Comments on: The Devil’s work http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:30:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: icemith http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36061 icemith Mon, 21 May 2007 18:14:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36061 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. 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 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36060 Jim Sat, 12 May 2007 16:28:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36060 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. 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 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36059 antaresrichard Sat, 12 May 2007 09:26:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36059 Aw, there goes my hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia again! Dern you! Aw, there goes my hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia again! Dern you!

]]> By: Troy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36058 Troy Fri, 11 May 2007 22:28:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36058 (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. (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 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36057 Ibrahim Fri, 11 May 2007 18:06:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36057 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) 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 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36056 Irishman Fri, 11 May 2007 15:23:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36056 Drbuzz0 said: >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. But he does say this: <blockquote>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. </blockquote> Drbuzz0 said:
>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.

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 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36055 SLC Fri, 11 May 2007 14:26:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/05/10/the-devils-work/#comment-36055 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." 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.”

]]>