TitaniumTeddyBear

I think this is shopped. I can tell from the lenses and from seeing quite a few glasses in my time.

The idea of parallel universes is popular in science fiction and, to a lesser extent, in science.

In its simplest form the idea is that every decision that is made spawns a completely different universe that is identical to ours except for the changes caused by that one decision.

One might think that given the sheer number of possible choices anyone, or anything can make (including the rate at which radioactive elements decay and the precise direction of the individual atoms that make up, well, everything) that the number of possible universes is infinite, and that (if the theory is true) literally anything could exist somewhere.

But that’s wrong.

Because the number of possible universes that could exist is not infinite. continue reading…

Related Posts:

• Quite a Bit of Alternative Medicine is Bullshit
• How Science Marches Forward, But Not Really.
• Ozzy Osbourne is a Genetic Mutant (Quickie)
• 10 Things You Didn’t Know Were Bad For You
• The Venus Project: So Near and Yet so Very Far

I've never been much of a leg man but wow!

Ok, enough fucking around.

I am very critical of the blind acceptance of mainstream science but recent events have convinced me that I need to reassert my loathing for non-Science that tries to pretend that it is Science.

Especially since some pseudo-Scientists seem content to watch their clients sicken and die from controllable diseases, just so they can make a fast buck.

continue reading…

Related Posts:

• How Science Marches Forward, But Not Really.
• Ozzy Osbourne is a Genetic Mutant (Quickie)
• 10 Things You Didn’t Know Were Bad For You
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Genetic Changes (QUICKIE)
• Why Bad Feels So Good: The Spread of Social Memes

Science is even more awesome than this .jpg implies.

I was recently reading the book “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris. The book has some interesting stuff although I did carry on wishing the author would provide more support for his positions instead of just asserting them.

But what interested me was that the author repeatedly said that Scientists are “objective” in their research, and are not biased in their findings.

This surprised the crap out of me because one of the main themes of social science research is that objectivity is impossible for human beings to achieve, and that the progression of Science has been dominated by massive egos, brutal deathmatches and tons and tons of bullshit.

I must of course say that I am not one of those loonies who thinks that Science is hokum and that “informal knowledge” or “common sense” are where it’s at.

It saddens me but there really are people who believe that you can learn more about how the world works by looking around your own community, than from looking at studies that span both geography and time.

Science works. The simple fact that you can see this message means that Science works pretty darn well.

I am likewise not one of those people who believes that if you stare at something and then write an article about what you think you see that this counts as ‘Science’. Science only works when it is done properly, and then it works really well.

But anyone who says that Science (or Scientists) is perfect is badly deluded, and possibly dangerous.
continue reading…

Related Posts:

• Quite a Bit of Alternative Medicine is Bullshit
• The Reasons for Opposing Obamacare
• Internet Freedom is Not Eternal: 3 Ways We Could Lose It All.
• The Tea Party Movement: Where ARE Their Gimp Suits?
• What’s a Libertarian, Anyway? (QUICKIE)