spent most of the days sleeping and most of the nights not sleeping because I spend most of the days sleeping and my brain’s not working.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
astraya,
I’ll back up what lo said to the hilt, which is probably the second nicest thing anyone has ever said to you. Hahaha.
What more could I add to your crisp explanation? Except perhaps the suggestion that we might call all these examples historic science or proto-science. Although I’m not in fact convinced that the concept of science through the ages can in a prqactical sense be narrowly defined by modern scientific practice.
On that blithe assumption, I’m going to launch my own favourite debunked pseudo-scientific belief of the past (although some might quibble it’s medical). I also have to confess it’s shaped by religion, but much early so-called science is inseparable from religion anyway. Ladies and gentlemen,I give you The Doctrine of Signatures.
The D of S considers features of (mostly) plants which look like some part of the human body, or a disease symptom, or bear some resemblance to a human function. The assumption was that God had shaped them to indicate what medical use we should put them to. Many such plants bear common and Latin names denoting the supposed use. Pulmonaria or lungwort has white spots, said at the time to suggest lung complaints, which it was recommended to cure. Liverwort, toothwort and pilewort were similarly named. The walnut was included for its obvious resemblance to the brain. A plant which oozed yellow sap was tied to jaundice.
Of course none of this has foundation, but some plants, by bizarre coincidence, actually do their intended trick. Aristolochia is known as birthwort. According to some this is because it resembles a curled-up foetus. Others remark on the apparent resemblance to the female pudendum of some species. Remarkably, it was used quite independently by North American Indians for the same purpose. By chance, a conconcotion of the plant has abortive properties. In low dilutions this eases birth. Higher strength does indeed result in abortion and enough guarantees to kill. It was frequently grown in monasteries and is rumoured to have been ‘made available’ to hapless, amd presumably sometimes late, nuns. Very Chaucerian.
So throw away your viagra, make a brew of stinkhorn, hold your nose and quaff, ye merry fellows.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:03 am
goddamnit! see, i am tired. so tired in fact i forgot to mention i was inspired by the brilliance of the one we call..w/ quiet reverence…astraya…re: this LV-centric list/forum/whateverthefuck-it-will-be-just-someone-hurry up & post it.. somewhere.
but do we want an all under one roof kinda deal or do w/ want to seperate it out by quote, neologisms and/or dream/fantasy sequence (wonder if that came w/ voice over from our Lord JFrater?) *giggle*
on mainsite? @ forums? ebook? novelty toilet paper? whaaaat?
January 21st, 2009 at 12:04 am
bucslim, (120),
“Cyn, you have my leave to steal anything that comes from my walnut sized hamster brain.”
Sir, how dare you steal my post 123, para 4, ll, 6/7 before I’d even submitted it!
January 21st, 2009 at 12:09 am
I’ve just started a forum in General Discussion called “What is the all-time funniest comment on the List Universe”. It’s at http://listverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1508
Anon: “I’ll back up what lo said to the hilt”. It’s too soon after the “bizarre deaths” list. Unfortunately your kindly-meant comment made me think about the man who got a pikestaff up the place near his coccyx.
“we might call all these examples historic science or proto-science”
It’s easy and tempting to apply 21st-century ideas to people from earlier centuries. Nowadays we make smaller and smaller pigeon-holes to categorise people in. Nowadays “scientist” and “philosopher” are quite distinct, and it would be a brave person to claim to be both. The men [sic] on this list weren’t “scientists” in the 21st century sense, though they may have been in Jamie’s broader “knowledge in the general sense” sense. They weren’t “philosophers” in the 21st century sense, though they were “lovers of wisdom” in the original meaning of the word.
Hooray for your comments on climate change. It’s easy to (metaphorically) shoot Al Gore, who (undoubtedly) is getting richer and famouser out of this, but what about the 1000s of perfectly ordinary men and women who have devoted decades of their lives, on a university salary and the occasional journal article? They aren’t in it for the money or fame.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:25 am
Anon: Not just plants. Someone decided that rhinoceros horns were an aphrodisiac, based on their shape.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:09 am
Which of the 10 would you really describe as Scientific beliefs? Some but not all would fit with our ‘modern’ understanding of term ’scientific’, especially as the term ‘theory’ is scattered generously throughout the list.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:52 am
I see people can’t keep politics out of threads. Instead of blaming Gore for global warming fears is as ridicolous as pointing out that earth warmed up after 4th glaciation.
Please 1) keep this debate out of this thread 2) do a little SERIOUS research about it. Debunkers of global warmings are NOT climathologists. They may be scientists, but they all of those who are REALLY studying climate today agree about it.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:16 am
So what’s the difference between Spontaneous Generation and Evolution?
Both are the exact same thing. It’s just that one happens fast and the other happens slowly.
But both seem just as stupid. Look for Evolution to be on this list in one hundred years.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:57 am
What about flat earth?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:09 am
astraya – it’s a fairly simple task. Just gather up each instance where I post something and quite soon you’ll have a rip-roaring, pant-peeing list of grabassery and jocularity. Soda and milk will soon squirt out of your nose from the sheer weight of tomfoolery and hee-haws I’ve inflicted on the posters.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:09 am
i’d say that these are pretty understandable, considering that people then didn’t have the technology or knowledge to understand what we take as the real reasons for everything. anyway, cool list:D
January 21st, 2009 at 7:09 am
130. smg45acp
“Look for Evolution to be on this list in one hundred years.”
Indeed, if climate change hasn’t claimed us by then, and the human brain fails to adapt and evolve sufficiently and sufficiently quickly – as it is showing very clear signs of (not) doing in various quarters of LV here and now.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:27 am
buc, (i32),
It’s terribly, grossly, unfair, I know, but the LV general topic format confines examples to one per subject.
However, never fear, mon ami, there is also another LV specific format available 4 U that I will propose and second. The 10 Funniest bucslim Underwear Soakers. Followed by, A Second 10 FbUS. Followed by …
You big fan (or big fanny), Anon
January 21st, 2009 at 7:32 am
I”m sorry to be all ‘off topic’ and all, but Anon just slayed me with that last post.
I’ll be good from here on out, I promise.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:33 am
Sorry if this is a re post, but I didn’t see mine up there.
I’d like to put forth as a debunked scientific belief…racism. Until very recently, it was an accepted fact among mainstream intellectuals that humanity could be neatly divided into categories based on shared inherited physical traits like skin color and facial features, and that with these physical differences came various aptitudes. These days, almost all racists are of the blind hatred, ignorant fear, or general annoyance variety. As far as I know, no actual scientists currently believe in or study human “races” at all.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:50 am
I wanted to see the canals of Mars on here! I really wanted to hear about them….
January 21st, 2009 at 8:39 am
robneiderman, (137),
I believe the most successful debunker ever of ’scientific’ racism was a gentleman called, er … what was the name now? .. Aldoff Hirtler? What was it: the beautiful, blonde, perfectly physiqued, brainy Master race? When all the top Nazi élite were an an ugly, gross, stunted or physically unattractive bunch of bastards, with very few exceptions:
Hitler, he only had one ball.
Göring, his tool was very small.
Himmler, had something sim’lar,
and poor old Goballs had no balls at all!
(To be sung to the ‘Bridge over the River Kwai’ anthem.)
Then of course, we had the enthusiastic, exalted miltary and politcal rank and file of the Master Race. Those thick as pig shit Nazi thugs. Their exalted world-smashing intelligence consisted of surrendering their will and capacity for independent thought (I’m generously assuming they had any to begin with) unquestioningly to one homicidal, genocidal lunatic. There is another social group that does that. We call them ants.
Oh, and a German-born (non-Jewish) doctor friend in the US, whose parents fled the Nazis in time, once told me much of the original brilliant scientific work done by Jews in Germany in the German language was re-written by the Nazis in the name of fictitious or near-anonymous ‘true’ Aryans.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:42 am
Well kids, come to find out, temperature extremes on earth actually surpass those of Hell! Yes, it’s true! Everyone I talk to during the summer says it’s hotter than hell when the temperatures reach the mid to upper 90’s. The very same people say it’s colder than hell when the temperatures drop below about 10 degrees (yah, I’m using Fahrenheit) above zero. Therfore, Hell actually has a rather temperate climate, and is probably not too bad a place to hang out if you hate temperature extremes.
Oh, and I got it on good authority that the theory of relativity is nothing more than an excuse to drink beer and eat fried chicken and tater salad. Well, at least that’s what all my cousins tell me at family reunions.
But seriously, it’s almost 60 degrees here today, just south of the 49th parallel… and yes, it’s the middle of winter.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:48 am
By the swastikas of the great Horse Vessel, I can’t get that wretched Nazi pudenda song out of my head now!
January 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am
Just want to point out that CH4 (Methane) and NO (Nitrous Oxide) are several times more potent as greenhouse gases than CO2. As for Breathing…plants easily offset the balance caused by humans breathing out. What we need to sort is Cows and Sheeps burping (yes burping not farting) and our burning of dirtier fossil fuels.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:02 am
Insert one-way baffle valves, and then stand back and pray!
January 21st, 2009 at 9:03 am
“smg45acp
So what’s the difference between Spontaneous Generation and Evolution?
Both are the exact same thing. It’s just that one happens fast and the other happens slowly.
But both seem just as stupid. Look for Evolution to be on this list in one hundred years.”
Unbelievable. Do yourself a favour and look up the word “evolution” in the dictionary. After you do that, maybe you can comment on it without making yourself sound like an idiot. I’m sure to someone who has no grasp on the concept of evolution and who has obviously never sought out the mounds of evidence and observation that backs it up, it does seem stupid. Much like the idea of a spherical Earth would seem stupid to someone from the second century.
Pick up a figgin’ book!
Evolution is change over a period of time, any change. That time could be short or long. Biological evolution is biological and chemical change over time. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life, which is what Spontaneous Generation suggests. A better comparison (but no less flawed) would be Spontaneous Generation with abiogenesis.
An example of how absurd your comparison is:
So what’s the difference between Spontaneous Generation and a tasty pepperoni pizza? Both are the exact same thing.
Can you see how ridiculous it is now?
January 21st, 2009 at 9:09 am
Interesting list. I thought of phrenology also.
Makes you wonder what theories we’re not sure about now that will be debunked in the future when we have more advanced technologies or more information.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:45 am
I think the “debunking” period is likely over. Most of this list is comprised of theories that were accepted before the scientific method was in place. Truly before “science” was even a word.
All theories begin as hypothesis, are subject to the scientific method and do not become scientific theory without it. “Hypothesis” is something we can’t be sure of, scientific theory is something that we are sure of, but may not yet understand the full extent of. The theory of gravity is a good example.
If anything, the theories that we hold true today will only be expanded on and not dismissed altogether.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:13 am
Folks, especially JFrater, we need to be careful with terminology. The word “Theory” is being used in many places where “hypothesis” would be the correct term.
A scientific Theory is a well researched explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A hypothesis is an often unsubstantiated conjecture which may, over time, become substantiated via observation and/or experimentation.
Theories contain hypotheses in various stages of substantiation or refutation. They are the fuel upon which science progresses but many are eventually demonstrated to be false.
Science discards refuted hypotheses. Religion engages in Apologetics to demonstrate why its dogma hasn’t really been refuted.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:22 am
I love how the picture you used for “materal impression” is actually an impressionist style painting…of a maternal scene. hahaha!
January 21st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Maternal Impression: When I was pregnant my mother would always try to cover my eyes if a disabled person was close by She really believed it would hurt the baby if I looked at that person.
Sir Issac Newton had as much interest in alchemy and theology as he did in science and wrote about both subjects extensively
January 21st, 2009 at 11:56 am
Cyn, astraya, Anon: During the 5 years I worked in the film lab in Hollywood, I kept what I (and eventually everyone) came to call “Quote of the Day”. At first it was kept on tape on a bulletin board, then went into a steno pad (which I still have…5 years worth of daily quotes!).
Point is, astraya, it is easy enough to cull that single quote every day. *If you do it every day*. Start skipping days and you are surely lost.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:59 am
None of those were ever scientific theories. They were just beliefs, not “scientific” beliefs. Good job contributing to the general population’s ignorance of what science is. You just helped people get a little stupider. Congratulations.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I think he’s got ya on the use of “scientic”
“Science…unrestrained peer review.”
global warming? every asshole with a BS degree is calling themselves a “scientist”
peer review – not while The Gores and the “research” grant vampires are getting paid
forget it
January 21st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
126. astraya: I’ve just started a forum in General Discussion called “What is the all-time funniest comment on the List Universe”. It’s at http://listverse.com/forums/vi…..amp;t=1508
****
What gives?
I just went there and it said no such place exists.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
UmmmmNo, as long as you are happy being a hypocrite then I’ll leave you to it, just don’t expect to be celebrated as wise in any way. You’re not. Careless people spouting off at the mouth should be left in the “dark ages”, don’t you think? Anyway, my offer still stands please get back to me with the answers to the universe’s greatest mysteries, I am very curious, and since you’re the man with the plan, no one else will do.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I remember this one time that a tasty pepperoni pizza spontaneously generated in the hands of this guy who knocked on our front door! Amazing… and just when I was thinking how nice it would be to have pizza!
January 21st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
JayArr ~ Amazing! The same thing happens to me, but it’s Chinese dudes with egg drop soup and sweet and sour shrimp. Yarm.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Rushfan – Woohoo!!! Now for the money fountain in my living room… [think think think] **taps forehead**
January 21st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
TEX, (152),
“global warming? every asshole with a BS degree is calling themselves a “scientist”
peer review – not while The Gores and the “research” grant vampires are getting paid
forget it”
No one needs a BSc or peer reviews to see and understand a penny drop (= gravity).
or not to see a penny drop (= inability to put two and two together).
Nobody needs a BSc or peer review to see the scads of images of land and sea ice melting and falling apart. Or not to draw strong likely conclusions from it.
Or do we need independent peer reviews to prove they aren’t all digitally manipulated by Al Gore and his sinister global network, who are now in complete charge of all the world’s media (and without doubt the UN and the Obama administration)? Send for 007.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Holy crap, “disgruntled goat!” what a great Simpsons reference. I preferred clu clux clam…haha well done goat
January 21st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I once woke up to find that French fries had spontaneously appeared in my shoes!
Later on some current synapses managed to reconnect with some others I was using the day before and a gossamer memory of stopping at Jack-intha-Crack after the bar the night before came to me.
Sadly no theory can be proven as to how the fries got in my shoes – the only chance is to try and reproduce the effect!
January 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Anon – I am not denying natural global climate change, cooling included, just questioning manmade warming. Now if you are getting your information from any of the news media outlets, exercise caution when they use the term “scientist”. I started zeroing in on this use a long time ago.
If the source does not tell you what the “scientists” discipline is – then it needs to be questioned thoroughly.
