Since the text up here hasn't changed much in a while, regular readers might not notice this bit of change. Since I often get an idea for an entry and forget it, I've decided to list future doggerel along with existing links to keep them as reminders, as well as potentially encouraging readers to give suggestions and helpful images. Note that some of these prospective entries may change order, depending on my mood, schedule, and so forth.
First, the big list of Doggerel Entries:
#1: "Supernatural"
#2: "You're Just Jealous!"
#3: "You're Just a [Insert Evil Organization] Shill!"
#4: "Closed-minded" See also The Appeal to Be Open-minded
#5: "Worldview"
#6: "Impossible"
#7: "You Just Have to Respect My Beliefs!"
#8: "I Don't Have to Prove Anything to You!"
#9: "Spiritual"
#10: "Sophistry"
#11: "You're Just an Anonymous Commenter!"
#12: "Science Doesn't Know Everything!" See also: Skeptico's take
#13: "People Have Believed This For Thousands of Years!"
#14: "It Works THROUGH the Placebo Effect!"
#15: "Natural"
#16.1: "Faith" (Updated 7/11/2006) See also: Skeptico's take on equivocation of the term.
#17.1: "Quantum" (Updated 12/13/2006)
#18: "I Know What I Saw!"
#19: "Read My Book!" See also: "Why I Won't Read Your Book"
#20: "Obvious"
#21: "Why Do You Have to Complicate Things?"
#22: "Persecution"
#23: "Negativity"
#24: "Arrogant"
#25: "Science is Just Another Religion!" See also: sraiche's take
#26: "It's Only a Theory!"
#27: "Educated"
#28: "They Laughed at [Real Scientist], Too!" See also: The Galileo Gambit
#29: "Chemicals" (See also: Skepticwiki's take)
#30: "You Need to Think Outside the Box!"
#31.1: "Looks Like I've Touched A Nerve!" (Replaced 1/28/2009)
#32: "Both Sides"
#33: "Invisible"
#34: "They Do It For Free!"
#35: "You Must Lead a Miserable Life!"
#36: "What Did [Woo] Ever Do to You?"
#37: "Organic" (Original source)
#38: "You're Just Mean!"
#39: "I Can See It, Why Can't You?"
#40: "I Was a Skeptic, Once."
#41: "Energy" See also: Le Canard Noir's take on the altie sort of energy
#42: "God"
#43: "You're Just Afraid of the Truth!"
#44: "You're Just Rude!"
#45: "Why Are You So Obsessed?"
#46: "Don't Knock [Woo] Until You've Tried It!"
#47: "Science Made the Bomb!"
#48: "Hateful"
#49: "Ad Hominem" See also: Skeptico's take and the Action Skeptics' take
#50: "Science Doesn't Apply to [Woo]!"
#51: "Threatened"
#52: "Why Isn't Your Site More Popular?"
#53: "We Need More Time to Research!"
#54: "I Demand Respect!"
#55: "You Haven't Walked in My Shoes!" written by Orac.
#56: "You Want to Disprove Love!"
#57: "You Use Bad Words!" See also: "Putting the Fan in 'Profanity'"
#58: "Get a Life!"
#59: "I've Got Better Things to Do!"
#60: "But [Famous Scientist] Believed in [Woo]!"
#61: "But [Woo] Doesn't Work 100% of the Time!"
#62: "Stop Complaining!"
#63: "Don't Be So Focused on the Facts!"
#64: "New Paradigm"
#65: "You Have to Believe in [Woo] for it to Work!"
#66: "I'll Pray For You!"
#67: "Western"
#68: "But You Don't Know How [Woo] Works!"
#69: "You Can't Disprove [Woo]!"
#70: "It Works For Me!"
#71: "Fundamentalist Atheist" See also: "Atheist Labeling"
#72: "I Go Beyond My Five Senses!"
#73: "But [Woo] Isn't Paranormal!"
#74: "The Devil's Fooled You!"
