Common Room

williamgrogan

This thread is not a thread. Sorry, I’m just getting philosophical.

This is a “general comments thread”. If anything gets beyond a few posts then whoever started the sequence of posts should start a specific thread or stop posting to it.

Maybe posters who are reluctant to start a thread might post their comments & opinions here.

e.g.

“In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution.”

williamgrogan

Christy Moore, the musician, (btw I'm a fan, especially of Moving Hearts) was one of the leading lights of the Irish anti-Nuclear movement 30 years ago. At the time the Irish government and especially Dessie O’Mally was considering building a NP plant in Wexford.

Christy said this the other day, "In the late '70's and early '80's", I was angry. It was fuelled by different things. It was fuelled by what was happening; it was fuelled by alcohol and sometimes by justifiable and unjustifiable anger."

I wonder is he still as opposed to NP?

williamgrogan

Reading the following from an anti-smoking newsletter, I realised that the anti-smoking laws up to now were all protecting middle class workers.

see www.smokefree.net

STUDY FINDS U.S. FOOD SERVICE WORKERS' HEALTH AT RISKFood Service Workers Still Exposed to Carcinogens at WorkBerkeley, CA -- A study released today finds that, of all occupational groups, food service workers are the least protected from secondhand smoke exposure at their workplace. Less than half of the nations 6.6 million food service workers reported having a smokefree place of employment, compared to over 75% of all white collar workers, including 90% of teachers."Smoking was eliminated from all commercial airline flights in the U.S. more than a decade ago because of concern for the health of flight attendants," said Dr. Karen Gerlach, a co-author of the study. "It's time we extend that same level of protection to the nearly seven million food service workers in the country."The study, "Disparities in Smoke-free Workplace Policies Among Food Service Workers," ranked 38 major occupations on the basis of protection from secondhand smoke exposure through smokefree policies. Researchers found that white-collar workers, such as teachers and health care providers, have the greatest protection on the job, while food service workers fall at the other end of the spectrum.Unfortunately, the same laws that provide for smokefree office workplaces and public places often neglect bars and restaurants, leading to a discrepancy in worker exposure to secondhand smoke. Even worse, the study found that the gap is not closing quickly enough. Food service is the fourth largest occupation in the United States, and the sector is growing. Millions of service workers are unnecessarily exposed to secondhand smoke."The tides are shifting," said Cynthia Hallett, Executive Director of Americans focted from secondhand smoke."The trend toward local smokefree air laws is rising. Currently more than 1,700 U.S. communities and several states have passed smokefree workplace laws. Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country, killing 53,000 nonsmokers each year, according to the National Cancer Institute. It is a leading cause of heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illnesses. Subsequent extensive research confirms that there are significant health benefits in communities with strong smokefree laws, including decreased heart attacks and a drop in smoking rates. Exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace is an occupational health issue, and smokefree laws are designed to provide a safe and healthy place of employment for all workers."Workers expect to bring home a paycheck," said Hallett, "not heart disease and lung cancer."The study also found that compliance with smokefree policies was very high; only 3.8% of workers reported that someone violated a smokefree policies. "This makes sense," said Hallett. "It is much easier to understand and comply with a 100% smokefree law rather than one that has sections or makes special exemptions."The study is published in this month's issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Authors include Donald R Shopland, formerly of the U.S. Public Health Service; Christy Anderson and Dr. David Burns of the University of California at San Diego; and Dr. Karen Gerlach of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

davros

Might be worth a smile...

How to debate Creationists without being boring

Make sure to read the comments

williamgrogan

here's a new con.......

http://www.bewellnow.ca/bowen.html

williamgrogan

The Marian F. program has an article on about network selling of a weight loss program. Another double whammy con. Probably illegal.

williamgrogan

Consumer Health Digest #04-16
Your Weekly Update of News and Reviews
April 20, 2004
Current # of subscribers: 9,000

FDA plans to increase enforcement.

Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Lester M. Crawford has announced plans to
step up enforcement actions against improperly marketed herbal and
dietary supplement products. In a recent talk, he stated that during
the past six months, the FDA has inspected 180 domestic dietary
supplement manufacturers; sent 119 warning letters to distributors;
refused entry to 1,171 foreign shipments of supplements; and seized
or supervised voluntary destruction of almost $18 million worth of
mislabeled or adulterated products. In March the FDA ask 23 companies
to stop distributing dietary supplements containing androstenedione,
which are marketed to stimulate testosterone and muscle growth but
have anabolic steroid effects in the body. To support its consumer
protection actions, the agency is developing approaches to
systematically review the evidence about the safety of individual
dietary supplements. FDA expects to evaluate the available
pharmacology, published literature and adverse event information, the
approach that formed the scientific foundation for FDA's recent
ephedra ban. FDA's rulemaking on dietary supplements containing
ephedrine alkaloids became effective on April 12th, shortly after a
federal district court declined to issue a temporary restraining
order sought by some sellers. [Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Lester M.
Crawford outlines science-based plan for dietary supplement
enforcement. FDA news release, April 19, 2004]



Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc.
NCAHF Vice President and Director of Internet Operations
P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105
Telephone: (610) 437-1795

http://www.quackwatch.org (health fraud and quackery) http://www.casewatch.org (legal archive under construction) http://www.chirobase.org (guide to chiropractic) http://www.dentalwatch.org (guide to dental care) http://www.homeowatch.org (guide to homeopathy) http://www.ihealthpilot.org (under construction) http://www.infomercialwatch.org (under construction) http://www.mlmwatch.org (multi-level marketing) http://www.naturowatch.org (naturopathy) -- under construction http://www.nutriwatch.org (nutrition facts and fallacies) http://www.ncahf.org (National Council Against Health Fraud) http://www.chsourcebook.com (consumer health sourcebook)

Editor, Consumer Health Digest http://www.ncahf.org/digest/chd.html
Publisher, Chiropractic News Digest http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/chd.html

Donations to help support Quackwatch can be made conveniently through
PayPal or Amazon via
http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/funding.html

williamgrogan

Here's a "law" I hadn't heard of.......

Dawkins's Law of the Conservation of Difficulty states that obscurantism in
an academic subject expands to fill the vacuum of its intrinsic simplicity.

davros

Dilbert

Lorddrakul

There's a very interesting theory that was mentioned by someone on the Fortean Times Board based on the work of Andrew Neuberg [spelling?].

Neiberg did the brain scans on various religous people while praying/meditating. He came to the conclusion that there were certain neuro-ganglions which are activated during these periods and these have been labelled (somewhat misleadingly) as the "god nodule". There has been some evidence that those people who have a messianic complex have hyperactivity in this particular area.

Newberg has suggested that religious fervour, though not denying its possibly divine inspiration, may be an evolutionary strategy. Primitive societies tended to reach critical mass at a low population level. To get bigger, greater cooperation was needed and motivation was needed. The evolutionary solution was for a person to be born into such a community that would have a messianic complex. They would preach some unifying idea that would unite and motivate the people into a common effort that would ultimately result in an integrated society with the cooperation levels to sustain a town or city.

Within a certain time, critical mass for this type of society would be reached and another messianic complex person is born. They preach a different idea and a scion develops that wanders off and seeds a new community and the process continues.

The whole thing is suggested as a theory of colonisation.

Now the evidence is thin and the reasoning stretched but I find it one of the most fascinating ideas I have come across lately.

Thoughts?

LD

williamgrogan

I am the only person who thinks these people are missing the point?

From the IT today

The Irish Cigarette Machine Operators' Association, which also said it was not involved in the legal challenge, said members have had to sack staff and cut back working hours due to a reduction in sales.

Obviously everyone wants people who sell carcinogenic products to lose their jobs.

williamgrogan

New York Times comment on RTE's interview of their President

here

Ifyou haven't seen the interview it can be seen on the web. She asked him about his God and to give him his due he ducked the question quite well.

williamgrogan

Here’s a cheeky little wine that you might like to try…..

Some of the most remarkable new Cotes du Rhone wine comes from Domaine les Aphillanthes, home of Daniel and Helene Boulle. They operate a winery in the tiny village of Travaillan, north west of Gigondas.