For instance, they commonly quote meteorologists – these guys are not qualified one iota to make a technical statement on global climate, it is not their field.
Any research that is done by an individual or a department relying on funding for livelihood has a terrific conflict of interest.
As an experiment try a search for climatologists that disagree with manmade global warming – you might be surprised what you find.
Everyone else that might be interested – start here (if it will come up) – http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/108062/detail/
Warning: it is the BBC
January 21st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Sorry for the followibng serious science vs proto-science vs pre-science vs folk-law observation.
It perhaps makes best sense to regard all those as a seamless evolution. Before peer reviewing and repetition by experimentation were formalised, intelligent people were using equivalent unconscious versions of these all the time. In other words, as long as something worked or made sense in the light of new incoming data, it tended to be retained. Otherwise it would be modified or replaced, especially by those who became specialists.
Astronomy and botany provide good examples of this. Both were important as they provided aids for navigation, and food and medicines, inter alia, respectively. Lack of knowledge of the plant world could also kill (poisons). Practical identification (taxonomy) therefore became a very early and important human skill. It later developed into the total sytematic taxonomy we have nowadays, with all its computerised sophistication.
The pivot for that process was the great Linnaeus. No one could deny that he, like Newton, was one of the greatest scientists ever to live. But he retained many quaint charateristics from the past, including his ‘rude’ system of sexual classification! He also incorporated into our present binomial system (his major contribution to science) all relevant previous knowledge. That included Latin plant-names whose folk origins predated Greek civilisation, and native plant names from exotic lands. Before Linnaeus botany had gone through such semi-formalised phases as the observations and first recorded identifications of the Greek pholosophers, The Doctrine of Signatures and herbalism, which is still alive and well in our civlisation today as homeopathy. Linnaeus believed without question that every species was independently created and placed in its present ecosytem by God. Then came Darwin …
January 21st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
i wish i had the problem of pepperoni pizzas spontaneously generating near me. i generally have the opposite problem. they retreat from view and the only evidence is a couple of greasy finger prints on my glass and some gaseous reminders a little while later.
skydiver: i asked this question twice on the evolution in modern man list and was never answered so i’ll ask you directly… is it possible for someone to have an alternate theory to macro-evolution and be intellectually responsible?
January 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Anon -
“By the swastikas of the great Horse Vessel, I can’t get that wretched Nazi pudenda song out of my head now!”
Not sure what that all means, but you’ve got to calm yourself with some Andy Gibb or Starland Vocal Band. (here’s hoping you know what that is)
January 21st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Silly “scientists” of old. I wonder if in 30 or 40 years, there will be a similar list making fun of our “modern-day” scientific achievements and beliefs.
They will laugh at us from their flying cars! Haha
January 21st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“… Al Gore and his sinister global network, who are now in complete charge of all the world’s media (and without doubt the UN and the Obama administration)?”
The UN? someone’s in control – proove it
Obama administration – been in existence what? About 1 day. Way too early to tell, unless you’re psychic.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
TEX, (161),
Agreed. I don’t think anything you’ve just written is denied either explicitly or implicitly by any of my earlier observations. Quite the reverse. I’ve tried to be very careful to stress we should only take note of those who have spent sufficient career time on the subject, published enough papers on the subject, and are sufficiently highly regarded by their peers to carry weight.
Two things particularly anger me though. It’s Al Gore this, Al Gore that, Al Gore the other. One way traffic. When have we heard anything about the ‘benign and innocent’ lobby of some of the richest global corporations in the world offering juicy grants to any sparse-bearded BScs who will publish whatever little scrap of so-called research that casts doubt on human-based climate change? And put their silent weight behind any kind of Al Gore discrediting campaign? Not to mention the supporting cast of interested religious organisations? Has it ever occurred to you and the total ‘no noes’ that there are far richer and more powerful organisations whose financial interests could be seriously damaged if avoidable climate change were accepted?
My other boiling-point is the total cocky assurance of the ‘no noes’. Science only becomes totally assured in order not make a fool of itself. I.e. “Piltdown Man was a hoax.” Even then it often leaves a cautious door open. “No, unicorns don’t exist. Until someone provides one, that is. And original reports might have derived from narwhals.” So, as for anyone who questions inexperienced BScs, but believes people off the street when they shout “No” …
Natural or man-made? Account for the fastest ice-melt in climatological history as a proven natural phenomenon, or at least provide a strong hypothesis to account for it, and you can start to talk with authority.
I see enough evidence to convince me pretty strongly man-made change is the most likely cause: ice melt rate; the perfect tie-in of various new climatological phenomena with the growth of the industrial era; my personal awareness of plant reactions to ecological change, plus plenty more I’ve read in specialised and authoritative literature. However, that doesn’t mean I mustn’t remain open-minded to equally powerful contrary evidence of high quality if and when it arrives, which it hasn’t yet … unlike those who take the opposite view to mine. How many ‘no noes’ posting here actually work at a scientific discipline?
January 21st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Damn, it should have been ‘henny’ to keep me out of moderation. I’ll never get the hang of this system.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
buc, (164),
“Hitler, he only had one …” Arrrrgh, you’re right, squire. Only the valium is within immediate grabbing range though.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
segue: the forum exists and is rocking along nicely, so there’s something wrong with the link. Rather that re-post the link, I’ll give instructions. At the top of the page, click “Forums”. Then in the second main block (titled “Community”) click “General discussion”. Hopefully, “What is the all-time funniest comment …” should be somewhere near the top (because that means someone’s posted to it recently). Click on that.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:08 pm
DiscHuker #163
It’s possible to have an alternate theory to any theory. But for it to be accepted as plausible and an actual “scientific theory” it has to pass through the scientific method. Until it does, it is merely hypothesis and that’s granting it a title more deserving than the more fitting “opinion”.
In my humble opinion, whether or not it’s intellectually responsible to have an alternate theory depends on how strongly a person believes that theory (still opinion), despite the evidence to the contrary.
For instance: if scientific evidence tells us that clouds are water vapour, and my alternate theory is that they are made of yummy cotton candy, that’s my opinion. Is that irresponsible? Probably not, it’s just my opinion -it’s twisted and illogical- but still my opinion. However, if I preach it, back it with ancient writings from unknown and/or ambiguous sources, convince a group of people or worse yet, a young generation of kids that clouds are made of yummy cotton candy, to me, that would be intellectually -not to mention morally- irresponsible.
Micro & Macro-evolution are outdated terms that are often incorrectly used by Creationists who are somewhat on the fence, as a weapon against evolution. They are OK with what they consider Micro-evolution, but still revert back to their faith when they consider Macro-evolution and dismiss it as fallacy, when really, they are one and the same -Evolution-. The prefix Micro and Macro have all but been discarded by scientists describing evolution, except when using them for descriptive reasons, ie., large vs. small change. But theists use the terms incorrectly for ontological reasons, as if there were a fundamental difference between the two. It seems to be some thread of hope for theists to cling to, for fear of falling off that fence.
I think the responsible thing to do would be to let go of theological beliefs and faith when dealing with the evidence presented. Go in without any preconceived conclusions, look at the evidence, study it, understand it and then decide which makes the most sense. If you still believe in the scriptures description of the young Earth over old, Adam & Eve over evolution and the worldwide flood, then so be it. But trying to somehow ‘defeat’ science with that opinion or “alternate theory”, is foolhardy and frankly, not possible. Just as it would be impossible to try and defeat the theory that clouds are water vapour, with the yummy cotton candy theory.
Science has nothing to *prove*, only to improve upon itself and it will continue to flourish this way because we have the evidence, they don’t.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I am surprised to find myself defending religion on this thread because I see a lot of the problems people cause in the name of God, but, there hasnt been too much that I consider right. There is this assumption that there is no evidence of religious figures in the Judeo-Christian Bible–this is just not so. Bible historians have poured over primary documents and found that there is a striking consensus within these documents that someone named Jesus did exist. This is as much contextual as it is concrete but in looking at how much else the Bible has seemingly gotten right, it makes sense that the crux of the entire argument wouldn’t be a figment of fraud. Historians have found towns in places found in the Bible and have confirmed many of the cultural traditions of first century Christians and ancient Jews. Some of these texts show the urge for early people for whom science is unknown to explain their lives and world. This is obvious, but what is also as obvious is that these different texts written in different times and different areas are amazingly similar. Even stories like Noah and the Epic of Gilgamesh (sp?) are very similar. The Adam and Eve story is not that illogical, geneticists have found that through portions of history all the survivors of the human race passed through what are known as bottle necks where a large portion, if not a majority, of genetic chains die out. Lets assume that we start with 100% of the genetic humans and pass through 4 genetic bottle necks which remove a conservative 25% of the chains that leaves us with 23.25% of the original portion remaining (as 3/4×100, 3/4×75 3/4×56, etc.). There is a strong probability that there have been more than 4 genetic bottle necks. What the Adam and Eve myth seeks to explain, whether they know it or not, is where we came from. It also unites the entire world in the same family thus making violence that much more inappropriate. I enjoy good scholarly discussions on topics like this and respect those who bring informed opinions regardless their conclusion. I do not, however, respect those like UmmmNo, or whatever his name is, who essentially add nothing to the discussion other than their preconceived notions– which are usually as self serving as the Ku Kux Klan’s beliefs, and the Taliban’s beliefs, and religious bigot’s of all faiths. I’ve already said it but there is nothing wrong with having beliefs of either persuasion what is unacceptable are people who think themselves so spot on that they are entitled to desecrate other’s beliefs. Like I said above, it is this urge which spawns terrorism, racism, fundamentalism such as the Taliban and intollerance in general. Saying there is no scientific evidence to back up religous texts is wrong and selectively scientific, saying that there is incontrovertible that figures like Jesus and Moses exists is also wrong. Alas though, Heinrich Schliemann found troy in the mid 19th century which had only been mentioned in the Homeric epics, so it shouldn’t be obvious that a story with so many independent sources which support a similar conclusion is fake. As John Lennon said it’s “whatever gets you through the night”.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Each time someone says something like “religion is the bane of all history” they make the same mistakes as someone who says “black people are less evolved than white people” or “pepsi is better than coke”.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Brosiusjb, (173),
Very well said. And your observations could to a similar degree be applied to those who say, “Man-made climate change doesn’t exist. I know.”
It’s a curious fact of the human intellect that very often the less people actually know, the more blithely assertive they can be. Unfortunately, that falsely opinionated tendency all too often carries the uncommitted along, in the short term at least.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
great list. For those that don’t believe in global warming: there is a “paradise” called california, with any luck, you will become an island with it. And be sure the car has an egr valve..with a direct link to your brain.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Oh, cool. So, like, I’m gonna be living on a island someday? Won’t that be just too sweet? I already live right near the ocean, so it won’t be too different. I just won’t be able to drive to all those annoying states to the east of us where everybody thinks there’s all that anyway.
So boo hoo.
Anon:
I’ll row down to Chile as soon as I get a chance!
January 21st, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“So, like, I’m gonna be living on a island someday?”
Only if you prepared to wait for 25m years and put up with the earthquakes that are going to accompany California’s split from the rest of the continent. (Hmm, does that make California incontinent?)
“I’ll row down to Chile”
After California, you’ll find it chilly there.
(I’m bored. Have you noticed? Gotta do something…)
January 21st, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Brosiusjb #173
Your cassock is showing.
I’ve never implied that the figures in the bible did not exist (at least not ALL of them) but rather, most, if not all the stories contained in it.
I’m sorry, but exactly what has the bible gotten right? Most, if not all the stories have no evidence other than location (some of those are questionable) to validate them. We’re told to trust their occurrence on faith, yet the stories that *are* dismissed by armchair theists and deists alike are, we are told, to be taken allegorically. How are we to decipher which to take literally and which to take allegorically? I’ve read the bible and have yet to find any instructions for that minor conundrum. Moreover, cultural traditions can be found in various other ancient texts that aren’t considered the word of god, the inclusion of them in the bible hardly adds credence to any of the other more dubious stories contained in its pages.
Similarities in the bible also don’t validate the claims. It’s understandable that the stories will mimic one another. The printed word was very rare 2 and 3 thousand years ago, books simply weren’t available. Stories were told and re-told and it’s likely that many of the similarities you’re speaking of are in actuality, the same story told a different way.
I can assure you that any accredited geneticist who has done research on anything pertaining to heredity, cell biology or molecular genetics, certainly wouldn’t entertain the idea of creationism being any part of it. It’s unfair to try and validate a claim in scriptures by mentioning it as somehow being connected with an actual evolutionary event like Genetic Bottleneck. Even Creationists don’t bring this theory up as evidence when the data shows that the common matriarchal ancestor in this theory probably lived some 140 to 150 thousand years ago and the last human genetic bottleneck may have occurred some 70 thousand years ago. This doesn’t bode well for a theory that claims the Earth to be only 6,500 years old. Regardless, Genetic Bottleneck occurs far more frequently, and has been observed, in plants and animals. If you’d like elaboration on it as far as humans are concerned, I suggest you get a copy of Richard Dawkins – The Ancestor’s Tale. I can assure you that other than the odd folksy reference, or pertaining to their scientific tagging, Adam and Eve aren’t mentioned as a possible connection.
To suggest that because we may all be relatives through some type of Adam & Eve (not to be confused with Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam), it makes violence “that much more inappropriate”, is unfair and reeks of a childhood Sunday school lesson. Violence is inappropriate – period. Trying to propagate this fact with a thinly veiled theological lesson on how the bible gives us our morality is an obvious theist game. I have no belief in god or the bible and its “teachings”, yet I’m a good, honest and caring pacifist, who is more than willing to help my fellow man regardless of whether he is my brother or 60th cousin twice removed.
Let me be clear, there certainly is fact in the bible, most of all that which you’ve already alluded to -locations and cultural traditions- however, when it pertains to supernatural events and creationist dogma, there is NO evidence to back it up, none, zero, never has been and likely never will be.
You felt the need to defend religion; well that’s the intrinsic difference between science and religion. Science never has to defend itself. It relies on the evidence provided to validate hypotheses into theories, or the lack -more often the complete non-existence- of evidence to dismiss it. It’s this reason that the two can never work together. If there is any type of defensive stance by science, it seems that in most cases, science must defend itself from religion.