#75: "Materialism"
#76: "They Once Thought the Earth Was Flat!"
#77: "Fanciful"
#78: "Vibration"
#79: "Wellness"
#80: "What's the Harm?"
#81: "[Evil Guy] Believed in [Theory]!"
#82: "Allopathy"
#83: "You're Just Driving Up My Site Traffic!"
#84: "Elitist"
#85: "You Can't Find an Atom of Love!"
#86: "Crystal"
#87: "Humility"
#88: "You're All Ganging Up on Me!"
#89: "I'm Going to Show You... In My Book!"
#90: "Bashing"
#91: "Don't Force Your Views on Us!"
#92: "Intuition"
#93: "You're Not a Scientist!"
#94: "U.F.O."
#95: "Authority"
#96: "Why Would [Woo Pusher] Lie to Me?"
#97: "Join in the Debate!"
#98: "Context"
#99: "Pseudoskeptic" See also: Infophile's take
#100: "Truth"
#101: "We Can Believe Whatever We Want!"
#102: "The Government!"
#103: "Intelligent"
#104: "UR TEH GAY!!!!!111!"
#105: "Who Are You to Criticize Someone's Belief?!"
#106: "You're Just Being Defensive!"
#107: "You Just Think You're Smarter Than Everybody Else!"
#108: "Artificial"
#109: "Controversy"
#110: "Cynic"
#111: "Something More"
#112: "Subtle"
#113: "Infinite"
#114: "Communists!"
#115: "Fair and Balanced"
#116: "Biased"
#117: "Life"
#118: "Helping"
#119: "You're Not Helping!"
#120: "Troll"
#121: "Eureka!"
#122: "You'll Be Sorry!"
#123: "You Argue as Loudly as a Fundamentalist!"
#124: "Better Safe Than Sorry!"
#125: "Wonder"
#126: "Offense"
#127: "Unexplainable"
#128: "The Left!"
#129: "The Right!"
#130: "The Corporations!"
#131: "The Illuminati!"
#132: "Transcendent"
#133: "Belief"
#134: "Consciousness"
#135: "Holistic"
#136: "Deep"
#137: "Dimension"
#138: "Logic"
#139: "Malpractice"
#140: "Emotion"
#141: "Technology"
#142: "Can Science Prove Love?!"
#143: "That's Just My Opinion!"
#144: "Limited"
#145: "We Make Our Own Reality!"
#146: "[Famous Scientist] Said..."
#147: "I Can't Prove It or Disprove It!"
#148: "Universe"
#149: "Why Do You Ask So Many Questions?!"
#150: "Purpose"
#151: "Godless"
#152: "Even if I Showed You the Evidence, You Wouldn't Believe It!"
#153: "Sense"
#154: "Phenomenon" by Akusai
#155: "Cameras are Magic!"
#156: "Don't You Think It's Suspicious That You Spend so Much Time on This?"
#157: "It's Like the Allegory of the Cave!"
#158: "Moral Fiber"
#159: "Statistics Can Say Anything!"
#160: "We Got More Famous People on Our Side!"
#161: "Random"
#162: "Our Side Killed Fewer People!"
#163: "Science Has Limits!"
#164: "Insensitive"
#165: "Beyond Logic"
#166: "Metaphysical"
#167: "If It's Not Particles, You Can't Study It!"
#168: "Theology"
#169: "Square"
#170: "Woo Makes Me Feel Better!"
#171: "You're Not an Expert, You Can't Comment!"
#172: "NEEEEERRRRRD!"
#173: "You Think We're All Just Molecules!"
#174: "Not Everything is as It Seems!"
#175: "But Woos and Wooism Have Contributed to Science!"
#176: "Low-Hanging Fruit"
#177: "Certainty"
#178: "Silencing"
#179: "Agenda"
#180: "Simple"
#181: "Complex"
#182: "I Bet You Ruin Fantasy Movies!"
