Comments on: The Devil’s work

By: icemith

icemith — Mon, 21 May 2007 18:14:18 +0000

Jim, unless we are talking about apartment numbers, I would have thought the neighbor of #666 would be #664 or #668.

Nice try, but not thought through thoroughly though.

Ivan.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 12 May 2007 16:28:59 +0000

Since 666 came up a few times, I saw this bumper sticker recently;

667
The Neighbor of the Beast

Laughed so hard, I almost had to pull over.

By: antaresrichard

antaresrichard — Sat, 12 May 2007 09:26:47 +0000

Aw, there goes my hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia again! Dern you!

By: Troy

Troy — Fri, 11 May 2007 22:28:54 +0000

(In biblical context; I don’t believe it myself) 666 isn’t the devil’s number, instead it is the number of the “beast” which Revelation describes as a man (not the devil). It actually is a cipher on the name of Nero (a renown persecutor of early Christians). I can’t explain the specifics but I’ve seen that description in more than one source.

By: Ibrahim

Ibrahim — Fri, 11 May 2007 18:06:35 +0000

Michael Shermer, said it best in his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things”:

The reason smart people believe weird things is that they have become so adept at rationalizing things that they initially believed for the wrong reason.

(I’m paraphrasing)

By: Irishman

Irishman — Fri, 11 May 2007 15:23:10 +0000

Drbuzz0 said:
>I like it, but it leaves out a couple that Iâ€™d add.
>1. Pseudoscience does not always fit with all of the claims made on that page. I think itâ€™s important to note that because something may not have all the aspects listed above does not let it off the hook, although most of those apply to most psuedoscience.

But he does say this:

The presence of even one of these should arouse great suspicion. On the other hand, material displaying none of these flaws might still be pseudoscience, because its adherents invent new ways to fool themselves every day.

By: SLC

SLC — Fri, 11 May 2007 14:26:45 +0000

In his list of suggested reading, Prof. Coker left out the classic book on pseudoscience, namely Martin Gardners’, “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.”

By: PJE

PJE — Fri, 11 May 2007 13:13:44 +0000

Someone at BAUT has a quote from Adam Savage from mythbusters in his tag line

“I reject your reality and substitute my own”

Seems pretty fitting

Pete

By: Nigel Depledge

Nigel Depledge — Fri, 11 May 2007 11:53:24 +0000

Apparently, the number of the beast is actually 616, not 666:

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11134/beasts-real-mark-devalued-to-616
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/616_%28number%29
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44169

By: Quiet Desperation

Quiet Desperation — Fri, 11 May 2007 06:04:09 +0000

Well, geez, I apply these rules to the global warming debate, and I come away skeptical about the DOOM and GLOOM forecasts, and then you folks get all upset. What’s a skeptic to do? I’m just a maverick on the cutting edge, I guess.

>>> When the checker ran up the total, it was $6.66.

I can top that. I bought a book years ago at a sale. It was an oversized paperback, and the final cost was $6.66 after the discount and with sales tax.

The book was “Demon” by John Varley.

As Dave Barry says, I am not making this up.

Being a strident agnostic even then, I was merely bemused.

By: Ibrahim

Ibrahim — Fri, 11 May 2007 05:57:43 +0000

I’d be careful with that Keith, global warming and evolution denial start with complexity and work their way down.

By: CR

CR — Fri, 11 May 2007 05:04:56 +0000

Bravo, Keith! That’s a great, succinct way of putting it!

By: CR

CR — Fri, 11 May 2007 05:03:20 +0000

I know of a guy who wants a local pizza place to change their pricing because one of their pizzas comes out to $16.66, and he doesn’t like the fact that there are three sixes in a row. (Do we have an emoticon that rolls its eyes? I’d insert it here if I could!)

By: Keith Harwood

Keith Harwood — Fri, 11 May 2007 05:01:24 +0000

There is one important characteristic of pseudoscience that has been missed out. Real science has an entry level which introduces the fundamental concepts of the science and which can be confirmed easily. Pseudoscience has no such level. We can introduce the concepts of mass and energy and work and heat to children and they can verify the relationships themselves with levers and pulleys and paper bags with warm air inside and we can say, “This is the sort of thing that physics talks about”.

That, in my opinion, is the real purpose behind practical classes in high school science. We say to the children, “You don’t have to believe me, you don’t have to believe your textbooks, you can find out for yourself.”

With pseudoscience you can never do this.

By: Mark Martin

Mark Martin — Fri, 11 May 2007 02:13:48 +0000

And of course, there was nothing to worry over concerning your purchase. The number of the Beast is 666, not 6.66.

By: John Paradox

John Paradox — Fri, 11 May 2007 00:54:16 +0000

A long time ago (NOT in a galaxy far, far away, though), I had gone to the store to get a few inexpensive things. When the checker ran up the total, it was $6.66. The checker asked if I wanted to get something else.. gum? candy bar? I said No.. I want that receipt.

J/P=?

By: Drbuzz0

Drbuzz0 — Fri, 11 May 2007 00:07:07 +0000

I like it, but it leaves out a couple that I’d add.

1. Pseudoscience does not always fit with all of the claims made on that page. I think it’s important to note that because something may not have all the aspects listed above does not let it off the hook, although most of those apply to most psuedoscience.

2. Psuedoscience often offers a “magic bullet” which covers a broad area. An example would be “All human disease is caused by inflammation which is caused by a dirty colon which means you need an herbal enema to cure your toothache and also your cancer”

3. The claim that science has lost knowledge by being too narrow. Often using the words like “Western Medicine” or “Our modern society” to say that it discounts something like “The idea that the body can be effected by energy fields”

But this is definitely one of the best writeups on science and pseudoscience I have seen!

By: Ibrahim

Ibrahim — Fri, 11 May 2007 00:02:05 +0000

Oh thank God! I was just over at “Fundies say the Darndest Things” and I need something to wash out the ol’ cerebral cortex.

By: Navneeth

Navneeth — Thu, 10 May 2007 21:41:02 +0000

Now all that we have to do is spam everyone on our address books with a link to the article.