Incidentally, John Lennon also said: “Imagine no Religion”.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:04 am
I found number one “spontaneous generation”, with the Quote: ” He bizarrley (no such word) believed that life arose from inanimate matter”.Well ..bizarre. I was always taught in school that evolution had to come from somewhere. Or had to begin somewhere. Hence we were taught that life arose from the inanimate. You can argue there has always been some form of basic primordial life but even that had to have a beginning and therefore must start from the inanimate. I guess I’m missing something here
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:12 am
Do you people realize that a theory is just that: A theory
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 am
astraya-
i assure you i’m the most sincere “complete stranger half-way around the world that [you've] never met and [are] never likely to [meet],” as far as the compliment on knowing the meaning of science goes! glad it made you smile, it was a genuine compliment from this stranger. it makes ME happy when people (especially those in other academic disciplines) know what “science” is.
oh anon- “some might quibble, it’s medical!” has an internal rhyme, and a terminal almost-rhyme, so it could be in a (very nerdy) rap song! say it out loud, again, with rhythm and FEELING! LOL
and “doctrine of signatures” helps me remember common names, like when i was planting “lung-worts” for my mother last year. i’ve always been a science freak, but the human history of herbs and mythology/folklore fascinates me too. it may not be science, but it’s a great story.
segue, if you were living on isle de cali in 25 M years, and we were all still around, i’d kayak out to visit. then we could paddle south to see if anon was still in chile (and not too chilly) stopping by my beloved peru on the way!
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:06 am
lo – thanks again.
I am reading a book called “The stuff of thought” by Steven Pinker, about the relationship between language and thought. This afternoon I encountered the following passage, which I thought was apposite:
“…mental discipline is essential to the sound use of analogy in science … Most practitioners before the modern scientific era, and most purveyors of psuedoscience today, rumbunctiously mix their metaphors, crisscross the connection, and get seduced by surface simlarity. The alchemists, for instance, analogized the sun to gold, because both are yellow; Jupiter to tin, because Jupiter is the god the sky and the sky was thought to be made of tin; and Saturn to lead, because it moved slowly, as if it were heavy like lead, but also because lead it dark, like night, which in turn is like death, and Saturn is farthest from the sun, the giver of life, making Saturn the lord of death. The piling on of metaphorical and metonymic allusions was thought to make the system more compelling, whereas by modern scientific standards it makes it less compelling.”
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 am
ross #179 & 180
Yes. You *are* missing something here. You’re confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are not the same thing. If you read some earlier posts (give 144 a shot), you’ll understand what I mean.
Once again the term “theory” as it’s used in the scientific method, has been covered as well (see 147). Remember that gravity is only a theory, Earth orbiting the Sun is only a theory.
You really should read some of the more informed posts here before posting points that have already been addressed.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:14 am
astraya,(182),
Nice passage. I enjoyed it up to the hilt! A hencyx joke. Hahahaha.
BTB, By way of compliment, your name cropped up in a dream of mine night before last. LV name clearly remembered, but no function. I think you were a subconscious bystander, as it were. It was one of those untidy, fragmented, frustrating, ultimately aimless dreams, but some detail was crystal clear. I recall being obliged to travel quickly by bicycle in an old Sussex haunt. Apparently I had to catch up with a race that had pàssed through. I found myself on the most marvellous featherweight machine that had been designed for the latest pro tours, the bike of my dreams (ha ha!). But somehow all my strength and ability was gone, and it was no more use to me than an old sit-up-and-beg. That typical physical semi-paralysis of dreams. (I’ll hope for a decent flying fantasy next time!)
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:29 am
Skydiver, (178),
Just to clarify. My own response was not a blanket approval of the detail in Brosiusjb. I was merely supporting the general disapproval of a certain species of commenter of whatever colour. The type who posts a cynical, often insolent, usually negative, unsupported statement of one or a couple of sentences about a massively complex subject. As a rule this will trigger a thoughtful, knowledgeable, time-absorbing response from the likes of you and Brosiusjb. But nine times out of ten the initiator has either left the scene or hasn’t the guts (or more likely ability) to reply.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:25 am
Skydiver, (183),
I’ll also back you against that exasperatingly tedious habit people have of parroting and parroting and parroting the same old red herrings and canards. In particular I have in mind that humbug nonsense about the scientific definition of the word ‘theory’. I’d like a pound sterling (for our UK bank a/c!) for every time I’ve read it since I began posting on LV. Maybe though it acts as a kind of scary indicator of just how many people who offer public opinions are totally ignorant of the basics of ‘that of which they speak’.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:30 am
Thank you Anon, I understood the tone of your response.
I too grow weary of explaining the concept that “theory” is not a scientific paraphrase for “we think this might be the way it is.” Creationists -and often the general public- continue to use this spurious rationale to try and cast a false shadow of doubt on theories that they don’t understand and aren’t willing to research, in hopes that a credulous public may agree. I’ve never heard anyone EVER say, “Gravity is only a theory” in the same dismissive tone. Gravity is tangible and you don’t have to do any research to see how it works; it would be a ridiculous claim. What is so frustrating is that they don’t see that when someone says, “Evolution is only a theory”, it’s just as ridiculous.
These forums are always an interesting cross-section of the population. I found this site several months ago and don’t normally post at all but this topic (science and nature and the origin of species) is one I’m interested in. My passion for it lies in viewing the fantastic achievements of humans, the amazing world we live in, and the mysteries of it and how science works towards uncovering those mysteries. I find all of that far more exciting and “awe inspiring” than the alternative. I just enjoy trying to enlighten others to explore these things and get the same sense of excitement by opening their minds to it.
However, it definitely is a scary indicator of not only ignorance but some lack in the most basic education. It’s as frustrating as a high school student trying to convince me that 2+2=4.5.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Ah but see, we all know that 2+2=5. Whomsoever thought they could convince you that it was something less, even by a mere 0.5, is trying to cheat you and throw the wool over your eyes to the truth!
Don’t we all just love it when a list topic ends up ‘devolving’ into a massive debate on completely irrelevant subject material to the original topic itself?
Ooohhhhhh, I’m a lumberjack and I’m okay!!!
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:11 am
I haven’t the time to read all of the posts, so forgive me if I’m repeating. I was thinking of Lamarckism should have been on this list, but then I read this today… Worth sharing, I thought:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103?gt1=43002
Oops, I just read some of the firsts posts, and someone mentioned the subject of this article. Cool stuff.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 am
Ha! Maybe there was something to Maternal Impression then, too. Only not thoughts, but experiences. According to that Newsweek article anyway…
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
JayArr, (188),
“Ah but see, we all know that 2+2=5.”
No. The rest of YOU know 2+2=5. I was told by special revelation that 2+2=6. That’s the ultimate explanation of the universe, but for Goodness sakes don’t tell Douglas Adams – wherever he is.
There’s an old mill by the stream, Nellie DEEEEAAAAANNNN!
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
191. Anon: 2+2 may = 5 or it may = 6 or it may = 3.7 in some very special cases, but I know why the answer is always 42. I’m betting there are several people here who know that answer,as well!
Wanna consult, Dougie?
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
There is a place where 2+2=5. Thet use string to keep track of stuff. When you tie a knot, that knot stands for 1. So if you have a string with two knots, that means 2. And if you have another of the same, that’s 4. But if you tie the two strings together, that makes five knots or 5. True. I heard this from my calc professor.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Vera Lynn, (194),
Hi, Vera. Long time no see. So if the Inca’s used to communicate by tying knots in string, then in Inca calculations, 2 + 2 could indeed = 5?
and 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 7?
and so on.
I love it.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
logar, (189),
“I was thinking of Lamarckism”
The inheritance of acquired charateristics. In other words if a proto-giraffe wants to reach a higher branch it stretches up and its neck grows a tiny bit in its lifetime. This is passed on to its proto-giraffelets. They then stretch a bit more in turn, and so on, thus eventually ending at the modern treetop-browsing giraffe. Or so the discredited idea had it.
I always thought shaving was the perfect rebuttal to Lamarckism. Now matter how furiously and regularly any Dad shaves and tries to eliminate his facial hair, and his Dad before him, and so on back, Son grows just as long and persistent a beard!
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
segue, (193),
Wow, so after 7.5 million years you’ve discovered that “What is the answer to 2+2?” is the ultimate galactic question?
I’m prefectly beeblebroxed!
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 am
Wow. People, just because we have debunked these ideas does not mean that at one time they were accepted by the scientific community.
Also, I knew the religion would be brought up, and while I agree that PC is overrated and everyone has the right to voice your opinion, with that right comes the responsibility to be respectful of other people. It’s common human decency and courtesy, which some seem to seriously lack.
Otherwise, I do like this list. I love seeing the advances we have made (gives me time to ignore all the ways we haven’t progressed…or worse, even fallen backwards on).
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:21 am
How could you miss the Aether theory!
Or Eugenics?
!
Nice list, I was considering writing one like this myself. There’s definitely enough materials for another list (Aether, Eugenics)
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 am
179. Ross – totally agree with you! Abiogenesis is just a new fancy-pancy word for Spontaneous Generation.
JFrater on Spontaneous Generation: He bizarrely believed that life arose from inanimate matter.
Wikipedia on Abiogenesis: Abiogenes is the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter.
Same deal….
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:42 am
Anon
Regarding the giraffes, I always thought it was the taller giraffes who were able to get to the higher branches thus being able to survive when food was scarce. The smaller giraffes would die out, and the taller giraffes would them breed and pass on the tall gene.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:37 am
Vera,
Ah yes, exactly, but that IS evolution by mutation. The way it actually does work. In fact there may be other reasons why taller giraffes would survive. For example male giraffes use their necks in ‘arm wrestling’ when competing for the favours of females, so a longer, more powerful neck would come in useful there as well.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:48 am
I remember hearing about a kind of acacia that developed an anti-giraffe defense. I don’t remember where I heard this but the details as I recall them were that when a giraffe begins to munch the leaves of this particular tree it releases a chemical that the giraffes find unpleasant. Furthermore, the release of this chemical “alerts” other trees in the area, I suppose by some kind of concentration gradient, and they then also release this chemical so giraffes don’t even try to eat them.
I wonder if anyone knows of this tree or if it’s even true at all. I hope it is, I always thought it was a rather awesome bit of offensive defense.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
There is a theory being knocked around that giraffes didnt grow long necks to reach food, but longer legs to escape predators. Longer necks were then needed to reach the ground for grazing. It was only later that they started feeding more primarily on trees.
The Acacia isnt quite true. It is true that there is a chemical in its leaves that is released when giraffes eat them, but this releases ants that live symbiotically with the tree to attack the giraffe. As this chemical is carried by the air, neighbouring trees will be pre-armed with their armies of insects to fight off the animal.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:11 am
I just love the science of compounding additive effect! Hurray for Friday… I think I’ll have 1+1=3 spontaneously generated pizzas and 42 beers (very small beers – fewer calories that way) for lunch today! Yeah, that’s the ticket…
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:13 am
Oh, and Vera Lynn(194) I found out that the extra knot is for the transaction fee!
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
197. Anon: segue, (193), Wow, so after 7.5 million years you’ve discovered that “What is the answer to 2+2?” is the ultimate galactic question? I’m prefectly beeblebroxed!
****
No, you silly boy! I’ve discovered the reason the answer is always 42.
Nothing to do with 2+2.
Forget 2+2.
We’re in a completely different area of math here.
42. Always. 42.
btw. I adore beeblebroxed and plan on stealing it to use about my own house and with my own friends! They’re too used to flummoxed.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
Signe #200:
“179. Ross – totally agree with you! Abiogenesis is just a new fancy-pancy word for Spontaneous Generation.”
I honestly don’t think ross knew the meaning of -let alone ever heard the word- abiogenesis before I introduced it to him. It would appear you don’t understand what it means either. Abiogenesis has absolutely no relation to “spontaneity”. Abiogenesis is theory -still very inconclusive and in its infancy- that occurred over *millions* of years and likely through trillions of trillions of possible and failed outcomes before one finally took.
“JFrater on Spontaneous Generation: He bizarrely believed that life arose from inanimate matter.
Wikipedia on Abiogenesis: Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter.
Same deal….”
It most certainly is not the “same deal”. It’s propagating ignorance like this that keeps these discussions going around in circles. I don’t condone Wikipedia as a sole source of information on any subject, but did you even read the rest of the article? Or did you just use selective exposure to glean what you needed to make your spurious point? If you are going to research something as complex as abiogenesis, I would suggest a few different sources for information; Richard Dawkins, Leslie Orgel and Robert M. Hazen to name a few.
Spontaneous Generation suggests the immediate creation of a fully formed, living organism from utterly unrelated organic material, sometimes in conjunction with non-organic matter.
It’s terribly unfair to place amino acids -the building blocks of life- in a generic category of “inanimate objects” in the same way it’s unfair to discard a brick as useless, just because it’s not yet part of a wall. Read up on amino acids and perhaps you’ll see the flaw in the analogy.
Abiogenesis is still a very new and heavily studied theory. Our knowledge of it has come a long way in the last 60 years or so, but there is still much that is not understood. Science works to unravel that mystery, that’s what makes it so wonderful. In science, it’s quite acceptable to say “We still don’t know how nucleic acids came to be”. It’s unacceptable to say “We still don’t know how nucleic acids came to be, therefore god did it”.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
segue, (207),
Nothing to do with 2+2? Then we are talking about ‘THE’ answer, not the answer?
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
209. Anon: segue, (207), Nothing to do with 2+2? Then we are talking about ‘THE’ answer, not the answer?
****
Well, ‘THE’ Douglas Adams answer, yes. Which is also a Physics answer. Always.
Two birds with one stone answer.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
#204 cymraegbachgen87
Thanks for explaining about the acacias. Happy to see they are still being fairly badass by employing an army of ants to do the dirty work! Actually I think the symbiotic relationship they have with the ants makes them all the more interesting.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
JayArr (206) You’re funny! I like it.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:31 am
thank you skydiver for the info.
January 25th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Wow, lots of respect for each others views on this subject – without personal beliefs getting in the way. Good! The world needs more open minds! I personally believe that Vitalism is simply unpopular at the moment. The problem with it’s nature is that it is a belief; and as such cannot be proven. Let me say that again… because the ‘vital spark’ or the ’soul’ is essentially a non-physical essence, there is no hope at all that Man will ever detect its presence using physical apparatus. How can non-matter be inspected by using material objects? It is true however that Man will always find evidence to support theories, (i.e. to accept or reject science)- it is easy to prove ones-self correct but very hard to disprove beyond all doubt.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Tom and UmmmNo : Seriously, go home. Your comments add no value to the discussion at hand. Why do people like this have to pop up everywhere? Your comments are not original and it´s fairly obvious all you want to do is start a fight. Again, go home.
173. Brosiusjb : Thank you. Though I do not necessarily agree that the Bible has the answer to all the questions (or is always right), it gets VERY tiring to read the same “Religion sucks” comments over and over again.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:58 am
2X2=47
and that’s a fact
January 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
214. lifeschool: Wow, lots of respect for each others views on this subject – without personal beliefs getting in the way.
****
rotflmaocyeooy!
I assume you’re joking.
****
181. lo:…segue, if you were living on isle de cali in 25 M years, and we were all still around, i’d kayak out to visit. then we could paddle south to see if anon was still in chile (and not too chilly) stopping by my beloved peru on the way!