#183: "Common Sense"
#184: "There's No Such Thing as 'Probably' in Science!"
#185: "What Makes You So Sure Science Can Find the Answers?!"
#186: "Empowering"
#187: "[Scientist] Recanted on His Deathbed!"
#188: "THEM!"
#189: "Settled, Once and For All"
#190: "Free Will"
#191: "Genius"
#192: "Go Look at [Woo's] Research, Yourself!"
#193: "There are Lots of Frauds Out There!"
#194: "I've Seen More Than You!"
#195: "You're Just Denying the Facts!"
#196: "Anomaly"
#197: "Unprofessional/Immature"
#198: "Look it Up Yourself!"
#199: "Straw Man!"
#200: "You Just Want to Tear Everything Down!"
#201: "Something to Think About"
#202: "Google It!"
#203: "Just Asking Questions"
#204: "Do You Think You're Smarter Than [Scientist]?!"
#205: "The Mainstream Won't Publish My Stuff!"
#206: "Toxins!" (By C0nc0rdance)
#207: "Eastern"
#208: "Nothing"
#209: "Patented"
#210: "Victim"
#211: "Spooky"
#212: "Weird"
#213: "Just Because / It's Magic!"
#214: "Absurd"
#215: "It Can't Just Be Coincidence!"
#216: "Why Are You So Angry?"
#217: "100% Safe"
#218: "You Don't Know!"
And now, here's your chance to contribute. You can leave suggestions in the comments, or send them to my Gmail address.
Some guidelines for suggestions:
1: The more cliché it is, the better. Net trolls like to use cookie-cutter "arguments." If linking to one of my entries saves you time and effort that would have been spent typing yet another refutation of a trivial point, I'd like to be able cover them all.
2: If the word is a commonly misused technical term, like "quantum," please try to point me to a good source for the word's actual meaning, as well as a few abuses. I'd like something easy to reference as I type.
3: No politics. I don't care to dissect politically-oriented doggerel yet. For now, I feel my efforts should be devoted to getting people to distinguish between the black-and-white issues of science versus pseudoscience, rather than the grays of politics. So, no requests for "terrorism," "amnesty," or whatever the hot button issue is at the time you read this. There will, of course, be some inherent crossover, since propaganda is propaganda, regardless of its subject.
4: Feel free to offer to do a guest Doggerel. I'm not perfect, and if you've got a specialty I don't, it'd really be appreciated.
103 comments:
How about, "I just know that [insert dodgy quackery here] works."
Or, "[insert dodgy quackery here]'s worked for thousands of years."
Or even, "My [psychic/clairvoyant/horoscope etc] is always right. Explain that, cynical skeptic!"
Hey Bronze Dog,
Thanks for taking on spiritual. Top work.
Dikkii's suggestions are good. The attack of the anecdotes, I call it.
Answers to all 3.
1. No, it doesn't; you're an idiot.
2. No, it hasn't; you're an idiot.
3. No, they're not; you're an idiot.
Another suggestion for the series: the old 'science doesn't know everything' gambit. I was arguing with a friend who believes in chakras (and a lot of other bullshit besides) and he must have said this 50 times. He'd obviously had it drummed into him by all the loonies he'd been reading.
Hey, Bronze Dog... Been enjoying your posts. Why don't you swing on by GifS once in a while and help fill the hole left by the offlining of our dear Rockstar Ryan? How is the ol' boy?
BD, I've really enjoyed the Doggerel series. Maybe you can take on the prefix Neo-, as in Neo-Darwinism, and Neo-Conservative. Or how about Macro- and Micro-.
Another idiot left an old but still juicy gem of anti-wisdom on the first post: "Why are you wasting your time with this?"
The answer, of course, is that lies, deception, and delusion are bad things. Exposing them is a good thing.
My suggestions:
"What goes around comes around."
"Everything happens for a reason."
How about "I don't have to tell you all my secrets!" The implication being that they could prove their argument, but they don't respect you enough to reveal their super-secret evidence.