Daniel Boulle has recently begun biodynamic organic farming (which involves farming to the phases of the moon, night-time harvesting, etc), and he says the results have been dramatic.

”My son had terrible eczema and other problems, and after a lot of doctors we finally found a solution in a natural medicine, in a biodynamic type of approach. So I said, if it is good enough for my son, then I am sure it will help my vines,'' says Boulle.

full article

Myksyk

I know why they're there but does it annoy anyone else that we are subjected to the irony of psychic tarot card reader's ads at the top of this page!!!

Myksyk

By the way ... LOVE the new look Boards Boys!!!!

Myksyk

Came across the website of the Paranormal Research Association of Ireland here. Not terribly interesting as you might expect but was surprised to see in their forum a post from the Boards' science forum moderator, Syke, encouraging them to get a bigger audience at Boards to generate more interest :eek: .

Of course Syke may just be advertising boards.ie but why would a promoter of science be interested in encouraging the spread of pseudoscience? He's obviously free to do anything he wants but it struck me as a tad incongruous. After all the paranormal forum here on boards explicitly disallows any debate, criticism or disagreement with regard to the paranormal. Would that be a good place to discuss 'research' findings?

Anyway, this is just a comment really, stemming from my surprise at that post.

Syth

Well Skye is a moderator of the Paranormal board (you have to look at the bottom of the page... damn vB3), so it would make sense fpr him/her to promote it, but now that you brought it to my attnetion, it does indeed seem strange.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

Of course Syke may just be advertising boards.ie but why would a promoter of science be interested in encouraging the spread of pseudoscience?

What pseudoscience is he encouraging?

Myksyk wrote:

After all the paranormal forum here on boards explicitly disallows any debate, criticism or disagreement with regard to the paranormal. Would that be a good place to discuss 'research' findings?

I think that particular rule may have been prompted by the possibility that 'skeptics' criticising things they disagree with haven't had a good record in terms of presenting a reasonable, sceptical or useful contribution to those subjects. A discussion of the rules could probably take place there to clarify what is and isn't allowed if required.

Myksyk

Syth wrote:

Well Skye is a moderator of the Paranormal board (you have to look at the bottom of the page... damn vB3), so it would make sense fpr him/her to promote it, but now that you brought it to my attnetion, it does indeed seem strange.

Very strange.

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

What pseudoscience is he encouraging?

Research into supposed paranormal activity. Science, by definition, assumes natural causes for all phenomena and most certainly does not begin its enterprise with the express aim of proving that particular phenomena have paranormal or supernatural causes. This is the domain of the pseudoscientist who wants the kudos associated with the scientific method without a committment to even its basic mechanisms or underlying assumptions.

I think that particular rule may have been prompted by the possibility that 'skeptics' criticising things they disagree with haven't had a good record in terms of presenting a reasonable, sceptical or useful contribution to those subjects. A discussion of the rules could probably take place there to clarify what is and isn't allowed if required.

I doubt that very much Ecksor. I think it would be far more accurate to say that that rule was prompted by their being unwilling to engage in a debate or hear the more likely and reasonable explanations for their experiences. If we had a similar rule here (i.e. shut up or get out if you don't agree with us) we would rightly be severly criticised as closed-minded and arrogant.

If you're reference to 'skeptics' here is an allusion to the discussions on this forum then I think you are being unfair and your perception may be influenced by one or two individuals' contributions.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

Research into supposed paranormal activity. Science, by definition, assumes natural causes for all phenomena and most certainly does not begin its enterprise with the express aim of proving that particular phenomena have paranormal or supernatural causes.

Well, I don't know how pseudoscience can apply to something that is paranormal since the definition of paranormal seems to mean something which isn't scientifically explainable. Can pseudoscience clear that particular hurdle? Even if it can, I'm sure it's possible to investigate paranormal activity without claiming to be scientific at all. Also, one person's "paranormal" is another person's "unexplained phenomena". Perhaps "research into supposed paranormal activity" can seek to find a scientific explanation, or did you mean "research into paranormal activity" there?

I think you should ask questions first and jump to conclusions second here. I shall point syke to this thread to get his take on it.

