Comments for at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 20 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Fri, 24 May 2013 16:51:39 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26534 While I agree that Marxism is unscientific, the same can be said of capitalism. Both rely on unproven claims and on the readiness to ignore contrary evidence. Marxism is of course wrong in assuming that property is a learned concept. Capitalism's most doubtful assumption is that if you let a bunch of individuals optimize their personal profit, the result will be optimal on a global level too. The mantra on this side of the pond (Europe) is that privatisation will drive prices down. So far, not a single case is known of a state enterprise whose products have become cheaper after privatisation. Reliability and quality of service does go up a bit but prices skyrocket. It takes a lot of ignoring not to see that but believers seem to have enough of that in store. And they're in power. - Bruno Fri, 17 May 2013 06:06:00 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26533 Are there any long standing missing person's cases which are then solved (dead or alive) which Sylvia has NOT been involved in? - rjh02 Tue, 07 May 2013 20:11:40 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26532 Shane, hi, This concept has already been tried before, and failed, in large part due to the way it could be gamed. See here for Wikipedia page on Google's own 'Sidewiki': [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Sidewiki]Google Sidewiki[/url] If Google can't make a go of it, I doubt Rbutr is going to have any better luck in this space. I do like the concept, though. - metzomagic Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:17:37 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26531 This is not irresponsible alarmism at all. It is likely this is a topic you are not well informed. When I said that the international community should step up efforts,I mean that some measures have been taken already at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and at the offices in Africa and by Amnesty International...and they paid for it!!! An internet search will show you some of the efforts that have been made so and while asking the international community to do more is responsible journalism at its best - nskeptic666 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:16:18 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26530 "The international community must step up efforts" means what exactly? Did I miss the answer to that in the article? Ritual killings are "on the rise" requires the support of a citation. There are many areas with practices WE would not accept. First, what right do we have to attempt to change it? Second, who will pay for it? As described in the Senator Davy Crockett story: Individuals can give all they want to a cause, but government has no right to legislate that charity. (Doesn't matter if the story is true; the principle IS true.) Journalism like this is irresponsible alarmism. - figmo124 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:36:23 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26529 I don't know about you, but I think that the person who invented Imodium deserves canonization. Possibly a Nobel Prize. - rjblaskiewicz Tue, 09 Apr 2013 06:48:00 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26528 Did you miss the smilies? It wasn't a particularly serious reply, just a light-hearted observation that a language pedant doesn't get to choose which arbitrary rules he chooses to observe and which he chooses to ignore. :) - FrankH Sat, 06 Apr 2013 21:41:11 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26527 What is wrong with splitting infinitives? Especially what is wrong with splitting infinitives if doing so adds clarity or emphasis. I know that there are no split infinitives in Latin which is where this stupid rule in English seems to have come from. Languages which form the infinitive by changing the verb ending can't have split infinitives. Why should English be bounded by that? George - gmartincv Sat, 06 Apr 2013 16:21:07 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26526 [quote]Maybe fighting to restore the proper use of the word “hopefully.” Or getting news anchor-people to correctly use the word “literally.” ... The misuse of “hopefully” and “literally” drives this language pedant a little nuts at times[/quote] I think you might be literally flogging a dead horse. ;) However, this language pedant is upset at you claiming to be a language pedant yet being happy to incorrectly split your infinitives. :'( - FrankH Sat, 06 Apr 2013 08:58:59 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26525 What frightens me is the political clout of these people. Only 9% of people believe there is something sinister about fluoridation of municipal water supplies, yet they are enough to cause municipalities to seriously question, and in some cases discontinue its use. - Gr8wight Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:57:02 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26524 One thing a skeptic might do is acknowledge how low those numbers are. It's not like any of them approach a majority. A skeptic might also point out the gulf between what the general public favors and what is on and off the political table, as it is run by TBTP. - Michael Dawson