As espoused by that guy who is muttering about 23.5 degree angles over on bigdumbchimp's site. ISTR Dembski using much the same argument one time, but I can't locate the quote.
what's GifS?
GifS: God is for Suckers! You'll see a link on the left side.
"It's ORGANIC," she said with a smile, flipping blond hair from her thirty-something face, "they must be good for you." Her elderly husband, Reginald Wadsworth, IV, accepted the wisdom of her argument and swallowed 3 rosary peas, Abrus precatorius.
Bouncing away she called, "sleep well, dear, I'm taking the Aston Martin to the Biltmore Spa."
Yes, oh yes! Do Organic! And don't leave out the wonderful aphids and wormy things in our wilty organic fruits and vegetables. They're organic too, ya know. {-;
Now if I could just find some organic transportation to take me the 35 miles to work every day...
"(It) only works if you believe in it"
Here's an abuse of quantum, from one of Britain's leading "literary" writers.
See the seventh paragraph. Here, she is trying to defend art through some new age-ish gobbledygook about quantum energies.
The ironic thing is that this article is written in response to a lit professor calling her "barely sane". Go figure.
Ooh, ooh, Mr Kotter!!
How about that great red herring, "Everyone asks about the meaning of life."
(Or, if you like, the Appeal to Purpose)
I left a comment about this at Ted's Stuff after a Christian brought this ol' chestnut out.
How about "Energy"? There's a good, hard, physics definition of the term (something about work-or-heat, I think). A wide variety of woos seem to abuse this term.
I second the nomination for "Organic".
I saw a comment on a blog recently to the tune of "you might not believe anecdotes count for anything, but I do. And I've heard many!".
I've also considered "energy" and "organic", though I think I want to do a little extra research before covering them.
Just posted one nice sample of "energy" woo today.
It's more of a tactic than a term, but the "you misspelled a word, so how are you so smart?" move always bugs the hell out of me.
Also, you did "faith" but not "science is a faith/belief system too." I hate that one.
Been reading these for a bit, and they're quite nice. Here's one that I keep seeing: "It's only a theory!" Or the alternative "There are other theories, too!" This one's almost always used in the evolution debate, but it definitely fits the theme.
This falls, I think, into the category of phrases that have no meaning: how about a DI post on "outside the box"? It's closely related to the Appeal to Be Open-Minded, but different enough to warrant separate treatment, I think. Rather like the "other ways of knowing" business, nobody ever really specifies what "outside the box" means. What box are we talking about? And what makes the outside better than the inside?
Just got this in an e-mail, which might provide good fodder: "The only thing that’s going on is Bryan providing argument after argument (and sometimes insults) against what some of us believe in, and us responding to it." I'm pretty sure she doesn't understand here what an "argument" really is. If she did, she surely wouldn't be crediting me with making them and failing to credit herself.
There were also complaints in the e-mail that I was sounding "patronizing." That might make a good topic, if you explain how it's overused as a defense to factual corrections in order to avoid arguments.
Whilst it's not a request for a new Doggerel, I'd like to suggest that the Doggerel Index get's it's own sidebar link. It'd make it easier when looking for a particular piece of illogic refutation
Since you've done "natural," it seems only appropriate that you tackle "synthetic" or "artificial" which are widely assumed to be bad. An example that I came across involved a one sentence critique of a vitamin E study done in Sweden. The person dismissed the validity of the study purely on the grounds that it used synthetic vitamin E, and implied that the results would have been different if natural vitamin E had been used.
Inquisitive Raven
How about "I've already explained once before, it's not my fault you're too stupid to understand, so I won't clarify my position" ? It's one of my personal favourites, though it's somewhat similar to #8 and #19.
What about one of the basic defences of the Woo - The Moral High Ground Tactic, "You're being rude\offensive therefore that gives me free rein to not answer" This is often used despite what they've called you in another thread or while insulting the very person they've just called rude.
