THE HADRON PARTICLE IS NOT TRUE?

An actual scientist called Peter God-particle

Random internet comment that I can't help but laugh at: (apologies to the author for my nastiness)

"Well after all these years failing to disprove the existence of a Creator, we became arrogant and have decided to substitute the Creator with a different name called the "Hadron" particle. So now we are once again trying to prove the hadron particle to be true. This particle would carry the same attributes as the Creator but we'll call it with a different name. Because we are arrogant and do not wish to identify reality for what it is."

Some people are definitely arrogant. I would say that anyone that believes something with 100% certainty is arrogant (other than cogito ergo sum), but that's just me. Others aren't even certain of this...

That's de facto atheist to you, slogan!

Sorry, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you call the Hadron particle. The fact that you are not even calling it the Higgs Boson is a worry. It was called 'the God particle' likely as a little dig at believers. So it's very amusing to me, sorry, that this has been twisted into 'scientists are arrogant and think that the Hadron particle is God'.

Scientists do not think that the Higgs Boson is God ffs!

Some scientists are arrogant, sure, but most are extremely humble and conservative about their own ideas; yet enjoy tearing other scientists a new one when they peer review. This is the scientific method and it takes no magical thinking prisoners. And yes, some scientists lack diplomatic skills; which really gets on other people's nerves yet makes me cheer when they tell it like it is. 

I love Dawkins as a scientist and intellectual; but as a personality not as much. He does come off as a bit arrogant at times I think, which is a shame because he might do more good if he were just a bit nicer during debates. But don't get me wrong; I'm a massive Dawkins fanboy and have posters of him on every wall of my house.

So, to the commenter, can I ask you to at least read the Wikipedia page summary on something before making a comment. Or don't and make me laugh with your brash and ignorant ignorance.

GOOGLE SHOULD TOTALLY BE EVIL. WHY AREN'T THEY?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530102.600-google-wants-to-rank-websites-based-on-facts-not-links#.VPLVzbPF8fN

I love being a sub with my Google dom!

This 'Google deciding what facts are' idea feels a bit like Big Brother courtesy of Google rather than Endemol.

These 6 members of Big Brother secretly rule the World and Ben is the Kingpin

I agree with their aim in principle but how is it going to work for 'facts' that aren't falsifiable? Perhaps the thinking is that anything science-based will be way more consistent than the anti-science stuff on the same topic; the Apollo moon missions for example. 

But there is way more to Googling than just looking up facts like whether there are any health benefits of chocolate milk enemas. What about satire like the Onion or humorous presentations like Cracked? Deliberately not fact-based and if the Google brain tries to find consistency with the science, then, what, no more satire? Unless typing in keywords like 'funny' into the search engine disengages the fact-checking lobe?

How does Google fact check this Onion headline?

This media release by Google may just be trying to smoke out the competition to see what they're up to. If Google haven't been able to make it work yet, then maybe they can poach someone who can. Or they could be trying to force their adversaries to release what they've been up to in the same space. Anyone got Bing Brain?

I love the idea that Google has a secret knowledge database. This is Blofeld kind of stuff; but who is our James Bond to go in, sleep with all the women with unconvincing foreign accents, and check them out to make sure that they aren't secretly a doomsday cult playing the long game? Forget Armageddon! I want to see a movie where Google holds the whole world to ransom and will shut down their services with a secretly embedded 'kill-switch' code if their demands aren't met (Actually, this was my fantasy version of 'The Internship' movie). 

I'm trying to convince the Google overlords to produce my script for the sequel

Knowing Google, however, they would still be trying to do what they perceive is 'good', and want to establish a benevolent Global dictatorship. Actually, I think they've already pretty much achieved this without resorting to my outdated, Austen-Powers-parodied concept of world domination.

Lastly, as long as it annoys post-modernists, that don't believe in absolute Truth or facts, it will be fun. And if it just gets the most dangerous stuff voted down like anti-vaccination propaganda, they might make the world a slightly better place. We love you Google!

UGLY AND BAD FOR HUMANITY: THE STORY OF WIND POWER?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-11/research-council-calls-for-study-of-wind-turbine-sickness/6086546

Get them off my screen. They're killing me!

Disturbing headline sending me off into a spiral of despair with no electricity generated:

"Research council calls for further study into 'wind turbine sickness', sets aside $500,000 in grants"

My headline:

"Dave Chaffey Hippie calls for research council to use their fricking critical thinking skills and not waste any money on what is obviously the the nocebo effect!" 

Give me the $500,000 instead and I can tell you that there is no such thing as wind turbine sickness. There is always a tiny chance that I could be wrong but I'm as certain of this as I am that Bobo won't find Bigfoot on his stupid TV show and that Ghost Hunters won't ever actually catch Michael Jackson's ghost and put him in ghost prison for his ghost molestation of ghost boys.

