Comments by "oneoflokis" (@oneoflokis) on "The Institute of Art and Ideas" channel.

@williamoarlock8634 A dumb comment. Neither has bloody Richard Dawkins (depending on your definitions.)
13
State some of these "holes" then...
5
Ain't that the case!! He claimed to worship at the altar of "scientific specialists" and "experts" - then, as a biologist, he hogs most of the talk, and talks right over - on the subject of physics - the FEMALE PHYSICIST on the panel!! 😏😏😏👎
4
"Nothing is harder than consciousness to integrate into our scientific world view" - yet another philosopher admits this! :)
3
 @laurencebarajas7510 I think that's true. But humans have lately been grossly influencing it!
3
By "the relevant scientific community", Pigliucci seems to mean "people who are outside that community" in practice. Namely, those outside the parapsychological community. Are supposed to judge whether the parapsychologists' results are valid! Or whether their experiments are worth doing or funding. 😏 The parapsychological community seems to be treated by the other scientists as a total pariah. (This seems to be a prejudice on the scientific community's behalf, on the level of racial and gender prejudice during the 18th and 19th century. 😏) Bother Carl Sagan. And since when has any parapsychologist claimed to invent a teleporter? 🙄 Go away! 😏 Free parapsychology and parapsychologists! It's time this Cinderella of the sciences got to meet her prince.
2
Wow, Shermer, what a denialist! 😏 Just on the topic of UFOs/UAPs: he goes on about "blurry photos" and so on. Like gun camera videos by the US Navy Air Force?? And those tic-tacs certainly ain't no Chinese drone! (And they were even less likely to be during the 2000s, when much of this material was filmed.) When your country's military, and finally Congress itself, is finally taking an issue (publicly) seriously, I do think it's time to give up the skeptoid obscurantism! 😏😏😏
2
Hear hear!+ 👏👏
2
💯👍
2
 @undercoveragent9889 Sheldrake is engaged in science and has published many papers.
2
💯👍 (NB: Colin Wilson, in his seminal 1970s tome on the occult, The Occult, mentions at least one case of this, happening to a Scottish poet friend of his, and his wife's observation of the family dog. This was of course decades before Sheldrake's experiments.)
2
Massimo Pigface?! 🤣
1
🙂
1
@666rune4 PV What sort of a question is that? 😏 Where does anything come from? Why is there Something (ie a cosmos) and not Nothing?? 🙂
1
As for the idea that scientists shouldn't be held to a higher standard than ordinary people - the trouble is, they often CLAIM to be on that exalted, near-angelic level! 😏 And so do many of their cheerleaders in the media, such as Ricky Gervais. "Science is humble" - my ass! 😏
1
How would we get that evidence?
1
@arctic_haze What are we going to measure?
1
@arctic_haze String theory is believed because it is liked by mathematicians, I think.
1
You still haven't answered this one! 🙂
1
@tomazflegar I suppose... But I have no idea what you mean by "the ruler and the ruled one".
1
@DinsDale-tx4br 💯
1
@DinsDale-tx4br So: you think string theory is a political thing?
1
@DinsDale-tx4br Like the VARIATIONS in cosmological constants- did you hear about those? 🙂
1
@DinsDale-tx4br Yes... What would you say were the politics promoting string theory, say?
1
@tomazflegar 🙄
1
 @laurencebarajas7510 I think that's true. But humans have lately been grossly influencing it!
1
@undercoveragent9889 🥱🥱🥱
1
Richard Dawkins is these days most usually engaged in blathering, Islamophobia and transphobia. Not science. 😏
1
@SlowJoe9114💯
1
Yes. 👍
1
 @edmurth True!
1
Me too, betacam235! Bernard Shaw himself wrote a long time ago, about the immoral appropriation of legacies and trusts, being used against the will-maker's wishes. How to remedy this..
1
@adrianobulla7875 How is modern genetics disproving Darwinian evolution?
1
@adrianobulla7875 Hasn't Lamarck been backed up a little by Epigenetics?🙂
1
@Richard Fox Says who? All the people who know nothing about it, or won't examine the evidence, as Rupert Sheldrake highlights?
1
@betacam235 Hmmm. Failtube seems to have removed my reply.. Did you receive it? I said that sadly, it was so long since I read Shaw that we would both have to resort to search engines!
1
@Richard Fox Rubbish!! And he described during that talk how the secretary of the Dutch skeptics' society refused to examine any of his evidence, or his papers, declaring it "a waste of time" (probably because the Dutch guy knew nothing of statistics and didn't even feel qualified to evaluate anything on that level.) But anyway, this displays the dogmatic and unscientific attitude of such people. Honestly, I don't know why skeptoids bother: they might just as well stay in bed, for all the good they do! 😏 Or stay in their little Politburo. That's about where skeptics are, from what I see! (I know all about CSICOP and the sTARBABY scandal re the Gauquelin results, as well. 😏)
1