“You’re obsessed!”
Hi, I’ve been lurking and enjoying your site for a few months. This morning, I came across this article about “Psychic Detective” Noreen Renier.
Two comments below the article included:
“…Ms. Renier seems to brings out such wrath from these skeptics - where do they get the energy and why are they so obsessed?” and “Why are the skeptics so obsessed and worked up about proving Renier "wrong"? Why not leave her alone and let her add value to people's lives where she can?”
Most laughable was a comment from Dr. William S. Lyon :
“…skeptics such as James Randi, Gary Posner, and John Merrell are merely fringe lunatics in this society and reside in the same class as those who still believe the earth is flat.”
~chris (that’s me, Chris Lite, the “obsessed” skeptic who added his own comment)
Inferiority complex?
Or is this too close to "jealousy"?
In addition to an overview on winning a federal judgment against Court TV "psychic detective" Noreen Renier (on a breach of settlement case based on her publishing a book), in late 2006 I've updated a summary of her claims about locating a crashed aircraft, along with descriptions she provided about passengers who survived the crash. It's a rather fantastic fantasy --- and one much of the national media bought hook, line and sinker over the past 20 years.
Here's a Doggerel you see all the time from altie-med woos. One I'm surprised hasn't come up yet... The single most overused, vague noun in medicine: "toxin".
Woos never, ever specify what a toxin is or why, particularly, it's causing you to have back pain/heart trouble/cancer/AIDS... but somehow, they always have what you need to get rid of it!
Yeah, I've had that one in mind for a while. I'll get to it eventually.
This one might be a little too close to a few others, but it couldn't hurt to take on the old claim "Skeptics just tear things down! You don't contribute anything!" That one always gets under my skin.
Here's one that just came up over at Daylight Atheism: "Now you're just being defensive!"
Seems like there should be one about skeptics being grumpy and don't enjoy life. Or that they are incapable of love. RevRon was using that one.
I have a request. Can you do "Something more"? I was just using this wonderful resource you have compiled and that was the only thing missing.
"Something more" as in people who say the garden isn't beautiful enough without the fairies underneath it?
Here's a bit of doggerel I recently encountered.
Some troll condescendingly invited me to "join in the debate," saying that he would even "roll out the red carpet."
Knowing better, and after pointing out a few other things, I replied something like this:
"So now you've rolled out the red carpet if only to keep me from seeing all the bullshit I'll be stepping in once you yank it out from under my feet. No thanks. I can smell it a mile away."
I recall a 9/11 conspiracy nut using similar words, including the red carpet line. Was trying to get a JREFer to get on his podcast. Verbal debate, the least honest form thereof.
That'd be the one, yes.
Stop complaining!
Or did you already cover whining?
Either way, stop whining!
I'd like to see a takedown of "healer." It's been widely misused.
Here's one I just noticed over at Respectful Insolence: "Just-so story," used by IDiots to make it seem like "evilutionists" make up stories about what happened in the universe with no support. This is also a perfect example of projection.
Here's one of my favorites: "You just think you're smarter than everybody else!"
No, asshat. I'm just smarter than you - or anyone else who might think that this particular type of accusation constitutes any sort of legitimate criticism or counterargument.
More broadly, I suppose the accusation of "elitism" covers this. But the "You just think you're smarter..." version is the one I see most in the context of woo, whereas the accusation of "elitism" is more common to political discussion.
That's a good one. Surprised I didn't think of it earlier.
What about "[Evil Dictator] believed in/was inspired by/is somehow vaguely associated with [scientific theory]."?
Also, I've heard a lot of people complain about Richard Dawkins "forcing" his views on them--despite the fact that they never read his book or heard him speak, and hence do not know what views are supposedly being "forced" on them. This has become a really silly cliche--basically, anyone who merely states an argument which opposes theirs is automatically "forcing" it on them (but, of course, people who influence school boards and then use that power to require teachers to teach creationism aren't forcing anything on anyone, they're just being fair...)