****
You’re on! You have to promise that, while in Peru, we visit Machu Picchu.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Christopher Columbus ship crew thought the “EARTH was FLAT”
a good theory that was debunked by Chris Columbus finally.
This could have been on the list.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Are you certain about that? I think I remember reading a ‘myths’ list about the ‘dark ages’ and nobody thought it was flat.
Personally I think the earth is pear shaped!
January 27th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Shurely the shape of Earth at any moment depends on who’s kicking it, and how hard?
January 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I know for a fact that the earth is shaped like my belly!
January 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
217. segue – January 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
181. lo:…segue, if you were living on isle de cali in 25 M years, and we were all still around, i’d kayak out to visit. then we could paddle south to see if anon was still in chile (and not too chilly) stopping by my beloved peru on the way!
****
You’re on! You have to promise that, while in Peru, we visit Machu Picchu.
How did I miss this? Ya´ll have a willing tour guide for whenever you do decide to kayak down! Though Machu Picchu requires more of a mountain trek than a kayak!
January 27th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
222. GTT: How did I miss this? Ya´ll have a willing tour guide for whenever you do decide to kayak down! Though Machu Picchu requires more of a mountain trek than a kayak!
****
Gosh! I’ve never planned this far ahead in my life! 25million years, and I have a companion and a guide.
Fantastico!
January 27th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
segue, (223),
Plus a 25million-and-72-year-old host (plus younger wife, one of the best cooks in Chile) waiting to greet and entertain you at the end of the journey.
January 27th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Well, Tom, I’m making this comment just for you…You are a sad and sorry example of what people have become, especially our more urbane and “educated” friends. I’ll meet you in hell, Sir, but my trip there won’t be because I chose not to believe.
Muddy
January 27th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I don’t think Tom lives here any more. Try elsewhere.
January 27th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
224. Anon: This trip is just getting better and better!
Is Anita up to feeding 3 extra people in 25 million years? We might be quite hungry, having rowed all the way from the island of California!
January 27th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
segue, (227),
I think one paddles rather than rowa kayaks, and they’ll certainly be a lot easier to, what’s the technical term now? portage, that’s it, portage along the Machu Picchu Inca trail than would be rowing boats!
Anita is up to feeding over 50 hummingbirds all winter, or as many as 12 extra (nice) people, or 12 extra-nice people at a pinch here at home. But don’t tell her I let her in for that before I’ve consulted. No problem though, 25m years is plenty of time to prepare, though it’s amazing how time flies. Besides, she delights in feeding those who appreciate good cusine. Her stock saying is she’d have been a professional chef if not a botanist.
Mind you, some serious doubts after seeing candid TV fly-on-the-wall profiles of how the pros actually live! We personally knew one chef in the UK who, at the end of his tether, (expertly) threw a meat knife at a stroppy pub-owning boss. It thudded quivering into a door an inch or two from the guy’s face! Such is the over-heated stress of the kitchen.
January 28th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Mud Man: If we meet in hell you can say “I told you so” and I’m going to poke you in the eye
January 28th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Anon 228: Re: the pro Chef warning. No problem. My elder daughter graduated from the California Culinary Academy. She *is* a chef…well, now she is a board certified sommelier. So she’s out of the kitchen, but I remember those days very well and, yes, the head Chef (usually large Frenchmen), had amazing tempers!
January 29th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
No4 says the soul has been debunked. Where would I read the paper that has the scientific proof showing either way.
Why can the ‘Global Warming’ crowd not discuss without losing their temper. Does this show that the theory is fundamentally flawed and cant stand up to scrutiny. Just like the Religious crowd from olden days who would just say “don’t ask questions, just believe”. No thanks. Just because scientists say something doesn’t make it true, hence this list.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
achilles, (231),
Sweeping generalisation is also totally non-scientific. I and numerous others have been patiently trying to explain our concerned viewpoint, mainly in other threads, without raising our voices or indulging in ad hominems. A focal point of mine (supported by others), has been to explain that “global warming” is a long-outdated concept which needs to be replaced by climate change (man-induced). If you mosey over to the Your View on “global warming” you will pick up on this.
If you are looking for irrational behaviour, I suggest you do a survey on those who reject “global warming”. Take note of the number of fundie “its a lie”, “its a trick by Gore to make money”, “Its not true, I know” type statements you will find concerning this massively complex subject. A complex subject that even those of us who are pretty sure and worried about it it would never address in those absurdly absolute terms. Furthermore their iron certainty is almost invariably unsupported by any serious scientific evidence or citation. On the other hand I suspect you will find most or all in LV with any kind of professional scientific involvement take the reverse view.
Given a vague but nevertheless conceivable and dangerous threat, wouldn’t you consider it only intelligent and prudent to at least concede that it MIGHT exist? Or might you think, as I do, that all fundmental ‘absolutism’ is no more than whistling in the dark, or ostrich head-burying?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:19 am
how about ghosts and psychic powers?
January 30th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Denzell:
You write nicely, very nicely. You make yourself sound as though you are so educated and urbane that you are almost above the argument at hand.
If the time horizon you cite, that of the end of global warming to that of climate change, is to be considered “long”, as you say in the term “long-outdated”, then you must have the attention span and experience of a three-year old.
Anyone who has been around this issue from beginning until now sees the re-naming of your religious cause as a shallow attempt to deceive “non-believers” into thinking we now face a new and different dilemma.
I will concede to you that anything is possible, that is all. I find your position as absolute as those who have drunk from the same fountain as Mr. Gore, those who are whistling in a different type of darkness…the darkness of deceit.
For anyone, honest and pure scientist or snake oil salesman, to consider that observed climatological variances support alarmism of any kind, that alarmist does a disservice to both science and mankind at this point. With that having been said, why is it we see the global warming or climate change fanaticists only supporting changes to the human condition that would serve to revert civilization to something akin to the way our Amish brethern live?
Scientific data so far supports the history of an earthly climate which has expereinced wider swings than recently observed.
Even in a worst-case scenario there is nothing mankind can do to influence the atmosphere of the earth. Anyone believing so has subscribed to a religion of their own. You are serving as one of its Deacons.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Mud Man,
The attention span of a three-year-old would be capable of reading and absorbing the name of the person being addressed.
I am Anon not Denzell. That howler sets your tone and level of respect.
Your rant proclaims you as the closed-minded fanatic here.
I’m happy to leave it for the neutral and open-minded to read both our posts and make their own judgement.
Good day to you.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Mud, (if I may be so familiar),
Out of interest. What’s your qualification for spouting on the subject?
Know your opponent. I’m a systematic botanist. Among other concerns I study the effect of climate on the Chilean desert flora. Some Amish, eh?
I’ve also found a few unexpected spare moments, so:
I’ll also thank you not to bracket me with every hysterical Tom, Dick and Sally in this debate. Furthermore, do yourself a favour and study the subject seriously and in depth. You will then find some of the towering names in science who do not share your viewpoint. You will also discover that only the lunatic fringe (which I reject as much as you do) proposes we shjould live like hippies (or Amish, if you prefer).
But of course, that’s part of the glaringly obvious dishonest tactics of your argument, isn’t it? Name Al Gore, name the loonies. Then say everyone who warns about climate change is tarred with their brush.
So thanks for making my argument for me.
And good day again.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Mud,
“**Even in a worst-case scenario there is nothing mankind can do to influence the atmosphere of the earth.”
So don’t even think about it. If Rome burns, fiddle instead. But make sure we hear the tune we want to. I thank my freedom you weren’t British Prime Minister when Hitler looked invincible in 1940.
Wow! **Supporting authoritative citations (or your own experimental evidence), please.
Try these primers in contra for starters:
The Co-evolution of climate and life. Schneider & Londer.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001. Cambridge University Press.
A Climate Modelling Primer. McGuffie & Henderson-Sellers.
Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. Comby.
Global Air Pollution. Problems for the 1990s. Bridgman.
One Renegade Cell. Weinberg.
Sorry, I forgot. Of course. All these authors are no more than snake oil or tiger bone salesmen, liberal (in the political sense) cheap-skate running dogs out to make a cynical buck by selling books, getting on TV or upping their academic profiles. Just like David Attenborough, Ed Wilson, Carl Sagan and their peers. And putting the wind up the poor, gullible rest of us the while.
So why not just ask Republican (yes, Republican) Arnie Schwarzenegger what he thinks, and what he mulled over with the Indonesians and Chinese at that meeting he hosted?
January 30th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
This thread seems to be getting distinctly low on coffee spluttering moments. Now, what can I say to wind up Cyn today? …
I know, I’ll see if ‘The Moderator’ (it’s Arnie again, isn’t it?) understands French:
coq au vin.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Yippee, I’ve cracked it!
A load of coq. Coqy. A coq-up. Hancoq’s Half Hour …
No good. All the fun’s gone out of it now.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Anon-
behave!
got enough crap to deal w/ on the weekend w/ children running amok in comments and the usual adult crapfest of drunken commenting.
got it?
January 30th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Cyn,
Of course I sussed all that keyboard nappy-crap. Cos you know we wrinklie toddlers pick the very moment when ‘Miss’ is most harrassed with her other little charges to throw our own wobblies. That IS the real fun. All together now, Hahaha.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Muddy, baby,
“…your religious cause … Anyone believing so has subscribed to a religion of their own. You are serving as one of its Deacons.”
Very cunning and astute of you to work that one out. And I thought I’d covered my fundie tracks so carefully too. But how could you be expected to know Wobal Glorming is but one of my many, many religions though?
They include: Taking a bath once a year (no one’s going to accuse me of the water shortage crisis). Sex. Watching telly. ‘Phoning my daughters from Chile. Pulling the wings off flies (did you know flies were into S&M?). Soccer. Bingeing on bananas (due to my being directly evolved from chimpanzzes, you understand). Joshing with sin … er, sorry … Cyn on LV. Listening to Trevor Pinnock on the harpsichord play all six Bach English Suites at least twice a day. Cheating at scrabble. Enjoying my wife’s cooking. Not making enough money. Counting the number of full stops in the daily paper …
Oh well, that’ll do to be getting on with or you’ll be accusing me of obsessiveness next.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
On the subject of Astrology, if I may. It just doesn’t seem plausible that, on any given day, one’s horoscope is relevant to a full one twelfth of the population. Does anyone else see this as far-fetched?
January 30th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
To answer your question Chris, astrology is indeed pseudoscience. It has no evidence to back up its claims and is as plausible as psychic ability and alien abduction.
You might be interested in a book by Skeptic Society Founder Michael Shermer called, “Why People Believe Weird Things”. It casts a very bright light on things like astrology and other areas of pseudoscience.
Also, give this movie a watch. It explains how pseudoscience is given its false credibility by the purveyors of their claims. It’s really enlightening.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:51 am
Chris, (243),
That point always struck me. With evolution understood, I realised it also had to apply to the entire animal and plant kingdoms as well. So my lettuces were suffering from greenfly because they’d been sown under the sign of Taurus.
And any of those wretched dandelions which were being pollinated and producing fertile seeds like mad during a particular period must have been Capricorns. Dirty beasts!
Then I wondered if evolution had further implications. Freud, for example. Do all chimpanzees have Oedipus complexes too? If so, how far back does the concept of psychoanalysis go? What about those greenfly on my lettuces? After all they are the result of parthenogenesis (virgin birth), and are themselves giving birth to virgins who will themselves … Wow! Maybe I should call my ladybirds (ladybugs) freuds. Hahaha.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:57 am
242. Anon -
wow. your wife’s cooking must be pretty bad. since i rank before it.
and ‘joshing’? thought this was a serious intellectual exchange…ROFLMAO!!
January 31st, 2009 at 9:08 am
241. Anon -
now be a good boy and go outside and play w/ bugs.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:06 am
244.Skydiver and 245. Anon I just stumbled onto this site yest. afternoon and loved it. I posted once (maybe a little out of line,for which i apologize to everyone except damien karras) and got sucked into a silly tit-for-tat, but I think I put him in his place. Anyway, I’m not here to argue with anyone, I’m just in pursuit of some free knowledge.And from spending hours reading threads yesterday, I gather that you two are a couple of the more knowledgable and respected posters here.So I thank you for answering my post. Yeah, so if common horoscopes are to be believed, the entire world population can be divided into 12 categories. It just doesn’t seem believable. Another thing I noticed is that horoscopes are usually so general that they apply to everyone anyway. They never make specific predictions.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:23 am
Cyn, (246 & 247),
As a LV official you should know full well that lists are not placed in order unless so noted! Hahaha. If I were actually putting that one in order of significance, I’d be struggling for first place between full-stop counting and fly-wing pulling. Yeah …
I’ve been outside burning bonfire all morning, so goonessknows how many poor, innocent little bugs have been incinerated: auto-da-fé (always thought that was Portugese for F1 motor racing). I’ve got that delicious smoky-bacon aroma now though.
“thought this was a serious intellectual exchange…ROFLMAO!!”
In another context I was thinking of announcing that everything I post, however seemingly frivolous, has a profound underlying intention. Then I thought I’d better except any exchanges with Cyn, cos I knew you wouldn’t want to come out and play with a serious, straight-coqxyxed little nerd.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:56 am
Anon-
official? me, official? uh…not.
“…I’d be struggling for first place between full-stop counting and fly-wing pulling..” made me LOL!
me, nerd? ROFLMAO! not even close old man! HA!
nah, just a volunteer doing housework on a site i enjoy. as for me..hey, i’m an ex-stoner and ex-lotta other things none which required much intellectual ability…so not enough gray matter (left) to be a nerd.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Cyn,
No, I woz referring to y.t. as the (non-)nerd, not you, me dear. If you’re a nerd, my mother-in-law’s new little cuddly kitten’s probably a sabre-toothed tiger!
January 31st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
251. Anon -
DUDE! u so crack me up. LOL
oh and you’ve no idea how correct you are either. given my avatar at our forums is a cougar..not for the rich older woman stalking younger men thang either..
(altho ‘cept for the rich part BTDT & seriously not worth the effort) 
gawd forbid i should tarnish my rep as LV’s resident bitch either.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Cyn, (252),
“251. Anon -
DUDE! u so crack me up. LOL”
Good job somebody does. There are those around here who make me weep!
January 31st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
253. Anon -
weep? no. not a thing written in comments makes me sad. scares the hella outa me? oh yeah. so glad i live in state that allows private citizens to carry concealed handguns. cuz i’d not want to cross paths w/ a buncha these loons w/out one! concerns me about the future of my species? oh hell fucking yes! given the lack of coherency and intelligence of some of these comments…makes me wonder how we’ve survived this long. *shudder*
January 31st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Does anyone have any input regarding historical shipwrecks with missing treasure and/or the Titanic? Thanks
January 31st, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Cyn, (254),
One can weep with rage ya knows!
January 31st, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Anon -
heh. doubtful that’d be worth the effort. does make me wary as a parent tho…..
