Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Anti-Science 'Skeptics' Are Not Skeptics. They Are Incredibly Willing to Believe BS.
Posted by Ross Pomeroy February 17, 2015


Being a "skeptic" is in. Doubtless, a great many "skeptics" of manmade climate change, vaccines, and 9/11 fancy themselves as brave, stalwart holdouts, standing tall against a tide of opposition, like Davy Crockett at the Battle of the Alamo.

But they aren't.

They are, however, incredibly willing to believe alternative, pie-in-the-sky explanations. Put it another way: They're not skeptical; they're extremely gullible.

Many climate skeptics contend that the massive scientific consensus on climate change is instead a conspiratorial hoax. Some vaccine refusers believe that health officials knowingly or unknowingly permit vaccine manufacturers to inoculate us with dangerous chemicals. 9/11 truthers argue that the attacks on the World Trade Center may have been orchestrated by our own government and covered up by the media. There is no convincing evidence to support any of these theories, but there is quite a lot that debunks them. In short, while these "skeptics" are incredulous to facts, they are incredibly credulous to fairy tales. This makes them some of the least skeptical people on Earth. Blinded by their ingrained, ideological worldviews, all they're doing is fooling themselves, and denying reality.

"They tell themselves that they’re the ones who see the lies, and the rest of us are sheep. But believing that everybody’s lying is just another kind of gullibility,” Slate's William Saletan eloquently stated.

For a great example of a "skeptic" who is blinded by his beliefs, look no further than comedian Bill Maher, who regularly (and rightly) lambasts Republicans for denying the overwhelming evidence on climate change, while at the same time ignoring even more overwhelming evidence on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Ideology, not evidence, governs his stances.

With the term "skeptic" being thrown around so haphazardly these days, it's worth mentioning what it really means to be a true skeptic. Few people know that better than the Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, an organization founded in part by Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov to promote "objective and impartial inquiry." In December, they announced their concern that "skeptic" was being confused with "denier," making it clear that the two terms are not the same:

Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

A true skeptic never dismisses an idea out of hand. A true skeptic is willing to be wrong, and recognizes an echelon of evidence that will change their mindset. And most importantly, a true skeptic doesn't only question the beliefs of others, he also questions his own. Because skepticism isn't just about doubting things you disagree with, it's about keeping yourself honest, open, thoughtful, and true.

If "skeptics" of climate change, GMOs, and vaccines, can embrace those standards, then they may call themselves true skeptics. If not, then they are simply anti-science deniers.

Quote:

Why is the 'theory' of the Big Bang unbreakable?

It's not.

All you need is evidence.

Not stochastic word salads.

... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence [Which? Those are different things, as evidenced by your choice of the disjunctive "or."] (string theory [String Theory is not a meta-intelligence being. It's a physical theory, 100% man-made] or s.th. ["s.th."? What? You don't even have a word for it? Then how can you give it the 45% possibility of being responsible for the universe if you can't even identify it? You've named four different CONTRADICTORY possiblilities that you're giving 45% faith to. And you think this **** is a "validly plausible" as the Standard Model? I'll say one thing, it's as "validly plausible" as the Scientology you seem to admire.]; 30% another ILF [Why "another ILF"? Why not the "meta-intelligence you included in the 45% part?], sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here)[Cool story, bruh. Very L. Ron Hubbard-ish. Problem is...evidence. Got any?], and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang [Which you have repeatedly denied ever happened, and yet give 25% credit to? Puh-lease.] and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean)[It means the Standard Model, which you have also subsequently argued to be trash. Make up your mind. Does it share 25% credibility along with the Big Bang (which you also deny) or is it a profoundly flawed product of a scientific conspiracy?] and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter.[This just does not make any logical sense. What is "fused with 'the' time" and how did Dark Energy and Dark Matter do this? What are you even talking about? How can you give 25% to it/them, then deny that it/they ever happened?]
...

This is next fable for idiots - the modern medical science cannot fix elementary diseases like diabetes and multiple sclerosis, that have poisoned the lives of humans for ages, but will start producing 3-D human organs - collection series, limited edition, for science connoisseurs only. If is does not fix the metabolic causes for the failure of the organ in the first place - even it succeeds to print out 4D human organs - it doesn't matter - the new failure is inevitable.