A lot of woo-spinners follow a "I know you are but what am I?" form of argument. The religious call science a "religion". The people trying to force creationism into school accuse scientists of "forcing" evolution on them. Etc etc etc.
Getting lots of good suggestions. :)
What about "[Evil Dictator] believed in/was inspired by/is somehow vaguely associated with [scientific theory]."?
Ooh, good one!
"UnAmerican".
"UnAmerican" gets into a bit of politics, but I think I could link it to doggerel criticisms of atheism and such.
Hm, I can't find your gmail address posted anywhere, which rather reduces my ability to email suggestions...
Anyway, I don't know how often this is used, but I'll suggest it anyway:
"Why would [woo pusher] lie to me?"
Sort of a variation of: "They do it for free!"
My gmail's intended to be fairly obvious. No spaces, numbers, or special characters. Mostly I'm preparing for the day spambots start trying to interpret (at) gmail (dot) com and such.
Anyway, good suggestion. It'll probably cover a lot of ground, since not everyone is into woo for the money.
I did an un-American article quite a while ago. Not really Doggerel style though.
bronzedog@youknowexactlywhatbutIdon'twantthe
spambotstofindit.com, then?
Yeah, that'll be it.
It's not particularly a political term. Gets used by both sides - everyone hates those Commie, Nazi, pinko, fascist, unAmerican scumbags.
Coming late to the party here, but let's not overlook the venerable "Anything's Possible!" A prime bit of jackassery....
How is it nobody has yet suggested: Context!
We get multiple mails in the bag every day on this one at whywontgodhealamputees.com. The theist says we quoted a verse "out of context" whenever it doesn't mean what they want it to mean, followed by a out-of-context quote of their own like John 3:16. A closer inspection of the original quote they didn't like usually reveals it's just as bad taken in context as without.
Oh, that's a superb one! My skin crawls whenever someone claims that, and never provides this alleged magical context that'll make something say something completely different.
When a skeptic properly makes a complaint, they *gasp* provide the context.
Two more:
"Why do you hate [subject ]?" where the subject is God, Behe, L. Ron Hubbard, or whoever is their supposed icon, as if our entire worldview is based on contradicting whatever that subject says for its own sake--as if our reasons for believing what we believe is based on an irrational hatred or childhood trauma ("you must have had a bad experience early in life").
All atheists "hate god" or "blame god", according to some theists, and the atheist always has to waste time correcting them to clarify how it is nonsensical to hate an imaginary being, that instead they hate/blame religion.
I also saw this tactic used by Scientologists while "bull-baiting" some reporter, constantly and aggressively asking what he "had against Hubbard." (A more rational question when it refers to an actual person, but a loaded question nonetheless.)
Oops. I said I had two more, but I forgot what the 2nd one was gonna be. Oh well.
Thanks for that one.
Sometime, I need to do something on Scientology. Remember seeing a series of photos demonstrating some really woo way for this guy to help a woman deal with the pain of slamming her hand in a car door. Trying to remember what term they used to describe it.
Did they try to "postulate" the pain away? At OT8 you apparently have this power to "postulate" things to happen.
Don't think that was the term, but it sounds sufficiently crazy.
Maybe I should see about finding a list of super powers they're supposed to get at the different levels.
I think you've been suggested similar things, but over on Ryan's blog, the "I'm not trying to win the argument, I'm trying to save your soul" canard came up.
That reminds me of the old, "If you saw someone drowning, wouldn't you throw them a life-preserver?"
I thought you might enjoy the following:
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5770/woobingoew6.gif
Of course quantum is a freebie. It's always quantum.
Running into this one a lot today:
"Why? Why NOT?" (smug grin)
"Who's to say what's real and what isn't?"
"Nothing is 100% certain."