Fri, 05 Apr 2013 09:04:18 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26523 Belief that UFOs are a real phenomenon usually polls at about 50%. Belief that the government is 'covering up' UFO facts runs even higher (which makes no sense - if one doesn't believe in UFOs, then what could the government be hiding about them?). There was a lot of controversy over Kurtz' 'mission accomplished' statement concerning the paranormal, skeptics need to re-gain the focus on this that we once had. Robert Sheaffer - RobertoDebunker Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:32:13 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26522 "29% of voters believe aliens exist" I'm surprised it isn't 100% considering you must certify that you are not an alien in order to register to vote. I'd love to know what percentage of the poll responders understood the questions and answered truthfully. - CLamb Fri, 05 Apr 2013 07:32:25 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26521 The "conspiracy" ratings are more significant and quite plausible. But what percentage of people lie to pollsters on principle? - rosie Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:18:50 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26520 For example: [b]"29% of voters believe aliens exist"[/b] Well, many people (including a large percentage of skeptics) believe in abiogenesis (rather than life springing from a Creator). In that case, there is no reason to assume that life formed only on this planet in the entire universe. Boom...some quite logical, skeptical people can believe that aliens exist[ed], even if there is no evidence for there existence. Also: [b]"Voters are split 44%-45% on whether Bush intentionally misled about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."[/b] Well, Bush claimed knowledge of WMDs that were never found. Was he mistaken, misled or misleading? That is a question for history to answer, but it is hard to label any of those choices as an irrational belief. [b]"15% of voters think the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry “invent” new diseases to make money"[/b] Well, I certainly don't think that's a wide-spread phenomenon, but when one considers "male-pattern baldness", "botox" and other cosmetic procedures and possibly the widespread diagnosis of ADHD, there is room for thought. [b]11% of voters believe the US government allowed 9/11 to happen[/b] Hindsight is 20-20. But, there were reports which later turned out to be warnings. My point is that some of the polled questions (including those referenced above) are indeed quite laughable, but all 20 are not nearly of that quality. Finally, if someone had trapped me on the phone or in person asking such strange questions...I may have been tempted to answer that, for instance, the moon landing was faked, just to play around. - sibtrag Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:02:56 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26518 Correction SciPhile, Arnica Montana has varied results. It is no better than a placebo for bruising, but at least one study has shown it is equivalent to ibuprofen when applied topically in sufficient concentration for osteoarthritis. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00296-007-0304-y So there is some justification for it, although the homeopathic dilutions are arguably of negligible benefit (references study was 50% concentration). - therealtori Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:43:58 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26517 There is plenty of pre-human deception in nature. Camouflage, for one, in many classes of animals. Or consider mimicry, in which an animal evolves to mimic the colors, markings, or other appearance of poisonous or venomous animals, in order to gain protection from predators. And there is plenty of deliberate deception in birds and mammals as well. - jamyianswiss Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:19:39 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26516 I have never understood how the people who view these apparitions know that the woman who appeared was the Virgin Mary. Did she produce ID? Did she look like the paintings of her? If so, which ones? I think that Cardinal (he has been promoted) Stafford missed a big opportunity when he refused to validate the apparition. Miracles can be big money-makers, and the Denver diocese could have used the cash when it shelled out over $5.5 million in settlements to alleged sexual-abuse victims in 2008. - Wave Sat, 30 Mar 2013 05:53:47 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26515 Is there some reason to think that deception originated in humans? I doubt it. I'm not even sure if honesty came before deception. I don't think communication is originally based on information transfer, I think it might just be the descendent of evolved behaviors which happen to cause one organism to behave for the benefit of another. Maybe honesty and satisfaction from the belief that we pass facts on to others is what needs explanation. - ConspicuousCarl Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:24:32 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/home.html#comment-26514 This post reminds me of Mr. Teller's statement: "Nothing fools you better than the lie you tell yourself." - rogermorris Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:11:24 +0100