LHCb observes two new baryon particles
Posted by Cian O'Luanaigh on 19 Nov 2014.

Today the collaboration for the LHCb experiment at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider announced the discovery of two new particles in the baryon family. The particles, known as the Xi_b'- and Xi_b*-, were predicted to exist by the quark model but had never been seen before. A related particle, the Xi_b*0, was found by the CMS experiment at CERN in 2012. The LHCb collaboration submitted a paper reporting the finding to Physical Review Letters.

Like the well-known protons that the LHC accelerates, the new particles are baryons made from three quarks bound together by the strong force. The types of quarks are different, though: the new X_ib particles both contain one beauty (b), one strange (s), and one down (d) quark. Thanks to the heavyweight b quarks, they are more than six times as massive as the proton. But the particles are more than just the sum of their parts: their mass also depends on how they are configured. Each of the quarks has an attribute called "spin". In the Xi_b'- state, the spins of the two lighter quarks point in the opposite direction to the b quark, whereas in the Xi_b*- state they are aligned.

“Nature was kind and gave us two particles for the price of one," said Matthew Charles of the CNRS's LPNHE laboratory at Paris VI University. "The Xi_b'- is very close in mass to the sum of its decay products: if it had been just a little lighter, we wouldn't have seen it at all using the decay signature that we were looking for.”

"This is a very exciting result. Thanks to LHCb's excellent hadron identification, which is unique among the LHC experiments, we were able to separate a very clean and strong signal from the background," said Steven Blusk from Syracuse University in New York. “It demonstrates once again the sensitivity and how precise the LHCb detector is.”

As well as the masses of these particles, the research team studied their relative production rates, their widths – a measure of how unstable they are – and other details of their decays. The results match up with predictions based on the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).

QCD is part of the Standard Model of particle physics, the theory that describes the fundamental particles of matter, how they interact and the forces between them.
...

Things are looking pretty good for the Standard Model these days.

maxdancona wrote:

An intelligent designer wouldn't make the reproductive system so susceptible to disease.

This is not fault of the designer. It is a result of promiscuous intake of antibiotics and other 'medications' with delay intoxication and chaos causing effect ... and also as a result of the cleaner having stolen the detergent and washing the toilet with dirty water.

and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang

Then denied over and over and over and over again that the Big Bang ever happened. Whooo..

Another garbled stochastic word salad of unsupported stochastic claims.

Show some stochastic evidence for your stochastic "personal stochastic 45% god/alien stochastic/ILF/Big Stochastic Bang-although-it-never-stochastically-happened/Stochastic Standard Model-although-it's-stochastically-wrong."

Your big chance to present some genuine evidence that disproves the Big Bang and the Standard Model and proves that your god/alien thing is real.

The Nobel Committee is waiting...

I guess your version of statistical probability is different

If you are curious to know tossing a coin is a probability of Three outcomes, and neither two of them are equal as probability distribution, for the coin is never perfect ... and can be used neither as an example, nor as a formal model for modeling the fake Big Bang 'theory'.

So, we have Ω = {Heads,Tails,Edge}, and your claim was that the probability is not 50:50. Yes, it really is not 50:50 and if you measure it empirically (by making ten trillion trillions trials, for example) you may find out that Pr ({w1}, (X=Heads)) = 48%; Pr ({w2}, (X=Tails)) = 49%; and Pr ({w3}, (X=Edge)) = 3%;

...

FBM wrote:

Your big chance to present some genuine evidence that disproves the Big Bang and the Standard Model and proves that your god/alien thing is real.

     There is something wrong with you here. I am not disproving the 'Standard Model' (as you call it, but you are absolutely unable to formulate it) - I am verifying it. ...

ver·i·fy
ˈverəˌfī/Submit
verb
make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
"his conclusions have been verified by later experiments"
synonyms: substantiate, confirm, prove, corroborate, back up, bear out, justify, support, uphold, attest to, testify to, validate, authenticate, endorse, certify
"the evidence verifies my claim"

RE: the 'score' 4:0

Maybe this is another dictionary problem? Let me help you: ...