Given that irritating troll Dan Marvin has taken to posting some sort of idiotic "formalized" definition of "troll," including the non-sequitur that calling someone a troll is as good as admitting defeat (see here and here), perhaps "troll" could be used as a future doggerel, or maybe "You called me a troll! That means I must be right!"
My new girlfriend keeps using this one: "Whose truth?"
As if truth were relative.
"Insecure"? Not quite the same thing as "afraid of the truth", but possibly too close to "touched a nerve" or "threatened".
Monty says...
I'm surprised nobody's suggested the uber-doggerel- GODLESS! That gets tossed around waaayyy too much.
Hears one that's driving me insane at the moment:
"Doctors don't consider the patient, they just treat the illness/symptoms"
or
"[Woo merchants] believe in treating the patient, not just the illness/symptoms"
Given the Hippocratic oath, the Declaration of Geneva, and the various codes of ethics of the various professional medical associations, the suggestion that doctors historically don't look after the general health of their patients is so wrong it's not funny.
One we've had a number of times - people claiming that our attention to detail and accuracy indicates a suspicious amount of effort. Because, of course, someone who writes 40 books, riddled with errors, swims with the dolphins. People who point out errors, why, they are guilty of sedition (seriously, word has been used).
Again, common although maybe a variation on 156. What the hell are you lot doing with your lives?
Statistics can be interpreted many ways argument.
Just thought of one for you that drives me insane: "Family Values"
(Code for "Fundamentalist Christian Values").
It might be a bit too similar to your "Moral Fibre" one, though.
'Family Values' would be good. Here in Britain, it always seems to be code for 'hang the gays' or 'lock up single mothers'.
Really? Here in America it means the same thing. ;)
Oh, how convenient! It's good to see our two countries are united in the vocabulary of intolerance.
Are my memories inaccurate in recalling that during the 1980's family values actually meant something that mattered like eliminating abuse and neglect?
It probably did at some point.
I seem to recall Margaret Thatcher using the phrase 'Victorian values', thus striking terror into the hearts of everyone who had read Dickens.
Another one for you, prompted by a discussion at UDOJ: Obscene.
Prompted by the recent discussion over the PseudoScienceBloggers at ScienceBlogs, and also recently showed up when Dana Ullman stopped by Akusai's blog: "You're not an expert, you can't comment."
Wow, I didn't even realize that was a homeopathic luminary. I just figured it was your average, run-of-the-mill crackpot.
I'm starstruck!
One that's been making the rounds lately: "[Famous Scientist] Recanted On His Deathbed!" Naturally, it's always the discoverer or proposer of the theory that the claimant's pet woo is at odds with, ie. deniers of germ theory saying Pasteur recanted on his deathbed.
Deniers of... But microscopes! We can look. And... and... penicillin. (It kills the little things and makes you not get infections...)
Oh, wait, I'm using logic. That's where I'm going astray, right?
I'm sure this is close to "Science Doesn't Know Everything!" but you should tackle the Perfect Solution fallacy- you know, the "this vaccine only cures AIDS 99.9999% of the time, so it's no better than rat poison!" mentality.
Also, "[cure for disease] will make you do [activity that increases risk for said disease] more!"
MWChase said: "Oh, wait, I'm using logic. That's where I'm going astray, right?"
Your other transgressions include Observation and Experimentation (by others, if not by you personally)
If you haven't been there before 'astray' is lovely this time of year...
How did this list get so long without "free will!" ?
There's a lot of doggerel out there, Phlegm.
But since that's one that might skip my mind, I'll be typing it up tonight before I forget.
How about "unprofessional," as in, "that's so unprofessional of you."
Who dared call Orac unprofessional? Lemme at 'em!
There haven't been any comments here in a while, but I'll just throw out the word research.
Just like the common misunderstanding about what a scientific "theory" is, this is something I hear way too often.
"I've done my (own) research", the altie will say, and usually not mean research but a Google search.
Yes, yes, a million times yes!