January 31st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Cyn,
Parenthood? Sometimes wonder if that was the most irresponsible act of my whole life. And BF that’s saying something! Hahaha.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Anon -
oh dude! you’ve no idea. early 50’s w/ a preteen. single. *sigh* very long and way too complicated story. i’d had doubts most of my life but parenting? sealed the deal on ‘there is no god’. LOL
& sometimes, i think there is no more selfish thing a person can do than become a parent. odd, eh?
February 1st, 2009 at 7:31 am
Whew! What a neighbornood I’ve come across!
Oh! Odd layout here, yes I erred, I WAS addressing you Anon.
Actually, I don’t give a rip what you’ve studied, forest floor or mountain peak. IF you are totally objective, you still are so close to the observations that you don’t see the “big picture”, as management is so wont to say in my industry.
So you’re an expert…good for you. We have allowed our financial institutions to be guided, regulated, and operated by educated and “experienced” professionals. Look at what we have now. And you expect people to believe your science is any purer than theirs? Not a chance.
Today’s scientists are just as subject to politial and financial pressures as they ever were. How else could we be advised by some in the scientific profession that we are in huge trouble, climatically, yet others, some tens of thousands, advise otherwise?
How is it that those on your side of this discussion always cite the same works from the same institutions and individuals which all predict the same results, never once allowing for any question, discussion, or reply unless it falls, lock-step, within the bounds of your side of the argument?
How is it that in every other field of discovery there are questions and there may be answers, but the process of education continues with the ebb and flow of ideas, questions, and answers, maturing along the way, but with anything even remotely related to environmental issues, all scientific proclamations are carved in stone with nearly iron-clad predictions, all dire?
I wandered into another site once and I recommend it highly to you, Anon. Maybe you all can just have all kinds of fun with each other. Go to peak oil dot com. It’s filled with your kind.
This is the Mud Man, OVER!
And OUT.
Roger?
February 1st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Mud?, Mud What?
Mud Skipper? Mud Dancer? Mud Wrestler? Mud Flat? Mud Bath? Mud Pie? Mud Lark? Mud Dled?
Beautifully, objectively presented piece of evidence in
favour of your point of view. Even your citation is from my angle (according to you).
“Today’s scientists are just as subject to politial and financial pressures as they ever were.”
So let’s get this thing about scientific knowledge straight. Everything about it is untrustworthy or untrue, since its operatives are never independent of judgement, or are always too close to see “the big picture”? Everything
we are learning today? Everything we will learn in the future? And perhaps everything we have ever learned? Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Gallileo. All of them under political and financial pressure? All of them too close to see “the big picture”? I’m sure they’d be delighted to be told so.
“How else could we be advised by some in the scientific profession that we are in huge trouble, climatically, yet others, some tens of thousands, advise otherwise?”
Every single one of them squeaky clean and free of political and financial pressure, of course? Oh, and I’m so sorry. I know you and “your side of the fence” keep on citing lots and lots and lots of them and their published evidence over and over and over again. Very remiss of me, but I don’t seem to be able to bring but one of those tens of thousands or their works to mind just at present. Perhaps you’d be so kind as to refresh my memory with a few names and citations of these superior beings.
“How is it that in every other field of discovery there are questions and there may be answers, but the process of education continues with the ebb and flow of ideas, questions, and answers, maturing along the way, but with anything even remotely related to environmental issues, all scientific proclamations are carved in stone with nearly iron-clad predictions, all dire?”
That remarkably breathless statement alone gives you away. You haven’t bothered to follow, and haven’t the faintest clue about the internal science and evolution of this enormously complex and perplexing subject. You are merely gazing in a mental mirror which basically reflects your own rigid, uninformed mind-set.
If you’d bothered to follow this thread in its many manifestations throughout LV topics, you’d know that I’ve never taken a rigid standpoint (unlike your “side of the fence”). I have clearly stated that I hope my fears are mistaken for the sake of our civilisation, my species, and the future of my own family. Please quote me someone from your “side of the fence” with so receptive and flexible a view.
You would also know that I have read widely, including the opinions of the fragrant Robert Siricco, who happens to be one of the chief gurus on your “side of the fence”. Also that I live in Chile where “the big picture”, as you aptly phrase it, is unfolding for all to see. Its manifestations include a series of deeply worrying droughts, melting glaciers and rapidly shrinking Antarctic ice platforms. But of course, you and your tens of thousands know this is no more than natural climate change we we are powerless to affect. If we close our eyes, who knows, it may even go away.
“How is it that those on your side of this discussion always cite the same works from the same institutions and individuals which all predict the same results**, never once allowing for any question, discussion, or reply unless it falls, lock-step, within the bounds of your side of the argument?”
(**So you’ve read every single one of them already. I am impressed. Perhaps we could have a discussion about their detailed contents. Would you care to kick off by naming some objections to Comby’s proposals?)
MY SIDE of the fence?! Wow! LOL.
By the way, have you checked out with Arnie as I suggested? Or was he too busy?
Talking of fences, they have a very, very long one in Australia. But of course you’ll know all about that one, Roger … Rabbit? OVER and OUT.
er, and what did you say YOUR industry was, by the way? We didn’t quite catch it? Fast food, you said? Or printing propaganda fly leaflets for golbal big business?
February 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I’m always interested and enlightened to read your comments anon. Quite often if I see something that bothers me in the comments I know I can count on you to provide reasoned arguments that I with my limited knowledge couldn’t hope to write. Your last response reminded me I had intended to respond to Mud Man’s assertion that climate science is rigid in it’s thinking and not given to evolution in it’s ideas.
I’m an oceanography student and you can imagine issues of climate science as they pertain to the oceans figure quite heavily in the curriculum. Whatever your views on climate change may be, there are certain things which cannot be disputed, such as freshening of North Atlantic bottom water and the melting of Greenland’s ice fields. Even in our (to date) narrow scope of study there has been evidence of differences of opinion and interpretation, of turning up totally unexpected results and most importantly of a constant evolution of ideas, hypotheses, theories and mindsets. Even the most eminent climate scientists admit that the complexity of climatic systems means that any “prediction” is conjecture at best.
The assertion that the thousands of scientists (and not just climate scientists) who have observed worrying trends in our Earth systems are all politically motivated liars is really fairly offensive. Mainstream media is not the best place to obtain information about scientific issues – they cherry pick for the tidbits that spark interest in the minds of a lay public. There are literally thousands of real, peer-reviewed, carefully researched papers out there with all of the information, not just the dire soothsaying. Draw from it what conclusions you will, but denial of simple observable facts on the assumption that politics turns scientists from proper and ethical practices is just burying your head in the sand.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Anon:
I’m not going to spend my time reading all that stuff. I haven’t the time to do so and hope to do anything about it if I were so inclined. I’d rather jab at so-called scientists to see what they’re made of. In your case, you seem rather tough, able-bodied sort.
Dude, I only read half of what you write. I get enough to throw something at you…you really do take yourself far too seriously.
Hey, I know about what I know about and that has nothing to do with what you know about.
I read, I read enough to see doom and gloom couched in could-be, maybe, kind-a sort-a, possibly maybe someday terms (which really does nothing for your argument) and I laugh. I laugh because the common everyday dolt is going to believe this crap as gospel, as stated fact. I laugh because the media regurgitates this stuff without any understanding whatsoever. And I laugh because scientists take themselves so seriously. I laugh because it is sad. Every one of you is an expert, yet you cannot agree. Who do we, the “uneducated”, believe?
If you have not read the Wobal Glorming naysayers, as they have been called, why are you sos adamant that I read those you suggest? Tit-for-tat, Tommy!
February 1st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Mud,
Ah, so climate problems are really nothing but a big joke we shouldn’t take too seriously now, are they? Like terrorism, the war in Iraq, and the global economic crisis no doubt. Well, jolly good show. I’m sure we’re all delighted to know.
Indeed, they aren’t even serious enough to pay me the courtesy of reading more than 25 of the 50 odd lines I offer in reply to you.
So who, apart from Siricco (you know about him and his views, of course), exactly are the Wobal Glorming naysayers I should have read? That’s exactly what I keep asking. I never suggested you read any of the cited literature I offered up. It was merely there to show I do more than dabble in the shallows of the matter. What you read is entirely your business, but will nevertheless be reflected in the depth and intelligence of your observations. However, you told me all “my” experts say the same thing, which obviously you couldn’t know without having read them.
“Hey, I know about what I know about and that has nothing to do with what you know about.”
One of the most brilliant and informative job descriptions I’ve ever read. In fact I think our dustman said the very same thing to me last week as he was removing the trash.
“Every one of you is an expert, yet you cannot agree.”
“How is it that those on your side of this discussion always cite the same works from the same institutions and individuals which all predict the same results.”
Those are statements from your two latest posts. Perhaps you’d like to read them as a linked pair and think carefully who is asking to be laughed at here.
BTW, when and if you can learn to understand and apply intelligent logic you may sign off with a flippant flourish without simply making yourself appear foolish.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Spange, (262),
50 lines are not needed to reply to you. Thanks will do for starters. Followed by it’s good to get a fresh ‘voice’ of open-minded and deep intelligence after what seems a fairly long drought. (Exchanges with Cyn excepted, as ever, of course!)
Unfortunately, the type of person who needs to understand and respond positively to your informed logic is Mud Pie, not me. But clearly he never will.
Just read his pathetic gabble.
If he’s not winning an argument he tries to pretend it’s all an unimportant joke. Quality LV input!
February 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I think maybe the following criteria might be applied to protagonists on BOTH sides of the climate debate.
1) Whoever says that nothing ‘out of the ordinary’ is happening to the global climate is completely blind (figuratively and literally).
2) The situation is hugely complex, with a mass of interacting factors. We have never ‘been here before’. Evidence is not conclusive either in support of human-induced climate change or natural effect. Indeed we could be seeing an interaction of the two. However, available information does support human intervention far more than natural effect. Anyone who states one extreme or the other dogmatically and exclusively is deluding themselves dangerously.
3) The future. Anyone who says they ‘know’ without doubt the world is doomed on the one hand, or that there will never be any problem, even if we just keep on as we are now, is simply a danger to themselves and civilisation. A menace. Full stop. Or period, if you prefer.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
265. Anon -
damn straight i’m an exception
February 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
261. Anon: Mud?, Mud What?
Mud Skipper? Mud Dancer? Mud Wrestler? Mud Flat? Mud Bath? Mud Pie? Mud Lark? Mud Dled?
****
After reading Mud’s comment, 263. Mud Man: Anon: “I’m not going to spend my time reading all that stuff”…I’ve decided that his proper name is Mud Gets In Your Eye.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
segue, (268),
But for keeping the list down to reasonable proportions, I almost trumped you with the toast, “Here’s mud in your eye”! Good for you providing a specific context for the theme.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Anon, 269: You know I’ll do anything for for you, Anon.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:00 am
265 & 266: Anon. Thank you for your kind words.
I must admit to a certain amount of frustration at attitudes such as those evidenced on this thread and the interminable creationism discussion – the idea that science and scientists are either outright evil or at least tools of a shadowy econopolitical machine (and an athiest one at that) really irks me. Sure scientists are only human, they have their own opinions on religion and politics and such but one thing all the scientists I have ever known have in common is a rigid belief in following scientific method and the ethics of that system. It’s instilled in you from the earliest time of your studies, it is intrinsic to being a scientist. Of course there are some who stray from this; a certain geneticist springs to mind, but people like him are the exception rather than the rule. It is for that very reason that hypotheses change, sometimes rapidly, to allow for new observations. Unethical scientists would ensure their results proved their hypothesis rather than discard their hypothesis when it is proved false.
As Anon put it so succinctly in the comment at 266, fundamentalists on either side of the debate serve to do little but push either side further from reaching any kind of accord. The media doesn’t help much by giving these fundies all the talking space and ignoring the vast majority of moderate individuals who just carry on quietly going about their work without need for cameras and fervent proclamations.
I know very little about all there is to know about climate science but I do know this: the climate system is a finely balanced set up and literally millions of factors can affect it. The reduction of it to soundbites warning of catastrophe or assurances that it’s all going to be alright does everyone a great disservice. Our environment is changing, what it means for the future I don’t pretend to know but I do know that science is the way to understanding it.
We probably owe it to our children and their children and all the innocent other inhabitants of this planet to do the very best we can.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 am
Spange, (271),
Thanks again for taking the time and trouble to record your moderate and thoughtful opinions for all to read. I hope Mr Mud would now be cringing in shame at the bottom of his mud pit, but doubt it.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 am
Spange,
There isn’t enough unchallengeable scientific evidence to support the statement that MM is a fundamentalist.
However, from close observation it would certainly be reasonable to construct the preliminary hypothesis that he reacts like one.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
From and old comment.From a scientific point of view Abiogenesis defies the second law of thermodynamics. And as we all know, you can’t get something from nothing.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
ross, I simply can’t allow you to have that last word on this. First of all, abiogenesis IS the scientific point of view. Please do some research and then form an opinion, rather than the other way around.
Second, the second law of thermodynamics cannot be succinctly paraphrased into a single sentence such as “you can’t get something from nothing”, which is a famous creationist oversimplification used to cloud the issue. What you’re unknowingly alluding to is the often misunderstood theory of entropy.
I’m not going to go on about how incredibly flawed your claim is (I tend to do that) and how often this bit of info is so incorrectly used by creationists trying to “disprove” abiogenesis and evolution, so I’ll provide you with some links that have accurate information that *may* help you understand why your statement is wrong.
Read, and most importantly, try to understand this article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Thirdly, watch these two videos that explain the mistakes and misconceptions of creationism, which often attempts to use thermodynamics and entropy as a means to dismiss the origin of the universe (that includes “life”).
Part 1:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=a2Pyw5Dz3Fw&feature=PlayList&p=11FAF6EED99B0C46&index=1
Part 2:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrBEermUzY&feature=PlayList&p=11FAF6EED99B0C46&index=5
Ignore the first few seconds in part 2 regarding the DMCA, and the facetious tone of the speaker; the facts presented are accurate.
ross, I’ve provided you with heaps of information and evidence on what is wrong with your claim. If you decide not to review any of it, you’re doing exactly the opposite of what science -something you just tried to use to prove a point- sets out to do; that is to study the evidence and make a conclusion. It would be unfair (and a creationist tactic) to use science as your crutch, and then toss is it away when it contradicts your beliefs.
Moderators: I’ve noticed some links have been removed from previous posts, I’m not sure why. All links I provide are free from copyright infringement and are available to everyone on the www. Thanks.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
#273: Anon.
