Archive for the ‘Skepticism’ Category

Astrology Disproven… Again

April 24, 2008

Astrology’s central claim is that when you were born contributes to your personality because of influence from the sun, moon, planets and stars. All the studies so far have produced null results, meaning that any predictions made turned out to be no more than guesswork. A new study published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies tracked more than 2000 babies from birth, all born in early March. According to astrology’s predictions, many of their personality traits would be the same. However, the results show that their is no correspondence between the babies.

Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading – all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.

The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the “time twins”, however. They reported in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies: “The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success . . . but the results are uniformly negative.”

Well there’s another nail in the coffin for this pseudoscience.

(hat tip to PZ Myers at Pharyngula)

Expelled Google-Bombing

April 14, 2008

so im going to take up PZ Meyers initiative and help link Ben Stein’s movie to the Expelled Exposed site in the Google results. Just copypasta this code:

<a href="http://expelledexposed.com/"><i>Expelled</i></a>

put it into anything you write about the movie.

And by the way, Expelled is Bullshit.

Expelled

Acupuncture and seedpods?

April 10, 2008

So i heard from one of my teachers today that she had just gotten acupuncture and had seedpods in her ears, so that it could help her quit smoking. While i know about acupuncture, i havent heard the one about the seedpods before. So i can only assume that they are part of the same gobbledygook as acupuncture. ( she said that they were on certain pressure points that controlled addiction, sounds pretty similar to the “basis” of acupuncture.) now, while there have been numerous tests on acupuncture, they seem inconclusive, but still seem to show the trait of this type of study; the larger, better controlled the study, the smaller the effect becomes. however, the results are still inconclusive, because there have been no true double-blind clinical studies on the “treatment”.
So, until better evidence appears, id spend my money on a real, medical treatment, not woo.
Also, anyone who can design a true double-blind study gets a gold star.

blog email is pwnagepanda.blog@gmail.com

I’m back! hopefully for good(?)

November 26, 2007

Well anyways, it has been a while since I last picked up a keyboard and mouse, but hopefully i can breathe new life into the blog, and have more than 2 posts. lolz

anyways, i hope to post at least 2 or 3 times per week, but that may change as my schedule does.

so i have been screwing around on yahoo answers tonight, and it is really wuite amusing. i have seen about 10 or 12 questions regarding how to summon a demon, or a familiar, or use elementary magic or something. it is basically a forum with everything, but without anysort of commitment to flame wars or that shit. check it out if you want, if you wanna add me my nick is pwnagepanda.

this is gonna be a really ADD post, so bear with me.

also, i have been a fan of the Skeptic’s guide to the universe podcast for a while (check it out http://www.theskepticsguide.org/index2.asp ) , and in their most recent episode, the cast went to the psychics fair in connecticut to mess around. they have inspired me to be a little more confrontational with my skepticism, so if i have any good arguments/debates/confrontations in the future, ill blog it.

im out of ideas for teh moment. be back l8er.

oh, and if you want to send me hatemail/fanmail/political rants/ads for penis enlargers or whatever, the blog email will be  pwnagepanda.blog@gmail.com

Creationism/ Intelligent Design is not science

September 30, 2007

According to my Oxford dictionary, science is defined as: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.  The problems with creationism and Intelligent Design are that they are not naturalistic and that they are not based on observation or experiment. Because they revlve around the supernatural, thare is no positive evidence for the claims. This also makes them unfalsifiable, because there is no way to rule it out. However, evolution has positive evidence and can easily be falsified. For instance, if paleontologists found a foossilized rabbit in cambrian strata, the whole theory would be either scrapped or drastically changed. However, counter examples like this have not yet occurred, but in Creationism and ID, thins like tht occur regularly, but the refuse acknowledge it and never amend their hypotheses. That is both intellectually dishonest and unscientific. That is why they are not science