World's leading Bigfoot academic

I do have sympathy for people who have debilitating symptoms and blame it on completely implausible causes, but in most cases it's a psychological condition that should be treated by mental health professionals that are experienced in treating people with such conditions and obviously understand that there is no such thing as wind turbine sickness or electromagnetic hypersensitivity or whatever mystery condition is in fashion.

Fully protected in my tin-foil room so don't need to wear my hat indoors!

The 'kooks' trying to make money off vulnerable people and make names for themselves will use news stories like these to add legitimacy to their scams; which may very well create new sufferers and delay the existing sufferers from seeking out the legitimate help they need.

And it goes round and round and round like, well, you know.

Further reading:

Pretty good article on nocebo:  http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150210-can-you-think-yourself-to-death

"responsible media reporting would at least stem the spread of poisonous rumours" 

You listening Graham Lloyd, self described "fearless reporter" and described by me as understanding about as much about science as Bill Cosby understands about the meaning of 'consent'?

Follow up and rant about the media:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/.../story-e6frg996...

My custom TP re-prints of Graham Lloyd's articles

Shame on The Australian toilet/newspaper and 2 more 'shames' to give them the full Derryn Hinch. Who the fruck told the Australian that the nocebo effect had been discredited? Just look at the history of these kinds of conditions. 'False balance' on science in the media mainly happens because most journalists wouldn't know a WIMP from a strange quark. 

The climate change public debate was also destroyed in large part due to media 'false balance'. Being impartial doesn't mean giving equal time between 97% of climatologists and the other 3%. We also love the overdone narrative of the rogue scientist fighting the evil oppressive system and being proven to be right in the end. While there are some examples of this of course, the vast, vast, vast majority of science doesn't work this way. Most science is nowhere near as narrative-worthy and therefore doesn't capture the public's imagination.

The vaccination debate has, especially recently been reported way better. For some strange reason sick kids with resurrected diseases force us to agree with the established science! Crappy science journalism is not totally the media's fault and with the imminent extinction of the Rupert-Murdocho-saurus dinosaurs, mainstream science reporting won't improve any time soon.

Rupert Murdoch's real form

All we can do is continue with online citizen journalism and skeptic groups, who do know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, not a sphere. Thanks Australian public broadcaster ABC's Media Watch for airing your story, except I'm just not convinced that further work needs to be done. 

I will freely admit I am wrong when someone presents me with anything other than pseudo-science, but enough time and money has been spent in my opinion to show that wind turbines are safe (unless you're a bird and even if you are a bird, then cats are a much higher risk).

GETTING FIERY & FURIOUS BY INFLAMMATORY DIET NONSENSE

SHORT VERSION: Don't read article at bottom as it is flowery bollocks. Read this instead for a more reality-based account or just go and eat a doughnut: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/…/foods-that-fight-inflamm…

DEEP APOLOGIES FOR THE FOLLOWING INCOHERENT, MEAN-SPIRITED, POORLY-EDITED RANTING VERSION: There is some science to the idea of inflammatory foods (see link above) but frig all in the article linked below! I know I can't expect everyone to get a biochemistry degree or similar, but how about this? Don't contradict yourself in your own article!!! (I'm making assumptions about your grandma, sorry Alice Nicholls, Certified Holistic Health Coach)

Alice Nicholls (according to Google Image Search)

I could ask why your article contains no references, but I'm guessing that you found this stuff out by telepathically communicating with your palm-reader astrologist clairvoyant naturopath who eats nothing but fructose-free fruit. I do realise that I have no references in my rant either, but you're the one making the extraordinary claims, so they need to be backed up by extraordinary evidence before we can even start a discussion based on reality and the laws of the universe. Sorry, but other than for entertainment, I can't have meaningful interactions using the Glong language spoken in the upside-down universe where science is worthless and vague is awesome and 7-legged unicorns are the rulers of planet WooWoo and food actually kills us and light bulbs suck darkness and ...

one more leg and she would rule us all

"A general rule to live by is less processed, less packaged and more the types of foods your Grandma would have recognised and eaten." the author states which is fair enough I guess in a vague-as-shyte sort of way. Now let's go through her 6 foods to see how the Grandma assertion holds up:

1: Gluten: well I don't know about your Grandma but both of mine chugged down way more gluten than any other sticky substance. Show me some real science that supports the health benefits of cutting out gluten for the over-privileged scientific-illiterate worried-well. If you're truly intolerant (not a self-diagnosed worry-wart) then of course eliminate gluten. But don't make the leap that just because some people genuinely can't eat gluten, then all people shouldn't eat gluten. That's like saying that because some people are turned on only by BBW GGILFs, all people should also try getting into that specific peccadillo.

