You might think that I would advise people to avoid complaining to the ASC, but I’m actually going to do the opposite. Please, complain about any ad you see fit; particularly those featuring pseudoscientific claims. I’m willing to bet you’ve even seen one today. Take 5 minutes and challenge the advertiser to back the claims up and hold the ASC to task. Consider that you might be the only person to do so and that the ASC would much rather deal with complaints about the advertised cost of cheese and underpants. If the ASC considers the consumer complaint process to be a learning tool, perhaps they should learn a little about what consumers expect to see from them when a complaint is filed. The story here isn’t necessarily about ear candles; it’s about how much work it took to get an advertiser to face the consequences of spreading harmful misinformation. Too much work for too little, don’t you agree?
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"
~P^2
The Following User Says Thank You to firebug For This Useful Post:
Animal footprint shoes, including Bigfoot, leave 'mystery' tracks in snow
The urban legend of Bigfoot looks set to be revived in a major way with these sets of custom-made shoes, which leave behind enormous footprints similar to that of the mysterious sasquatch.
1) Jump!
Now, scientists claim that Earth is spherical and rotating at a speed of between 700-1000 miles per hour, depending on your latitude. This is a very high rate of speed. You can disprove this nonsense by simply jumping up as high as you can. Really, it's that simple. What happens when you jump? You come straight down to where you were. But, if the Earth were indeed spinning at such a fast speed, wouldn't you land hundreds of feet away?
If you were to stand in the flat bed of a truck going 75 mph, and jump straight up, what would happen? You wouldn't fall straight down. You would fall out of the truck. That's because trucks move, the Earth doesn't. This experiment proves the Earth is fixed in space and doesn't move.
2) Blow!
Since if the Earth is supposedly a sphere, it naturally comes to assume what would happen to people below the equator, like in Australia? Since they are underneath the sphere, wouldn't they fall off? This is where scientists come up with mumbo-jumbo like "gravity" and "centrifugal force" to explain away their theories. So, the scientists want you to think that because the earth is so much more massive than people or things, that people will naturally "stick" to the bottom of the earth because of gravity.
This can be disproved very simply. Get a balloon and inflate it as big as possible. It will be a spherical shape. Now, take a piece of paper and try to rip, tear, or cut the tiniest speck of paper possible. This paper represents a human being, much smaller in mass to the balloon, which represents the Earth. Now try and place the small piece of paper to the underside of the balloon. What happens? It falls off!
That's right. Even though the balloon is so much bigger in mass, it cannot hold the tiny paper. So if the Earth was a sphere, no one could live below the equator because they would fall off.
3) Get High!
Ok, this one you really can't do at home, but you can do it out in the world. Stand on the ground and look around you. What's the farthest you can see? Maybe it's a building, tree, or mountain. Now, find some place very close to it where you can get a much higher vantage point. (This also works if you're on a jet and about to take off.) Notice how in the higher place you can see much farther? You can see more of the world the higher you get. This shows the world is flat because the higher you go, the easier it is to see over obstacles. At the same time, it shows the world cannot be spherical. Because if the world was curved, the far distance would forever remain out of view because of the Earth's curvature. It would eternally be over the horizon.
If the Earth was a sphere, it would not matter how high you went, you would still see the same thing. Since this is not the case, the Earth is flat.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kirant For This Useful Post:
1) Jump!
Now, scientists claim that Earth is spherical and rotating at a speed of between 700-1000 miles per hour, depending on your latitude. This is a very high rate of speed. You can disprove this nonsense by simply jumping up as high as you can. Really, it's that simple. What happens when you jump? You come straight down to where you were. But, if the Earth were indeed spinning at such a fast speed, wouldn't you land hundreds of feet away?
If you were to stand in the flat bed of a truck going 75 mph, and jump straight up, what would happen? You wouldn't fall straight down. You would fall out of the truck. That's because trucks move, the Earth doesn't. This experiment proves the Earth is fixed in space and doesn't move.
2) Blow!