Yes you’re right, there really isn’t enough evidence for me to make that assertion, terribly bad form of me. I wonder if examining the null hypothesis that he ISN’T showing fundie tendencies would be an acceptable study for my scientific method homework….hmmm
In my defence, I had spent a distressing few minutes reading about how “out of time” artefacts found “in” pre-Cambrian (no Cretaceous – scratch that Silurian – oh heck we don’t know) rock formations prove that modern geology is essentially a lie. Sometimes I find fundies lurking in the oddest corners seemingly lying in wait to tell me everything I study is a waste of time.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Spange, (267),
Just wait until you find adjacent fossils of a ‘James Grieve’ apple core and the large skeleton of a snake with its larynx re-arranged so that it would be capable of talking (Hissing Sid?), all in strata roughly 7000 years old. Then you’ll be in real trouble, squire.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
277. Anon -
dunno why.
that struck me as funny
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
275. Skydiver -
not knowing the specifics -
sometimes comments get kicked into moderation for too many links and have to be manually released.
sometimes links ..especially to vids..are just ‘dead’ links themselves. (YouTube is known to pull vids for whatever their reasoning)
so there is no point in that link being there.
so w/out more specific info…i’d just be guessing.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Fair enough Cyn. The link I noticed missing from #244 was this one:
http://herebedragonsmovie.com/
A movie about critical thinking.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Oh, I get it. This is the Kingdom of Anon and if we do not bow to kiss the hem of his robe, we will be considered no differently than the “dustmen” (God, where does THAT term come from? Ok, Webster tells me it’s a British term…go figure).
Anon, we had a bit of a skirmish over here some 230 years ago to separate ourselves from arrogant, self-important, nose-in-the-air types such as you. You got your ass handed to you, if you care to remember. That happened for a very good reason: that smug, holier-than-thou attitude blinded your forebears to their own faults and weaknesses.
I don’t come here to impress anyone with my wit and intelligence as do you. I am fully capable doing what I choose to do which is just a bit more complicated than “dustman”, the quaint term you chose to use.
I will tell you I have, for several years, been at the helm of a vehicle longer than you could ever imaging and weighing some, oh, here, let me convert it to metric as I am sure you would be at a loss using your old English measure you left us…oh yes, some 14 million kilos, more or less.
My entire purpose for being here with my comments is to show others how self-important you environmentalists are. Now you have shown us you are arrogant, prone toward divisiveness due to class, and not able to consider opposition of either science or opinion.
I also see how have absolutely no sense of humor, cannot accept your small place in this worldly expanse, and have absolutely no ability to be humble.
I am likely more British in my heritage than any other nationality. I used to find that a point of pride. No longer; my ancestral relatives have become an increasing embarassment and now I am quite put-off with the lot of them.
Good Day.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
What a little pain in the coq au vin!
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
To: Spange Re: #271
The problem is, we here on the “outside” only hear from the scientific fringes. It is not our “thing” to follow all the different facets of the different fields. If we tried to do that, you wouldn’t have any groceries on your shelves, electric for your lights, shoes for your feet, or trash removed from your curb. Thankfully, we each have our own jobs to do.
You mentioned the word “accord”. Let me ask, is that what science has become, a conflict to be resolved with an accord? Or am I reading the wrong meaning into that word…we do have a language divide on either sides of the Atlantic.
Not that I am an expert, as some here are so eager to point out, but isn’t science based on testing, proving not on speculation?
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
280. Skydiver -
checked the link & it is a direct to a website not YouTube and it is working. quick scan of text w/ disclaimers re: free content. so quick look ..seems cool. no clue why link did not make original comment.
but its here now.
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Skydiver-
took a quick look at the vid. unfortunately my rig doesn’t tolerate video well.
anyway…
is that suitable for children? if so. what age range?
btw- i am a huge advocate of critical thinking. do think i’ve seen snippets of that whole program (40 mins. +) and i’m always on the look out for child appropriate, short, free media online for the homeschooling of my own child.
so something short and sweet off that …appropriate for a pre teen might be a good teaching tool.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Cyn,
It’s totally appropriate for children however anyone under the age of 14 will likely lose interest pretty quickly.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
286. Skydiver -
or over 50 like me would prolly fall asleep. LOL
no offense. hey, ya get old. your attention span reverts to childhood. LOL
thanx for the info. anyway.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Mud Man, (281),
“Oh, I get it. This is the Kingdom of Anon and if we do not bow to kiss the hem of his robe, we will be considered no differently than the “dustmen” (God, where does THAT term come from? Ok, Webster tells me it’s a British term…go figure).”
Correct on both counts.
“Anon, we had a bit of a skirmish over here some 230 years ago to separate ourselves from arrogant, self-important, nose-in-the-air types such as you. You got your ass handed to you, if you care to remember. That happened for a very good reason: that smug, holier-than-thou attitude blinded your forebears to their own faults and weaknesses.”
“Over here” presumably signifies the USA. That probably passes for racism or its equivalent, but we’ll let it go and settle for ad hominem instead. LV lore will tell you that if you address the author rather than the argument, you’ve lost.
“I don’t come here to impress anyone with my wit and intelligence as do you. I am fully capable doing what I choose to do which is just a bit more complicated than “dustman”, the quaint term you chose to use.”
As for the first sentence, that’s why you’re such a bore. You should try harder. Next on, bully for you. Read my lips and you will see I said your ‘job description’ was akin to a dustman’s, not your job. I suggest the remedy for that lay in your own hands.
“I will tell you I have, for several years, been at the helm of a vehicle longer than you could ever imaging and weighing some, oh, here, let me convert it to metric as I am sure you would be at a loss using your old English measure you left us…oh yes, some 14 million kilos, more or less.”
Bully for you. And no, the international standard for vehicle weights is tonnage. Try not to be such a damned sarcastically patronising anglophobe. It’s not becoming.
“My entire purpose for being here with my comments is to show others how self-important you environmentalists are. Now you have shown us you are arrogant, prone toward divisiveness due to class, and not able to consider opposition of either science or opinion.”
It didn’t start that way at all, you shameless liar. You tried to destroy my point of view. The evidence is in the thread. Besides, can’t we all imagine how you would whinge if you had the nerve to call out Mike Tyson on the street and got yourself knocked from arsehole (Oh, sorry, asshole) to breakfast time. He’d be the nasty, arrogant muscular bully you were only trying to prove had no humility in the face of your insults, wouldn’t he? Yeah, man.
Class divisiveness? Oh, that mention of dust(trash)men? Those splendid guys whose job is infinitely more vital and necessary than yours or mine, you mean? I doubt you’ll believe this, but I once had a good sporting dustman friend.
Your last half-sentence is a meaningless ramble.
“I also see how have absolutely no sense of humor, cannot accept your small place in this worldly expanse, and have absolutely no ability to be humble.”
If I could make sense of that too, I’d reply.
Summing up. If you don’t like the heat of the kitchen, don’t turn on the gas and light it in the first place. Or get out while the going’s good.
“I am likely more British in my heritage than any other nationality. I used to find that a point of pride. No longer; my ancestral relatives have become an increasing embarassment and now I am quite put-off with the lot of them.”
I’m sure the feeling is mutual.
“Good Day.”
Well, I hope so.
Now read this, whinger. You started the spat back in post 234. Check it out. You came strutting along there to knock shit out of me and those who share my point of view. You’ve shamelessly just admitted that again. You’d have been crowing from the hilltop if you’d succeeded. But you didn’t. So you’ve been getting progressively less and less arrogant, and more pathetic. You failed. Your actual arguments on the subject have shrivelled away to nothing. You can’t take it.
What’s worse, you are now using instead the slimy tactic of trying to dig up the War of Independence. Which would be like me losing an argument to a young German and accusing him of being a Hitlerian Nazi. Now listen here, my chauvinist pal, your being American and my being British has fuck all to do with what’s going on here. If you’d spouted that same crap to Randall (American) or any other halfway intelligent fellow national, you’d have got exactly the same just deserts from them back in your face. Let me tell you too, I’ve got more fine American friends and colleagues than you’ve had hot breakfasts. And they have British friends to the same ratio. So I’ll be sending one of them, Cyn, round to whop your ass, if you don’t wrap up this national hate session.
And bully for you again for the value of the professional work you do. No one has said a word against it. Unlike yourself, who is trying to use what you do in a snide, reverse-élitist way to demean what others do. Pathetic creep.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
288. Anon -


well, certainly hope that took a bit of the edge off for ya
as for whopping of the ass. nah..none of that. too much energy expenditure for too minimal a cause.
sorry but too tired & distracted to pay attention to exact details of the whole of this exchange between you two but..
think this summed it up nicely and is well worth remembering in hella lotta instances here in LV commenting land
‘If you don’t like the heat of the kitchen, don’t turn on the gas and light it in the first place. Or get out while the going’s good.’
and too..remember Anon… its only cyber space. its only the internet.
and you’ve far better things to do and a far better way of doing so than most.
just remind me of that when i go chasing windmills
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Anon- No need to bother Randall he`s probably asleep. So as an American who likes the English and has ancestors from England and proud of it i`ll make it short and sweet.Fuck You Mudman.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:28 pm
bigski,
Thanks. You’re a scholar and a gentleman. So glad our silly little original balls-up was settled and buried so quickly. Time for me to meet Mr Sandman now.
Oh, and Goodnight Cyn as well, and thanks for the advice. Anita would approve! But at least I don’t have to pay LV for the indulgence of pasting Mud Man like we have to pay some journals which publish our papers per page. Hahaha.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:29 am
One final post to stuff up your jolly old arse, Mr sneering Mud Man, since your concern is, I quote, arrogant self-importance, accepting one’s place in the world and the quality of being humble.
““dustmen” … where does THAT term come from? Ok, Webster tells me it’s a British term…go figure” “your old English measure”
From whence cometh an obligatory put-down here of the British English idiom and customs, or perhaps anything else that doesn’t make immediate sense to you as an American citizen? It’s an international site owned and developed by a New Zealander, with, to my knowledge, comments from Australia, Croatia, Turkey, Germany, Thailand, India, New Zealand, Ireland, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Mexico, Spain, France, and for certain many others.
In fact some of us not only make the effort to understand the differences between American English and our own brand, but occasionally touch the hat by using them when addressing one of our ‘friends from across the pond’. So ram that up y’all’s ass, dude.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Ah, I not only got in a really good night’s rest, but have just finished off a particularly trying, stressful piece of work. So I’m feeling more laid-back and inclined to replace post 292 with that simple LV refrain: Mud Man is too American. Hahaha.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Anon -
Brit comment aimed at no one in particular. just the stereotype.
as they say ‘no rest for the wicked’ so i must be very wicked cuz i get no rest
but laid back is the way to be here whether dealing w/ an arrogant American or a stuffy Brit.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Cyn,
But you KNOW I’m the archetypical Brit, me dear. Mr Bean personified. (Growls and smiles vacantly) Errrmmmmmm.
You gotta get rest. We cain’t have our Cyn fading away with wickedness now, can we?
February 4th, 2009 at 11:24 am
#275 skydiver
Thank you for the info. Don’t assume I’ll be drop to the level of arguing creationism Vs evolution. In a way I believe both, but it would take to long to explain and I am not that articulate. Here’s a mystery for you though: We can see how matter can change (in a star ) by the proton proton theory of two atoms colliding to eventually forming new matter.. Hydrogen becomes Helium and so on. Most stars in the universe have an Iron core. This is usually the limit to a stars creationists powers. Now it is believed our planet was formed by matter that was rotating around the sun. So the mystery is how do we get heavy metals such as lead and gold etc.. ? Wait I know your going to say supernova.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:38 am
#283: Mud Man.
Honestly I wouldn’t expect everyone to read all the papers written on the subject of climate change. Unless it’s part of your job, your studies or you have a particular interest then it’s likely a pretty dull way to spend your free time. However, if you are going to argue for or against it (you in a generalised, anybody kind of context) then my suggestion is that those fringes you speak of are not the best place to glean evidence for your argument or as the sources upon which to base an informed opinion – in fact they might well be pretty damn useless outside of being a basis for more in depth research.
By “accord” I meant reach a point at which there can be meaningful discussion as opposed to vitriolic back and forthing. Science has always been a hotbed of debate – that’s what fuels the continuing drive forward – but this one is particularly nasty at it’s extremes and this does nothing to help either side.
Well science is based on testing; testing hypotheses which are in very loose terms speculations. Proving something absolutely is very difficult, what tends to happen is a hypothesis is shown to be correct within reasonable probability and that is accepted until it can be disproven. For instance, gravity is just a theory but we all tend to assume it’s true until such time as someone shows otherwise. Climate is clearly a rather more thorny issue to come at because it is so complex however there are plenty of studies of what you could call sub-systems of climate – systems which have an effect on the world’s climate – where hypotheses have been proven. The question is how alterations those vital systems will affect global climate and that is where people are more apt to speculate.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:40 am
#294: Cyn. I’m a stuffy Brit….had this damn cold for a month and it just wont shift.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Mud Man, what a perfect sobriquet! I can only take that it has to do with what’s between your ears, rather than what you play or work in.
Why?
Because no matter how many times, in beautiful scientific language, Anon has explained to you the reality of climate change, your only reaction is to make fun, to lash out in anger, to be quick to dig at supposed soft places (note I said “supposed”).
These are the actions of an extremely insecure man. someone much smaller than he would like to be, if not physically, then most assuredly mentally…mentally under any conditions, and, as I’ve always maintained, the smaller the man, the larger the vehicle he drives…and you drive one heck of a large vehicle!
You are a sorry, sorry little man.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Spange,
Come to summertime Chile. We’ll turn you into stuffiless Brit in the time it takes to articulate Llullaillaco clearly!
Well, I applaud your polite persistence (297). I genuinely hope it pays off for both your sakes. I started with similar ideals in LV but wasted so much time and careful thought, I’ve now descended to the level you aptly qualify as ‘a particularly nasty extreme, not helpful to either side’. However, in my defence (why not?) I do sincerely hope I never myself begin a debate aggressively and with a closed mind, but still try to keep rationality to the forefront until (I consider) it has become a lost cause. That would be particularly true where I knew I was confronting someone in their own speciality. In fact, under those circs I’d usually be inclined to ‘leave the room’ deferentially, or turn my assertions to inquiries, rather than trying to rubbish the professional background of, say, a doctor, a pilot, an astronomer or an HGV long-distance driver.
In fact I have a sneaking suspicion, hopefully misplaced, that Mud Man is putting on an entirely different oh-so-reasonable face for you in order to try to show me up as the one in a bad light, and perhaps also to ‘divide and rule’ the scientists here. I could be over-estimating his capacities though.
On a different tack, re. 277. They seem to have found the fossilised skelington of our giant snake this very moment in Columbia. I read of it as being 13-14 metres long. No doubt the apple core will follow IDC.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
segue,
You know you are welcome to summertime (or anytime) Chile with or without a cold. Now or in 25m years. I drive a teensy weensy little vehicle (hahaha), so it’ll be a cozy squeeze for us all showing you around, and the colds will need to be cured too.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
hey Anon…r u from Chile??