Myksyk wrote:

This is the domain of the pseudoscientist who wants the kudos associated with the scientific method without a committment to even its basic mechanisms or underlying assumptions.

Jumping to this sort of a conclusion straight away will certainly not make you welcome in most places.

Myksyk wrote:

I doubt that very much Ecksor.

Well, I have only a vague recollection of the thread that suggested the paranormal forum, and I can't find that particular thread now, but that's the reason I thought was behind it.

Found it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=151347

Myksyk wrote:

I think it would be far more accurate to say that that rule was prompted by their being unwilling to engage in a debate or hear the more likely and reasonable explanations for their experiences. If we had a similar rule here (i.e. shut up or get out if you don't agree with us) we would rightly be severly criticised as closed-minded and arrogant.

I'm not familiar with the running of paranormal, like many boards which cover subjects I find uninteresting, I only get involved when there is some trouble to be dealt with. When I went to verify that the rule you mentioned was in place, I found this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=177467

Myksyk wrote:

If you're reference to 'skeptics' here is an allusion to the discussions on this forum then I think you are being unfair and your perception may be influenced by one or two individuals' contributions.

Perhaps. I was thinking of these threads:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=144049

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=149496

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

Well, I don't know how pseudoscience can apply to something that is paranormal since the definition of paranormal seems to mean something which isn't scientifically explainable.

Firstly, pseudoscience alludes to that which has the appearance of science (e.g. research "with advanced technologies" as stated in the website) but is not science. Secondly, paranormal certainly doesn't mean something which is scientifically inexplicable, rather it is implies an assumption (usually unfounded and never dmonstrated) that something has a cause which is not natural. It is a term applied to anomalous phenomena most of which have perfectly 'natural' explanations. When science finds something it cannot yet explain it says 'we don't know', it does not assume that the cause is supernatural.

ecksor wrote:

I'm sure it's possible to investigate paranormal activity without claiming to be scientific at all.

How?

ecksor wrote:

I think you should ask questions first and jump to conclusions second here.

Fair enough. I await with baited breath a description of the research methodology, its results and conclusions.

ecksor wrote:

I'm not familiar with the running of paranormal ... When I went to verify that the rule you mentioned was in place, I found this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=177467

Spooky coincidence that this amendment was posted last night, but it is a welcome change.

Myksyk

By the way, looking at Syke's posting that you referred to, I see the following:

While we in no way want this forum to become a place for flaming or abuse of those who believe in the paranormal or those who have had paranormal experiences, there is always some good in discerning true paranormal experiences from events which may have other explanations.

I think this is an extraordinary statement from the science moderator. What does Syke mean by 'true paranormal experiences'? Are we to believe that someone has proof which categorically allows an experience they have had to be described as a 'true paranormal experience' as opposed to its being explicable in some other way. You see, to say 'those who have had paranormal experiences' is to proffer an explanation for the experience without evidence. You may have had a 'weird' or anomalous experience but to designate it as 'paranormal' means you believe you know why it happened and that supernatural forces played a role. Otherwise, you would just say you had a weird experience you couldn't explain. If Syke does indeed have evidence to back up his statement about 'true paranormal experiences' I think we would all like to see it.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

Secondly, paranormal certainly doesn't mean something which is scientifically inexplicable, rather it is implies an assumption (usually unfounded and never dmonstrated) that something has a cause which is not natural. It is a term applied to anomalous phenomena most of which have perfectly 'natural' explanations.

I was going by http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=paranormal

adjective: not scientifically explainable

Myksyk wrote:

When science finds something it cannot yet explain it says 'we don't know', it does not assume that the cause is supernatural.

I haven't gone through the paranormal websites or fora in detail, are they claiming to use scientific methodologies to prove that something is paranormal or are they merely trying to exhaust the options availalbe for finding scientific explanations? The thread I linked seems to suggest that it is the normal MO to see if science can explain something. There's a difference between doing that and then saying "This is paranormal" and saying "Science says this is paranormal".

Myksyk wrote:

How?