Since if the Earth is supposedly a sphere, it naturally comes to assume what would happen to people below the equator, like in Australia? Since they are underneath the sphere, wouldn't they fall off? This is where scientists come up with mumbo-jumbo like "gravity" and "centrifugal force" to explain away their theories. So, the scientists want you to think that because the earth is so much more massive than people or things, that people will naturally "stick" to the bottom of the earth because of gravity.
This can be disproved very simply. Get a balloon and inflate it as big as possible. It will be a spherical shape. Now, take a piece of paper and try to rip, tear, or cut the tiniest speck of paper possible. This paper represents a human being, much smaller in mass to the balloon, which represents the Earth. Now try and place the small piece of paper to the underside of the balloon. What happens? It falls off!
That's right. Even though the balloon is so much bigger in mass, it cannot hold the tiny paper. So if the Earth was a sphere, no one could live below the equator because they would fall off.
3) Get High!
Ok, this one you really can't do at home, but you can do it out in the world. Stand on the ground and look around you. What's the farthest you can see? Maybe it's a building, tree, or mountain. Now, find some place very close to it where you can get a much higher vantage point. (This also works if you're on a jet and about to take off.) Notice how in the higher place you can see much farther? You can see more of the world the higher you get. This shows the world is flat because the higher you go, the easier it is to see over obstacles. At the same time, it shows the world cannot be spherical. Because if the world was curved, the far distance would forever remain out of view because of the Earth's curvature. It would eternally be over the horizon.
If the Earth was a sphere, it would not matter how high you went, you would still see the same thing. Since this is not the case, the Earth is flat.
That site is worth a visit. It is full of gems. I was laughing so hard, my co-workers thought I was on the funny picture / video thread again
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...octors-no-way/
There’s a great “skeptical chiropractor” message board here, where it’s full of disenchanted chiropractors who realize that their profession is a complete farce, but are so encumbered with student loans that they are forced to practice. I can’t imagine a sadder (professional) situation: http://chirotalk.proboards.com/index.cgi
How do you deal with people you know when they made pseudo scientific claims?
The reason I ask is a co-worker was telling me yesterday about this Scio machine his wife bought. It's just another name for a biofeedback machine which I already know is a load of crap and takes little research to find this out. He started talking about "quantum energy" and how it cured his nephew of ADHD by infusing some water with a specific wavelength of energy that you then drink and it treats you.
My immediate gut reaction was to tell him he's a moron, but I knew this approach wouldn't get me anywhere and it's not really my nature anyway. I've tried the calm, rational approach with him before on a different ridiculous claim that I can't remember anymore and it got me nowhere.
So how do you deal with people with these beliefs? Ignorance is bliss seems the easiest solution, however it seems wrong to not try and talk to him as who knows how many people his wife is claiming to "treat".
It is likely there is nothing you can do or say. It seems people are wired differently in how they consider problems - some people are more analytical, some people are more intuitive.
Refuting misinformation involves
dealing with complex cognitive
processes. To successfully impart
knowledge, communicators need
to understand how people process
information, how they modify
their existing knowledge and how
worldviews affect their ability to
think rationally. It’s not just what
people think that matters, but how they think.
Science-Based Medicine is dedicated to evaluating medical treatments and products of interest to the public in a scientific light, and promoting the highest standards and traditions of science in health care. Online information about alternative medicine is overwhelmingly credulous and uncritical, and even mainstream media and some medical schools have bought into the hype and failed to ask the hard questions.
We provide a much needed “alternative” perspective — the scientific perspective.
They cure cancer, reduce cholesterol, even eliminate AIDS. Their operators say these "energy medicine" devices work by transmitting radio frequencies or electromagnetic waves through the body, identifying problems, then "zapping" them. Their claims are a fraud. The Seattle Times has found that thousands of these unproven devices — many of them illegal or dangerous — are used in hundreds of venues nationwide.
So how do you deal with people with these beliefs? Ignorance is bliss seems the easiest solution, however it seems wrong to not try and talk to him as who knows how many people his wife is claiming to "treat".