I've got relatives who do this all the time. What I end up finding out when I ask them about evidence for whatever alt med nonsense they're spouting is they just read a bunch of stuff online. They just find a bunch of things that already support their viewpoint and take it as proof without really probing any further. It usually ends with either a "you're naive" comment about trusting the FDA (remember, there's a global conspiracy), or just "well that's just my opinion so drop it".
Some of these posts caught my eye. There was one that had something to do with being gay and another one that had to do with ufo's. The more weird it is the more fun it is to read.
Snapdeal Winner List to here an Offer where you can win the prize by just playing a game & win prizes.Here the different Snapdeal prize list avaliable check the details : Snapdeal winner list ,Snapdeal winner name,Snapdeal lucky draw.
snapdeal here thought of an Offer where you can win exceptional snapdeal prize by simply playing a game and win prizes Call @7596886123"
Snapdeal winner 2020
Snapdeal lucky draw tatasafari 2020
Snapdeal lucky winner list 2020
Snapdeal lucky draw 2020
Shopclues lucky draw 2020| Shopclues winner 2020|Get to Know Shopclues Lucky Draw Winner 2020. Call Shopclues Helpline Phone Number+91-9835565523 for Shopclues Online Shopping Lucky Draw.
Shopclues online lucky draw winner
Shopclues winner 2020
shopclues car lucky draw
shopclues here thought of an Offer where you can win exceptional shopclues prize by simply playing a game and win prizes Call @7439295069
Shopclues winner 202
Shopclues lucky draw winner 2020
Shopclues lucky draw contest 2020
Welcome, Shopclues online lucky Draw Contest 2020. You Can Win here many prizes and you have a chance to be a Billionaire just call Snapdeal Prize Department number +91-7439295069.
Shopclues here thought of an Offer where you can win exceptional Shopclues prize by simply playing a game and win prizes Call @7439295069
Shopclues winner 2020
Shopclues lucky draw winner 2020
Shopclues lucky draw contest 2020
Nice article, keep sharing
Forum.app
Jobs
Jedox
one of the best blog ever that i seen in whole life and thank you for this blog
i love this blog and it has own value that is more than other on this topic
snapdeal lucky draw
snapdeal lucky draw contact
snapdeal lucky draw helpline
snapdeal lucky draw 2020
snapdeal lucky draw online
snapdeal lucky draw number
one of the best blog ever that i seen in whole life and thank you for this blog
i love this blog and it has own value that is more than other on this topic
snapdeal lucky draw
snapdeal lucky draw contact
snapdeal lucky draw helpline
snapdeal lucky draw 2020
snapdeal lucky draw online
snapdeal lucky draw number
Shopclues Lucky Draw
Indian electronic commerce company in Bengaluru, India is basically referred to as Shopclues Private Limited. Shopclues Private Limited is a company founded by Rohit Bansal and Kunal Bahl a few years back in 2010. The main aim of this Bengaluru based electronic commerce company is to focus on book sales, electronic equipment, and clothes. Therefore, the sales of these three things are the prime focus of Shopclues Private Limited Company. Hence, before expanding other categories such as consumer electronics, fashion, lifestyle, etc. the company did a good job in all the above mentioned three things.
Probing further, Shopclues Private Limited has now decided to open a Jackpot Shopclues Lucky Draw Contest for all the buyers using this company for having exciting products. The winner of this Jackpot contest will get so many exciting gifts but the only thing the users will have to do is to shop things from the company. We can say that this is a global opportunity for people to have expensive prizes that are not easily affordable to them.
The first prize for this contest is Tata Safari Car.
The second prize for Snapdeal Lucky Draw Contest is Swift Desire Car.
The third prize for this jackpot contest is KTM Sports Bike.
People can easily grab these jackpot prizes by participating in the lucky draw contest. So, what are you waiting for go and start shopping today only? Ergo, don’t forget to participate in the Snapdeal Lucky Draw contest as it can change your shopping philosophy totally. To know more about the further things you can check out the site.
Post a Comment