Reddit reviews Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud

In his book "Voodoo Science", author Robert Park describes it this way.

If someone tells you that they saw a dog walking down main street yesterday, you're probably not going to demand "evidence." It's a normal claim, and we live our lives by normally accepting such claims (and to do otherwise would quickly make us into jerks that people wouldn't want to talk to.)

But if someone told you they saw a zebra walking down main street yesterday, that's a more "unusual" claim, and might warrant a little more evidence before believing it. You might check the newspaper to see if a circus was in town, or if the zoo was missing a zebra. Or these days, you might ask them if they took a picture with the camera that almost everyone carries with them.

But if someone tells you they saw an actual, living and breathing triceratops walking down Main Street yesterday, that is an extraordinary claim and it would be prudent to withhold belief until there is an extraordinary amount of evidence.

Most "extraordinary" claims do have "ordinary" evidence. If Joseph Smith claimed to be digging in the woods and claimed to have found an old sword, and then showed that sword to eight other people and they affirmed they had also seen it, that would probably be enough "ordinary" evidence for a rather "ordinary" claim. But in the case of the extraordinary claim about the gold plates, the ordinary evidence might not be enough to support it.

The nature of the evidence does need to be gauged by the nature of the claim.

Are you aware that most of mainstream science (more on this later) rejects Radin's findings? Since the existence of a book on the matter appears to be sufficient evidence, here.

I don't necessarily have the time to sift through half a dozen conspiracy theories, but from quickly having looked in fluoride, I'll agree it might pose health risks, but the suggestion that fluoride somehow keeps our consciousness in check seems ill-evidenced.

I agree that ETs exist - it's highly improbable that they don't. Intelligent design isn't real (which I, like you, have no need to provide an argument for) and reincarnation isn't real, either (again, no explanation required). Instead of an explanation, I'll give you the freedom to interject some goal I have attributed to myself that causes me to hold these beliefs, much like you have done for yourself.

It's interesting, by the way, that you previously discard René Descartes as the poster child of mechanistic reductionism, but have no problem citing Lanza's work, which actually partially looks to Descartes to support his central claim.

As for the claims of biocentrism, well, currently it can't be falsified. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it does make it unscientific. At first sight there seems to be some merit to it (in my mind), but it's hardly conclusive (contrary to what you're making it sound like here).

So, Greer wants to know about UFOs. That's great. Similar to why I'll believe ETs exist, it's improbable they ever visited us. Make of that what you will.

>So yeah, this really irks me when I hear people chalk up psychic experience to random happenstance.

I'll make a point of equal strength and say it really irks me when people chalk up random happenstance to psychic experience.

>I personally prefer the idea that the human brain is a filter that allows us to function in this exquisitely compelling virtual reality experience (as both Albert Einstein and more recently where we incarnate ad infinitum to learn and grow as spiritual beings.

And I prefer the idea that there's a diamond the size of a refrigerator in my backyard. I would provide evidence for this reality, but unfortunately, I'm too busy digging in my backyard all the time.

Now, what Sheldrake says about consciousness ("dogma 3" if you must) I think makes a point - it's a stretch to say that consciousness is somehow physical. What definition of "physical" are we maintaining, I wonder. But still, if we make the leap from "consciousness is non-physical" to "we're psychic creatures", I wonder if we're not taking things too far. There's an explanation for consciousness that is neither physical nor psychic provided by Chris Paley which I think makes a lot of sense.

As for the rest, well, as I hinted at before, I don't exactly make it a point of combating conspiracy theories. In my experience people who believe in them are as dogmatic about that as they claim people on the other side of the coin to be. Granted, some of those theories are at least internally consistent, but that doesn't make them true. Now, I don't expect much (if any) of this to strike a chord with you since you seem to reject mainstream science in its entirety.

> I can't make this up, look up Project Stargate, I'm tired of posting links

Making it sound like I asked you to, which obviously isn't the case. This tangent that you've gone on in reply to a 2-sentence Reddit comment is one you went on by your own volition. I'm perfectly fine indulging you, but try not to infuse a sense of being bothered by your own actions in your reply.

Now, we're almost done here. I have literally no idea what you're trying to say with that quantum physics clip. It does go to show how far you've removed yourself from the comment you've replied to, though.

"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln

A few for me had the biggest impact:

Forgotten Voices of the Great War: A History of World War I in the Words of the Men and Women Who Were There

Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud

Troublemaker:: One Man's Crusade Against China's Cruelty