The thing is you could bring the most convincing evidence in the world to them and all that will do is make them believe what they do even more strongly; that's a well documented psychological phenomenon.
Unless they've made a deliberate decision to evaluate their beliefs honestly and be willing to change them (i.e. decide not to be tied to a specific belief), then there's little you could do to change their minds.
Plus in verbal discussions like that it's easy for them to make a ton of claims in a few seconds, and properly confirming/refuting each one would take a bunch of research and work, so a discussion favors the person making the claims because while technically the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, in a discussion we tend to view it the other way; if he makes a claim and you can't refute it or address it right away then it just further confirms to him that he's right and your audience will feel your position is weaker because you can't refute his claims on the spot.
(Which is why science is done through written journals, not verbal debates, winning a debate with good rhetoric doesn't say anything to the validity of the claim)
In those situations now I usually try to stick to asking questions, or speaking in generalities about science and evidence and such and how their claims fit within such criteria. The right questions can quickly show the claims are based on nothing.
And even that I might not do depending on the situation; if it's a co-worker, I have to work with them so it probably isn't worth alienating the guy over. My sister has quite a few conspiracy style beliefs left over from her old boyfriend, and while we'll joust a bit around it we usually don't directly engage since I'd much prefer her in my life.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
The thing is you could bring the most convincing evidence in the world to them and all that will do is make them believe what they do even more strongly; that's a well documented psychological phenomenon.
Yeah, I can't remember the term for this, but you see it all the time with people who believe conspiracy theories. No matter how much compelling evidence you provide to show that the moon landing wasn't faked or 9/11 wasn't an inside job, they just take your evidence as further proof of a cover-up and a demonstration that the conspiracy goes even higher.
Additionally, in their eyes, you're just a blind sheep who doesn't see the truth.
I also find it interesting that people who believe one conspiracy theory tend to believe them all. It's like the part of their brain that exists to critically process information wasn't wired correctly.
In those situations now I usually try to stick to asking questions, or speaking in generalities about science and evidence and such and how their claims fit within such criteria. The right questions can quickly show the claims are based on nothing.
I like this idea, in a round about way try and get them to think they have come to the conclusion on their own, typically in the past these situations always consisted of
Smile and nod because I don't feel like arguing with you or risk infuriating you.
Telling them why they are wrong in the most diplomatic way possible in an attempt to make them feel like they don't need to get their back up against the wall.
I wasn't sure where to put this, but I think it belongs best here.
In my perusal of anti-apologetic philosophers and rhetoricists, I have encountered a new favourite:
Matt Dillahunty is the president of the Atheist Community of Austin in Texas, and has been the regular host of The Atheist Experience for a few years now. I encountered him by way of this fantastic video which features him in dialogue on his public access TV show with Evangelical nut-case Ray Comfort... Yes. You read that correctly: THE Ray Comfort.
You will soon discover that this is just the tip of the iceberg for a powerfully persuasive and extremely well spoken new voice in the global skeptics community. Everyone absolutely must check out this excellent exchange he has with a presuppositionalist Christian philosopher. I have embedded only the first part, so the reader will want to open the link in Youtube to see the entire exceptionally one-sided discussion.
Dillahunty only just recently started formal debating, but I have been fairly impressed by what I have seen from him so far. I really like this one, which took place at the University of Maryland Baltimore County in November 2010, and features Orthodox Fr. Hans Jacobse on the other side, for the simple fact that I think both presenters are quite good.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
A Bill to protect freedom of speech and reform the libel laws is to be introduced into Parliament, it was announced in the Queen's Speech.
It is understood that the Bill is likely to be published on Friday.
The reform, announced in a brief mention in the Queen's Speech, was welcomed by campaigners.
The Libel Reform Campaign - made up of Index on Censorship, English Pen and Sense About Science - which has been calling for legislation to reform the libel law since November 2009, hailed the announcement as a victory.
A spokesman for the campaign said: "The Bill will open the way to ending libel tourism and protecting free expression for journalists, writers, bloggers and scientists around the world.