2: Processed sugars: One of my Grandmothers was, according to me at least, the best baker in the world and funnily enough used a crap load of sugar! Did your Grandma really bake only with maple syrup and molasses? What's so special about maple syrup and molasses anyway? Just because maple syrup was processed in a tree then boiled down, it's somehow more healthy? Seriously?

3: Oils including margarine: Again, once margarine came out people loved it as it spread easily on bread (containing gluten). Both my grandmothers heavily used margarine and I'd guess yours did too. There is some science on the evils of partially hydrogenated oils or trans fats, but if they're killing us, they're doing it darn slowly! The privileged populations of the world have never lived longer! In any case, my understanding is that it's pretty easy to eliminate these from your diet and they're starting to be phased out anyway, so don't worry about it.

4: Dairy products: Whaaa? Of course some people are lactose intolerant but I'm definitely not and neither were my grandmothers! Same illogical leap as with gluten? So that's like saying that because some people writing rants on Facebook are wasting their lives, all people are...

udderly ridiculous

5: Alcohol: I think you're just trying to say: "Drink alco-pops in moderation, kids!". You mention your liver working overtime to process alcohol. What exactly is the shift pattern of your liver? Does it get double-time-and-a-half?

6: Chemicals: I love chemicals and so did both my grandmothers. You could almost say that we are all made of chemicals... Please do not blanket demonise ingredients with long names and numbers due to your scientific ignorance! Kindly tell me the specific chemicals that are the problem and cite the peer-reviewed actual science articles, then we can start talking.

(Not really a) Conclusion: Most people are mostly wrong most of the time, but there is this incredibly useful thing called science that helps to separate reality from inflamed brain farts.

There is great information out there and you can easily find it if you learn to smell out and ignore the BS. 

One final time: Sorry Alice Nicholls. I'm so mean and I'm sure you're a lovely person. :) 

BS ARTICLE: http://thewholedaily.com.au/health/6-inflammatory-foods-remove-diet/

I'M SORRY ELIZABETH THAT WE COULDN'T CONNECT AND YOU FELT THE NEED TO BLOCK ME

I'm an animal. You're an 'animal communicator'. Why couldn't we get our discussion on?

Even if I don't believe in it, I was interested in your World-View, and where you draw the line between animals with souls and animals without souls. There is no consensus on this between those that believe in souls. When did animals evolve souls? Fascinating line of query in my opinion...

But the moment I said I was a scientific materialist, this evidently triggered you, because you started talking about all the terrible animal cruelty done in the name of science. I didn't agree with this combative tone and wondered why nice people like you go there and suddenly turn a discussion into a debate about the evils of science.

So what if I don't believe in souls? I could be wrong. It is reasonable to ask reasonable questions, no?

This is what all scientists look like. They will destroy the Universe.

You boasted about also being a Reiki Master, so perhaps you can work on healing your brain delusions that the scientific method is flawed and evil. And also why you felt the need to block me when I was not abusing you or being rude; I'm pretty sure I was being my version of nice. I was merely asking questions about your beliefs. I assumed that you were very knowledgeable in them and wouldn't have a problem answering my reasonable questions.

I'd show you the transcript of our discussions but can't since I was blocked with no warning. These types of conversations go the following ways in my experience:

A - Blocked
B - Abuse from the other party that hopefully I don't join in on...
C - Initial difficulties or misunderstandings are rectified and we move on with some great discussions and it's fine for us to agree to disagree
D - Admission from both parties that none of us have all the answers then some great discussions

There are many skeptics like me that end up refusing to have discussions about unfalsifiable claims. But where's the fun in that? We are all humans and are all wrong about many things. One of the guidelines in the emergence manifesto is: we are all deeply flawed & deluded. It's just an inevitable conclusion by applying critical thinking to our brains. If you don't learn critical thinking, then there's a higher chance you'll fall for scams. No one wants to fall for scams, right?

In order to improve, I demand that others challenge all my crazy ideas! Leave no insanity healing crystal stone unturned! No individual has all the answers and we have a problem if we can't have civil discussions with others that have very different world-views. I do accept that many don't pick up on my absurdist tone. Those with empathy and a good theory of mind don't usually have trouble even over the Internets.

I might be mis-remembering but I think my last words to Elizabeth were: Peace love harmony humility kindness. If anyone reading this ends up blocking or un-friending me or casting the first stone, then I'm sorry we couldn't make a connection, but try and remember these 5 words and have a read of The Emergence manifesto.

In summary, how are my Emergence cyber-love bomb points going? Do I get negative 100 every time someone blocks me? It could take a while to reach my total of 1 billion cyber-love bombs...