February 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Anon: What a lovely invitation! Our B&B business, with the economic situation as it is, is dismal right now. Which means our play money is dismal. Which means trip money is non-existent.
However, if you keep the invite open, and the economy turns around, we’d love to come to Chile!
February 4th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
#300: Anon. (Damned internet memes, now the innocent number 300 will forever in my mind be associated with hoarse screams about Sparta)
Ahhh Chile in Summertime sounds like just the place to be relieved of stuffiness! They have nice rocks there too, always a bonus I feel.
One thing I think most people are guilty of at one time or another is resorting to an extreme position about something they feel strongly about, especially when faced with dogged bullheadedness. It’s not something you should feel the need to defend. In places other than here I have become equally irritable although on different subjects (I have been known to descend into ire-filled rants on issues as diverse as vaccination, electricity supply to rural areas and circumcision), I’m sure most people have. It’s very hard to remain level headed when your motives and character are called into question.
You live in Chile, if predictions regarding the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic prove correct that’s an area of the world that could suffer greatly – I recall you mentioning elsewhere in this thread that the area already suffers droughts. It’s entirely right that you should be concerned about the future of your home and it’s citizens. I don’t consider thinking about that alarmism, more of the nature of preparedness. It’s a possibility we should address.
I’m not sure why some people refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of climate change and man-made at that. Is it guilt, fear, simple contrariness? The fact is that changes to our climate mean we have to make changes to our lives – we here in Britain might need to invest in snow chains perhaps. Is it not better to ready ourselves than suffer the consequences? Readiness needn’t mean wholesale disruption. There is nothing to be gained by denying or ignoring climate change, allowing the idea head room however allows us to perhaps safeguard the planet for at least a few more generations.
I too read about the discovery of the dread serpent “as long as a bus” and probably twice as fierce. I suspect there will be much glee amongst the um…what do they call themselves…Biblical Geologists tonight. I await the apple core with baited breath!
February 4th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
How fabulously entertaining. Mud Pie is quite abusive with no merit. Love the list and the post. Keep me laughing, Anon!
February 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Anon-
& insomnia ..no matter the source…been a lifelong issue for me. certainly not improved by parenthood.
i betcha you’re much more adorable than gawky Mr. Bean.
eh..seems we each are cursed w/ something..some of us more than one.
Spange -
stuffy as in attitude..not congested as in snotty nose. ROFLMAO!
don’t mind me. i amuse myself.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
281. Mud Man – February 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Oh, I get it. This is the Kingdom of Anon and if we do not bow to kiss the hem of his robe, we will be considered no differently than the “dustmen”…
Yes, and his reply to you on 288 should show you why. And, might I add, you were lucky it was Anon with his relatively calm reply. A post like that to Randall and you would find yourself the proud owner of a couple new arse-holes…
**************
BTW, can we move that trip to Chile up by about 25m years minus a couple of weeks? I´ll be in Santiago then!
February 4th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Pearlytom (302),
“hey Anon…r u from Chile??”
Well, let’s just say I’m resident here until I get kicked out for making over-outrageous posts on LV!
Yup, my Chilean wife and I are botanists who specialise in the flora of the region. Almost everything favours our living out here. Climate, food prices, property prices, lowish density of population, wonderful landscapes, several exciting areas of natural history locally and access to many more, proximity to field work, etc. Miss family and friends in the UK, of course, and it gets harder and harder to afford a visit. It used to be annually (in conjunction with work), but is now only every several years.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Mud Man, (260),
Although it was only intended as another cynical stick to beat me with, you do casually raise an interesting point that’s worth exploring superficially for a line or few.
“So you’re an expert…good for you. We have allowed our financial institutions to be guided, regulated, and operated by educated and “experienced” professionals. Look at what we have now. And you expect people to believe your science is any purer than theirs? Not a chance.”
To whit, the difference between artificial human finance-based economies and natural ones.
In a nutshell, the human ones have a large element of what we might call ‘castles in the air’ about them. Natural economies, on the other hand are exclusively built on solid realities. Exclusively so, without exception.
If there is any doubt or speculation about natural phenomena, it’s ours. We might wonder whether it will rain tomorrow, or whether climate is affected by human activity, or whether the seeds we sowed yesterday will germinate. Nature doesn’t wonder or speculate. These things happen or don’t happen irrevocably, according to the dictates of circumstances. One of the practical jobs of science and scientists is to work out what those critical circumstances are, and what their effects will be. So that we might be able to anticipate and perhaps avoid natural disasters such as earthquakes, or in other cases take advantage of them.
Now look at human economies. I’m no epert at all, but it seems plain as a pikestaff to me that their solid base is actually the natural economy: the availability of food, raw materials and manpower, for example. Even the air we breath figures, without which no humanity and no dependent economies would exist. So to build a house one needs the solid natural elements that constitute its structure, including construction machinery, and the labour to erect it. After that comes all the economic castle in the air: it’s price, the morgage, the payment for those raw materials and labour, agent’s fees, bank loans, continuing employment to provide for repayment: in fact everything that involves ‘money’ whether as present and physical or speculative future. And economies are built and underwritten on speculative futures: of food and commodity prices, etc. I remember being told by a maths master at school that our banking system was based on the principle of everyone being able to draw out money whenever they wanted: but if everyone did so simultaneously, the bank would go bust and coudn’t honour the pledge.
So scientists’ work is to sift and analyse visible phenomena, and try to co-ordinate, make sense and anticipate them in combination. Economists, on the other hand, have to use their training, observation of current trends, and professional intuition as a form of gambling, if you will, to try to anticipate an uncertain and ever unpredictable airy future which might take any of a number of unexpected turns. Those turns (in turn!) are prone to be affected by unforseen turns in the natural economies, which can lead to disaster on a human scale.
Castles in the air may be just that. But their stones and mortar are just as real as if they were built on solid foundations. So when the ‘air’ gives way, so does the real world in which we live, as witness the present.
So, my friend are you still so convinced that scientists are equivalent to and as ‘useless’ as economists have proved of late (so you say)? Can we still afford to blithely ignore the scenario, however remote, of climate-induced knock-on effect to our human castles in the air, the very basis of our civilisation?
February 4th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Re:309
Anon,
Nice piece. Honestly, I believe that. I was worried that I might have stoked you to the brink…of what I don’t know…but it is good to see you calm and composed.
I read every word of #309…every word. No skimming, looking for a crack to lodge a piece of explosive rhetoric. You understand my point now. I have achieved my goal.
I am not a trained scientist, although I endeavor to prove whatever I can using my own crude means. That is not to say I am not trained at something, nor is it to say that I do not understand science. Quite the contrary, I understand the business of science all too well. That is where we meet the divide, between what you do (science, for simplicity) and what I was speaking of…the business of science.
Yes, I took a jab at you personally and my British brethren as well. I did that for a reason. You must be made aware that all too often you (pl.) come across as being god-awful know-it-all experts, while a cursory inspection shows you (pl. again) haven’t done so well with what we (the creeps, criminals, and others who left there) left behind in your care and keeping.
Understand that it also appears we here are showing signs that we are incapable of steering our own ship of state adequately, so it appears we are following the European example.
Pure science is not useless, but everything in science will be expressed in terms of statistics sooner or later. Therein lies the problem.
Nothing observed in the scientific realm is of any good use if expressed inaccurately, improperly, or dishonestly. Anyone who has completed a basic statistics course knows that figures (statistics) don’t lie, but liars can figure.
Couple that with sponsorship funding and a few “axe-to-grind” mentalities and you have the makings of a classic conflict of interest scenario.
You are on the side producing the data, I am on the side consuming the reports of that data (granted, far downstream). We have too many independent interests at work between us.
Duty calls, I am not able to finish right now.
Will we be able to call a truce?
Muddy
February 4th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Mud-ar, (310), (= Spanish for to move, as in removals, or moving house),
If you intend to hang around LV, I’d advise you not approach topics by provoking opponents, if that was your game. It isn’t the best way to arrive at sensible, considered conclusions, as Spange has just pointed out. It doesn’t do your argument or you any favours either. Besides, if you come up against a sarcy bastard like me, onlookers are more likely to end up laughing at than with you.
Frankly, if people play games with me, I shall certainly respond in kind. How else, and who wouldn’t? Unless the perfectly reasonable alternative of not bothering to reply at all. We’re all busy, you understand.
Nope, you weren’t in the slightest danger of doing anything to my psyche. Cucumber is my middle name. So is Randall’s, but it’s lucky you didn’t try him to find out how much more pepper he garnishes his pepino with. I’ve only twice ever got my knickers in a real twist, or heartbeat ticking above the average in LV. Once was my fault, very early on in my involvement indeed. The other was my first tangle with extreme trollzism, and very nasty it was too.
As to your points. Yet again you have failed to take on board the aspect that Spange has particularly emphasised. Science is a fiecely competetive and self-examining discipline. Nobody gets away with pushing out crap for some fundie organisation, be it commercial, religious or academic. Because if they do, there’s a whole load of other eagle-eyed, vulturine science wallahs out there waiting to fall all over then and tear their work to pieces if it’s managed to get past no peer reviewing, or pisspoor peer reviewing. Please understand that.
I do however, appreciate that the layman cannot be expected to distinguish between crap journalism or sensationalism and serious stats and conclusions. My suggestion is: find the big names in science everyone trusts and the accessible journals of high quality and sticj rigidly to those. Read anything else cum grano salis.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
311 Anon
My intention never was to hang around here…the atmosphere is a bit too chilly.
I laid the perfect peace at your feet and yet you choose to go on and on. I’ve waved the white flag, I am in over my head, I surrender, uncle, what more do you want?
M.M.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
M.M.,
I thought you were mainly looking for the way into valid science at your last-but-one post, and that was mostly what I was trying to get over to you. Believe me, it’s a wonderful, enriching world when you understand how it works. I approached it quite late on from another direction, so I know. Perhaps I’d better not say, “Ask segue”, under the circs! I’d be much happier for you to be on our side appreciating it than submitting to me as though I were some kind of victorious enemy (flattering though that might seem!).
Believe me, whatever you are here for, my particular intention is to try to enlighten with what makes sense of the world for me, and also have fun. Which I do. A lot. I realise my viewpoints are the diametric opposite of those of others, and there is to a degree a battle for hearts and minds going on here in ’serious’ topics such as this. But ‘dead bodies’ on the battlefield doesn’t strike me as the best outcome for that. Unless they’re dogmatic mortal foes, of course, then the more blood and guts the merrier!
The atmosphere in LV can be as chilly or as warm as you want. You make your own bed here. I assumed you wanted to keep going. If not, I promise you others would have chucked in the towel well before you have. So that was intended as advice on how best to settle in here, albeit tough advice. Someone like you might even be able to cook up an interesting list of 10 facts about HGV rigs, or driving them, or maybe even how they’ve featured in movies. I don’t know. Think about it. Think positive. LV could enrich your life. (Adds footnote: Jfrater doesn’t pay me for saying that.)
February 4th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
313. Anon -
‘LV could enrich your life. (Adds footnote: Jfrater doesn’t pay me for saying that.)’
but i will. check’s in the email, dude!
February 4th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Cyn, (314),
You didn’t get my bank code yet. You will!
February 4th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
315. Anon -
yeah. you do that.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
313. Anon:…Perhaps I’d better not say, “Ask segue”, under the circs!…
****
Whyever not? Just because I questioned his manhood, called him a sorry little man and a pain in the coq au vin you think I can’t be neutral?
February 4th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
317. segue -
thanx for the LOL
February 4th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Most serious proponents of astrology would agree that star signs as published in the popular press aren’t accurate. Serious proponents also chart the location of the planets at one’s time of birth. Likewise, Chinese astrology, which starts off with 12 yearly signs, also has monthly signs, daily signs and hourly signs, which further multiply the possibilities. The location of one’s birth could also be a factor. I was born in September, which is an autumn sign, but I was born in the southern hemisphere, where September is spring.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
318. Cyn: Anything for you, Cyn!
February 5th, 2009 at 10:43 am
segue, (317),
Au contraire (to keep us in the coq of the roq idiom), I wasn’t for a minute questioning your roq-like impartially.
My doubt lay in the ability of M.M. to accept it! Only he can answer that one though.
Apropos, as our pro expert here, would you say I was right in thinking (thanks to M.M.) that the theme of the part (or even role) played by HGV rigs in films might make an intriguing list? I’m not expert enough, but I can think of one film devoted to the aspect, and many others with exciting bits involvolving rigs, including fights on top of them, heroes struggling along their sides to get into the cab, etc., etc.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:59 am
astraya, (319),
I’ve always taken even serious astrology to interpret as all humans born in roughly the same governing place at the same time will share common proclaimed characteristics. Apparently regardless of genetic input. Otherwise how do you separate innate from external astrological influence (genotypical from phenotypical)? Time and seasonal zones change gradually too, so what boundaries? The theory would imply a violent, passionate, misanthropic murderer couldn’t share a birth date with a calm, saintly monk, for example. Does investigation bear this out? How much consonance is there between any discrete systems that have a claim to be called serious? Also, as I have pointed out, if we accept evolution, astological governing influence must stretch back into the organic kingdoms, even if it dwindles away to nothing at some point. In that case, what point?
February 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
321. Anon: Rigs are always of interest to work with. The variables are numerous, and the dangers are very, very real (reely, reely, reel!). I was on one shoot where a carefully choreographed rig movement went awry, and the camera assistant got massive brain damage from being hit. I was about 15′ behind him.
All that being said, I think a list devoted to their part in movies would be interesting for everyone.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
There you are, Mud Man. Let’s be having you.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
How about eugenics?
And blood letting?
February 19th, 2009 at 10:51 am
300? Cries of Sparta? A movie based on a comic book hardly passes as history. Lets not forget the 14,000 Hitites that were there. Plus the fact this movie took from Herodetus histories battle of Marathon, that the Spartans refused to participate in.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Lets have a look about… Phew, they’re gone.no more of their self serving ramblings.Caught up in petty victories of nothingness.Did the experiment work? Which was? did they address the paradox?The three paradoxes of cosmogony are thus:1 There can be no effect without a cause. Whatever events transpired near the outset of time, each must have been caused by some prior event. So we can never attain an account of the very beginning. 2:You can’t get something from – or for- nothing. The origin of the universe, if that concept is to have any meaning, must create the universe out of nothing.Therefore (ergo) there can be no logical explanation of Genesis (In terms of astronomy the word genesis does not denote the first book of the bible, but a term for beginnings) And finally or thirdly: Regardless of it’s net energy, the universe must have originated from another system, and that system must in turn have had an origin of some sort. And so we are caught in infinite regress.