I'd imagine that one could enter into such investigations with all sorts of assumptions which aren't empirically testable and use methods of deduction that wouldn't conform to scientific method, which I thought you were saying anyway. If that's the case it's hardly a stretch to actually state that that is the case. Many/most people don't believe that scientific methods are the be all and end all of investigational techniques. By the same notion, if science fails in an investigation, then it's not standing in the best position to criticise someone for using another method of investigation or conclusion that it disapproves of.

Myksyk wrote:

Spooky coincidence that this amendment was posted last night, but it is a welcome change.

Since syke hasn't responded here I'd say there's a very good chance that he hasn't seen this thread. Spooky indeed. Some might call your coincidence a manifestation of some underlying supernatural influence.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

If Syke does indeed have evidence to back up his statement about 'true paranormal experiences' I think we would all like to see it.

I suspect that you'd require that evidence to stand up to scientific scrutiny, at which point the experiences no longer qualify as paranormal.

Myksyk

Ecksor, your source for a definition of paranormal is sound. However, I think you'll agree that the definition is poor by any standard. It obviously contains an unsupported assumption.

With regard to their methodologies, perhaps I am jumping to conclusions. They do claim they do research using advanced technologies, which appears to me to be using the language and tools of science without being science (i.e. being pseudoscience) but I grant that that is an assumption on my part.

I accept that there those who 'don't believe that scientfic methods are the be all and end all' but for me at least (and I thought for a scientist like Syke, hence my surprise and my original post) the scientific method would be the only reliable investigation technique. If syke is supportive of unscientific investigation of human experiences perhaps he could clarify what these methods might be.

Regarding the change to the paranormal forum ... I'm convinced it's supernatural.

But seriously, I will be interested to see how much respectful disagreement or debate will be allowed.

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

I suspect that you'd require that evidence to stand up to scientific scrutiny, at which point the experiences no longer qualify as paranormal.

The point is that they do not qualify as paranormal at any point unless demonstrated to be so. To say they are paranormal from the off is simply to express an unfounded belief or assumption.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

Ecksor, your source for a definition of paranormal is sound. However, I think you'll agree that the definition is poor by any standard. It obviously contains an unsupported assumption.

I think the definition is fine. What assumption and standards do you mean?

Myksyk wrote:

I accept that there those who 'don't believe that scientfic methods are the be all and end all' but for me at least (and I thought for a scientist like Syke, hence my surprise and my original post) the scientific method would be the only reliable investigation technique. If syke is supportive of unscientific investigation of human experiences perhaps he could clarify what these methods might be.

I hope you realise that I'm not claiming to speak for him here, I don't know what his take on this is. Regarding human experiences, do you use a scientific method for determining who the best available mate to you is? I'm sure you can agree that this is something that most of us investigate with great interest, but I don't know anyone who uses a scientific method (although amusingly I've seen one documented in popular maths books). Has love been explained by science? And if it has, do you agree that many would probably reject a scientific explanation? Perhaps you meant to restrict that to some of the cases under discussion.

Myksyk wrote:

But seriously, I will be interested to see how much respectful disagreement or debate will be allowed.

I'm less interested in that and more interested in whether the critics will be able to criticise in a reasonable and polite manner.

keu

pwshwshwshshshshh.......perhaps it's the beer but is just funny right now

Since syke hasn't responded here I'd say there's a very good chance that he hasn't seen this thread. Spooky indeed. Some might call your coincidence a manifestation of some underlying supernatural influence.

well...either that or its some sort of masonic influence...

anyways..as a regular of the paranormal board, I welcome any and all skeptiscism (particularly scientific analysis). how else are we supposed to discover stuff.

ecksor

Since the investigation methodology is under discussion here I decided to see if I could find any paranormal investigation methodologies and whether the assumptions that Myksyk refers to make any sense, but I drew a blank. What do the folks on the Paranormal board use?

Myksyk: Is there an online source for the practice of starting with the assumption of being paranormal?

keu

speaking from a slightly ineebriated position..I might confirm the methodoligy for investigation is based upon general consenses (senses being the operative word)

edit:although there is an amount of empiricil evidence to support the existance of "paranormal experiences", (experiences which are currently outside the realm of scientific understanding).
much of the evidence is either still being gathered and contemplated or incomplete as of current accepted reasoning. (and therefore fall under the category of "paranormal").....as of yet unexplained.