Today’s Rule of Thumb

If anyone brings up Quantum Mechanics (QM) as evidence for their argument, you can safely assume that they have no idea what they are talking about.

More often than not references to QM really amount to little more than “QM is weird and doesn’t really make sense. [My idea or philosophy] is weird and doesn’t really make sense. Since QM is true, that means [my idea or philosophy] must be true too because it’s just like QM.”

Not Just Creationists

This video is making the rounds on atheist blogs all over the blogofractal.

It’s meant to be funny, and of course it is. And yet, like a person with PTSD I find myself almost hating it because it gets it too perfect. I’ve wasted hours, even days in these kinds of circular arguments, where any point that I effectively rebut is dropped only to be restated later as though it were never addressed.

And it’s not just creationists for whom this problem exists. Anti-Vaxxers, AGW Deniers, Cdesign Proponentsists, Moon Hoaxers, 911 Truthers, UFOlogists, and pretty much any Conspiracy Theorists have this penchant for continually stating and restating their talking points without ever acknowledging that any attempt at rebuttal was ever even made.

Here’s a philosophical question for you. If you present evidence and I never look at it, does it actually exist?

Absolute Proof I Say!!!

Norway Spiral
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1234430/Mystery-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html

Having just seen this for the first time, and without having to investigate any further I can say without reservation that this is absolute proof that aliens are among us. Now that we have this proof, it is up to you to prove everything that has ever been claimed about UFO’s is absolutely false before you can claim otherwise. That’s how real scientists work. Umm…isn’t it?

Two Thumbs Up (I bet he hates that)

Roger Ebert put up a great post over on his blog. I highly recommend you go check it out.

I think it’s worth highlighting this sentence fragment, even though it’s going to be ignored anyway: “…I emphasize my words “should not” rather than “can not” be President.” I haven’t read the comments yet, but I can almost guarantee that people have already called him out for trying to dictate what beliefs a candidate must or must not have before they are allowed to be president.