So why wait for the likes of people such as Anon and Skydiver to leave the scene?. Well, the paradox was first presented at #178 And #179 was to cause their high and mighty opinions to bubble forth.Follow the thread (There really is none here. Just like this is not even a forum) and you can amuse yourself with there self-congratulatory pats on the back at how tiresome dolling out their wisdom has become. And how the masses just can’t possibly understand them. (reminds me of angst ridden teenagers) I applied the second paradox to evolution. But instead of seeing a paradox, it was more important to separate any form of evolution with a beginning,convientley avoiding the issue altogether.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I’m lost ross, how did u apply this to evolution?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Seems to me that if you wait until anyone who opposes your viewpoint is gone before you make it again, you lack the ability to persuade people to your viewpoint, or the maturity to accept people will be against any given viewpoint.
Also, try re-reading your own posts before posting them. The one above doesn’t make that much sense – particularly the second paragraph :s
February 24th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
True, it was written in haste. The point being, that people ( such as Skydiver ) try to separate evolution from a beginning ( Abiogenesis ) Thus avoiding a paradox of entropy. It would be simply assumed if I question any aspect of evolution I therefore don’t believe it. Not true. Your point of waiting for them to leave has nothing to do with persuading people to my viewpoint.I waited for them to leave so they won’t fill up the page with their ramblings.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
326. ross: Oookay, ross. I took your suggestion and went back to read posts 178 & 179 and all I can say is, you, sir, are an idiot.
I’m usually not that blunt, but there just aren’t any other words that come to mind.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
oh no seque haunts us. Of course you were right to call me sir. Now go away
February 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I have made it a life-long habit never to obey the ramblings of an idiot. I am not going to make an exception for the sake of such a petty egocentric idiot as yourself.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Sorry, ross. I have just lost all respect for you. You cannot possibly think you look intelligent and respectible when you tell the first person who disagrees with you to go away. It seems you are the one rambling; others are merely playing devils advocate or placing their own view and you cannot handle that. Grow up. Learn to accept criticism. Then come back and argue your case.
BTW, telling segue to go away….you are perilously close to invoking the wrath of segue…
February 24th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
333. cymraegbachgen87:…BTW, telling segue to go away….you are perilously close to invoking the wrath of segue…
****
Thank you, cym, but ross is not worth the effort. Imbeciles are best left alone lest they be contagious.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:01 am
And now for a brief descent into the murky nether regions of Ad Hominem:
PSSAF – pompous self-serving arsehole farts @ 326.
End of my latest vast bubbling ramble.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:05 am
But no, hold it. I feel another bubbling ramble coming on!
Well never mind, folks. In fact ross doesn’t exist and we have no need to discuss and address him at all because we can’t. You see, he’s a paradox. He thinks he’s ross, but actually, if you trace him back, he’s merely the egg and sperm of his parents. His parents? What parents? They are merely the egg and sperm of their parents, and so on backwards in a never ending chain to the beginning of organic life and the unicellular replicating object that thought it was ross. The beginning of life? There can be no beginning, just keep on and on ad inifinitum through eternity and you will never get to the bottom of that which tries to isolate itself as ross. Is there no hope then for an END either? ARRRRGHHH!
February 25th, 2009 at 7:44 am
You know. When that which calls itself ross was little at the seaside, he used to wait for all the nasty, rough boys who rushed wildly around and threw sand about to leave the beach. So’s he could build his pretty, elaborate, pretty elaborate sand castles alone in peace. Diddums, then.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I can see him, Anon, there at the seaside, his seersucker shorts and sailor shirt filled with sand thrown at him by the rough, nasty boys, and the tears running through his dirtied, downy cheeks as he discovers his marmite sandwiches are also sand filled, ruined.
Someone has stepped on his inflatable ring, with the duck head, and now it’s torn and flat; never to be used again.
It’s just a day like any other. Everything goes wrong.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Ha ha ha. The little overweight gang (where’s skydiver?) arrives to dispense wisdom. Hanging around a list site day and night month after month. What exciting lives you have.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Gosh segue,
And just imagine. With a juvenile image like that he may have grown up to look like that photo of Albert Eistein on the beach over at the latest Influential Scientists topic! Being an Alfred Einstein lookalike is one thing though …
February 25th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Did you spot my deliberate mistake?
February 25th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Little round ones they are.Day and night. Month after month.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I assume you’re referring to Albert Eistein.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
339. ross: 10:00 am… Hanging around a list site day and night month after month. What exciting lives you have.
342. ross: 11:27 am… Little round ones they are.Day and night. Month after month.
****
And you’re doing what?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Careful … ross may think that Anon, segue and cymraegbachgen87 are in fact the same person posting under different names to give the impression of ganging up on him!
February 25th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I pity poor Alfred. Half the time when people mention him, they’re actually thinking of someone else.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Oh ross, baby, my poor undernourished little waif,
We’ve come to expect much more froth bubbling from you than that.
BTW. We’re enjoying ourselves by the LV seaside IN OUR OCCASIONAL SPARE MOMENTS. Have you noticed that when we do, we’re all hanging in together like the group of good sand-kicking friends we are, ? Perhaps some more of our mates wil join us soon. Poor lonely little rossie, den, with his dented pride, pouting at the happy, laughing holidaymakers. Calling them names and wondering why no one wants to admire his lovely hand-crafted LV sand castles. Wondering whether to go away and play somewhere else, or just stick around all day and try to think up a way to spoil their fun.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
ross, (342),
“Little round ones …”
When I did my military service, the standard reply to that would have been: “Bollox!”
February 25th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
ross (339),
“Ha ha ha. The little overweight gang (where’s skydiver?) arrives to dispense wisdom.”
No, ross. It’s known as piss-taking in sophisticated social circles, not wisdom. You’ll find it a huge advantage in life to be able to distinguish between the two.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
ross,
All this is serving to do is the confirm what I have said about you which you so vehemently deny! How old are you? 7?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
ross, (339),
“Hanging around a list site day and night month after month. What exciting lives you have.”
So know thine enemies.
Yes indeed. Let’s consider those of us you so dismissively describe as leading exciting lives and spending all our time hanging aroud LV (i.e. LV regulars, as we are known). To my certain knowledge we include full-time teachers of various subjects, university tutors ditto, writers, working scientists in medicine, genetics and other disciplines, and organisers in the cinematogaphic industry. Doubtless those occupations could be added to considerably. Although myself officially retired, I am nevertheless studying a major group in the South American flora, including by in situ field investigation. I write papers on that and other aspects of the regional botany, and I also author books from time to time. I put more time into this occupation than average office hours.
And you fill your busy, exciting LV-free hours in the trailer park how …?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
339. ross: Hanging around a list site day and night month after month. What exciting lives you have.
Says the guy hanging around the same site, obsessing about the lives of other posters. LMAO
February 26th, 2009 at 12:11 am
350. cymraegbachgen87
“ross … How old are you? 7?”
Oh, give him back his bucket and spade, cym. That’ll keep him out of mischief for a while.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:40 am
“Gosh!” I thought to myself, “whatever can have happened over on the Debunked thread that there are so many replies to it clogging my poor inbox?” So I dutifully trot over here to investigate. Tsk, tsk ross. Must you be such an overbearing little twerp? Honestly your points at # 178 & 179 were just bollocks and were replied to quite fairly at the time; but it seems that you were going to bide your time and come back with an amazing, erudite, insightful and astonishingly revelatory comment as soon as those fucking bullies left the scene. Sadly, in your haste to be a smart arse you neglected to be anything except a twonk.
I think I see what your problem might be though. Possibly it’s your reading comprehension or lack thereof. Re your #325 which I suspect is in “response” to my #303, was that just your excuse to show the world you know something? Or did you feel it was necessary to educate poor little old me about the importance of recognising the inadequacy of Hollywood blockbusters as history sources? Seriously did you even bother to read anything there because I have to tell you chum it was pretty damn clear that the reference was not to an actual, historical event or in fact the film I haven’t seen but to a meme (look it up) and a bloody stupid meme at that. Not entirely sure how you read anything into it other that that my brain is susceptible to making idiot connections without my consent or that I hate that damnable meme. Of course, now I have said that I bow to your superior knowledge of Hittites. I think that was what you wanted right?
It seems odd to me that you had the temerity to call others on their (supposedly) arrogant attitude in comments to you and their (allegedly) empty, dull and worthless lives yet you yourself exhibit a fair old bit of arrogance and frankly a nit-pickiness I would generally attribute to miserable little old men with nothing better to do.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Spange (354),
” … and frankly a nit-pickiness I would generally attribute to miserable little old men with nothing better to do.”
Hey, leave me outa this!
February 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Has anyone else noted a distinct lack of ross since we took him to task after his last, feeble, moronic attempt at attack? I do believe even he was embarrassed at the imbecilic way it turned out; after all, even a dog, caught doing something he knows is naughty, will react with shame.
Anon, my dear, you are *not* miserable. Nor are you old. And I must say that nit-pickiness is highly underrated.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:59 am
segue:
Really, another possibility is that ross’ medication finally kicked in.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
357. Randall: Ah! A consideration I hadn’t thought about. Yes…yes…it makes sense now. His mother has given him his dose of Ritalin and it’s taken effect, thank goodness.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
segue:
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Thorazine or Prozac, but hey, one never knows.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
359. Randall: Prozac isn’t strong enough unless in mega-doses, but I’ll grant you Thorazine as a good possibility…probability even if he’s an adult. I keep thinking of him as a child.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Anon: terribly sorry. I shouldn’t have brought you into it.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Spange,
I’ll forgive your unintended indiscretion … Just this once.
So Randall’s joined us on the beach. I could almost feel sorry for ross. But I don’t think I’ll bother. I rather enjoy kicking sand.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:38 am
segue, (356),
Anon, my dear, you are *not* miserable. Nor are you old. And I must say that nit-pickiness is highly underrated.
I hope I never, ever give you cause to swallow ANY of those sweet and wonderful words.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
February 27th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Wow. The hatred here has really been notched up. You must enjoy beating the mentally handicapped for a hobbie. Who Am I. I am an idiot.More about me? I’m also a misanthropic psycho. A rich one at that. Oh, you want to know what I have been up to? Well I’m going on a trip. It’s going to be a long one. Expensive too. Not really the trip so much. More like the information to be collected for the trip. I don’t actually collect the info myself. I pay someone to do that for me. I’m going over to Mali. I have a friend who has a problem with a machine that’s keeping him up all night. I’ll see what I can do, but the best answer is probably just to unplug it. Some machines can only be unplugged at night. Searching for things does take time but not as long or as difficult as say Ourisia Polyantha. I know this may sound a little Cheesy, but you’ll eventually understand. Wish me luck
February 27th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
john w. (365),
Fxck your luck.
So. You’ve found out my real life identity and that I’m involved with Ourisia polyantha (its a small ‘p’ by the way, like you). Well how very clever. I hope you didn’t waste too much of your precious life in vain. I hope it keeps fine for you. What are you going to do about it? Tell everyone on LV my name? Go ahead then. See if I give a flying fxck (no ‘u’ to stop this being delyed by moderation, you understand). Jamie lives with his real identity. I’ll get used to it. I may even like it. I’m retired and freelance, so you can’t blackmail me anywhere for opinions I’ve expressed. Did you expect me to cower in fear from you ‘giving things away’ about me? What will you do, find out where I live, peer in through the loo window to see if I wank, so you can tell the world? There’s only one wanker in this exchange, so sod off. Here I am facing you openly. Try your worst. You have nothing to harm me with in LV.
Thinking of some kind of physical violence are we? You won’t scare me with that one either. Life is always a risk. If you are just one more, you’re not going to screw up my existence with fear. So forget that option, sweetie.
As for your sicko profile of what you think I am and what I do and ought not to do, it tells me a great deal more about you.
That’ll do to be getting on with. Your move, you sneaky creep who would obviously never have the courage to stand in your real name.
Or better still. Get a life.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
365. john w: You are a real crawlly little creep, a moronic, testicalless, gutless, spineless, spit4brains twerp.
Go drown yourself in the gutter where you so obviously live.
I’ll dance on your grave.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
365. john w.
what a sad little piece of humanity you are! you say:
“Expensive too. Not really the trip so much. More like the information to be collected for the trip.”
why on earth are you paying through the nose for information gleaned from “google books”? that makes you sad and very stupid, gloating about your “expensive information” that anyone can have for free!
the game is up, now you have nothing left to feel superior about, your little life must have lost its very last shadow of meaning! have fun knowing you’re impotent, dull, and alone, as you deserve to be. so crawl back into your hole and cry while you wish you were rich, powerful, loved, or interesting, knowing you will never be even one of them.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Thanks, gals,
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Anon-
if i’m not mistaken, seems the LV community has rallied to your defense and this issue is now moot. also if any further comments are made..will be diverted to moderation que for deliberation.
shall we move on?
& as always, email me if ya need me.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Cyn,
No problem, it seems. I’d only be worried if any relevant incoming e-mail address were in the same general geographic region as ours. Unlikely. My considered verdict after time to ponder is that we do indeed appear to have nothing more or less than a rather more persistent (and if I say intelligent, you realise I’m using the word as loosly and reltively as is poss!) member of the trollz union.
Yes indeed, an extremely touching response from the community, as likewise when something similar happened before.
Viva LV! Onwards and forwards, folks!
February 27th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I wish you well, Anon.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:20 am
john w, you have problems, seek help. Trying (and failing miserably it would appear) to intimidate someone whilst remaining anonymous yourself, is the height of cowardice. Pathetic
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 am
Oh my. My sympathies, Anon. I don’t suppose there is anything anybody can do about it? I’m not exactly a computer genius, so I’m not sure if I’m being stupid or not. XD
Good luck, though. You’ve got all of LV on your side. ^-^
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 am
Grateful thanks, you latest three.
No immediate signs of ‘the twister’ on the horizon, at least.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
374. Mortivore
“Oh my. My sympathies, Anon. I don’t suppose there is anything anybody can do about it?”
In anticipation, no. I’m sure if I’m assassinated, they’ll find whodunnit though! (Should I jest?)
April 15th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
What about phrenology, the old belief that, if I remember right, suggested that much could be told about a person by their skull?
June 5th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
ala kming pakialm dyan ang tanung ko lng bat ang taba ko
July 4th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Vitalism hasn’t really been disproven.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Basil between two bricks makes a scorpion! I am so-o-o-o going to give that one a whirl! I mean, it has to be cheaper than buying them from the pet store! LOL!
August 16th, 2009 at 10:26 am
For all the ignorant people who were the first to comment who believe that Global Warming doesn’t exist… wow. Please go to a science teacher and ask them to explain it all to you. Global Warming is a reality and it’s something that needs to be controlled. I don’t care if you think I’ve been brainwashed by Gore… I choose to believe in something which is actually going on in our world. Stop trying to prove that it doesn’t exist, accept it and move on.
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Haven’t read the comments. But, on top of global warming, biological evolution should be included as a debunked scientific belief. That one gets debunked just about every archeological find. One day we’ll look back and think, “How silly we were!”