Jeg så denne artikklen i Dagbladet:
Det er en lang artikkel, faktisk med en del referanser, men nå man starter argumentasjonen sin med at “Halve Norge mener det er bra”, og konkluderer med at da må det være sant skurrer det litt for meg. Tross alt trodde 100% av menneskene i Norge på Tor og Odin i vikingtiden uten at noen har sett snurten av Mjølnir siden.
desember 6, 2007 at 10:21 am |
Homoapati!
Husk å dobbeltposte
Forresten – du vet at du kan redigere hva som skal stå i de forskjellige spaltene på omicron, bare på bloggen din, slik at du kan få egne lenker der også?
desember 6, 2007 at 12:24 pm |
Jada masa!
desember 12, 2007 at 4:12 pm |
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/2_1Katpchuk.html
“These findings suggest that the medical ritual of a device can deliver an enhanced placebo effect
beyond that of a placebo pill. There are many conditions in which ritual is irrelevant when compared with drugs, such as in treatment of a bacterial infection, but the other extreme may also be true. In some cases, the ritual may be the critical component.”
Though the results of this study add evidence pointing to the existence of a placebo effect in a clinical environment, [Kaptchuk] does not recommend the use of placebos with patients or deception in the doctor-patient encounter. The aim is to understand how the ritual of healing affects health outcomes.
Juryen delibererer altså fremdeles… Tor og Odin synes jeg riktignok skal få hvile i fred.
april 25, 2008 at 11:24 am |
Anbefaler å lese Derren Browns “Tricks of the mind” som blant annet tar et kraftig oppgjør med alternativ medisin, i tillegg til humbug som medier, psykiske evner, astrologi og liknende. Kul og lærerik bok.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tricks-Mind-Derren-Brown/dp/1905026358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209122566&sr=8-1
april 25, 2008 at 11:27 am |
Når vi først er i gang med å debunke overnaturlig vås:
Klassikeren
http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/055277331X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209122768&sr=1-1
James Randi
http://www.randi.org/joom/swift/swift-april-4-2008.html
april 25, 2008 at 12:13 pm |
Hehe, Randi er kul, men Dawkins er jeg ikke helt sikker på. Den vitenskapelige reduksjonismen kan bli for sneversynt tror jeg.
Visste du at Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Bohr, ja nesten alle de største fysikerne som la grunnlaget for den moderne fysikken faktisk var sterkt i opposisjon til positivistene. De var mystikere alle sammen.
http://www.amazon.fr/Quantum-Questions-Mystical-Writings-Physicists/dp/1570627681/ref=sr_1_1/403-3266650-5582025?ie=UTF8&s=english-books&qid=1209125108&sr=8-1
Veldig artig om Dawkins(litt redigert):
“…Dawkins presented this dilemma: “You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?” In response, Odone commented that, “I thought the dilemma was a no-brainer – my only doubt was whether I would shoot straight enough to kill the beast.”
Dawkins was not amused. “He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul.”
By his outraged response, Dawkins demonstrates that he lives as much under the impress of a metaphysical moral imperative and in a moral universe — one as equally fundamentalist (although, this fundamentalism is known as “reductionism” when displayed by intellectuals) as those whom he berates as “enemies of science” and reason. (And, in fact, one evolutionary scientist actually suggested as much of Dawkins, stating the Dawkins own approach to the issue of religion constituted a misguided and “a preachy disservice to science”.)…
Given that all moral systems derive from a metaphysical final authority and ground of being that legitimises them, we are entitled to ask what metaphysical authority Dawkins invokes to justify his own moral imperative that the last remaining elephant on earth is of more value than an infant — for this is a question of values. A real atheist, who recognised no such authority for any moral values, would express no preference either way — no value being privileged. Without that occult metaphysical authority in Dawkins reasoning, there is no justification at all for giving priority to the endangered species over the human infant, and Odone’s proposed response is actually quite rational while that of Dawkins is not rational at all….”
Doubting Dawkins:
http://www.darkage.ca/blog/_archives/2007/5/13/2947535.html
The Dawkins delusion:
http://www.darkage.ca/blog/_archives/2007/4/7/2864085.html
april 25, 2008 at 12:16 pm |
Pre/Trans fallacy:
http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html