RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive71

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 18 August 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>, <469>, <470>, <471>, <472>, <473>, <474>, <475>, <476>, <477>, <478>, <479>, <480>, <481>
, (new)(back)

Brian Blessed sat nav[edit]

Blessed.gif

Yes, BB fans, Brian Blessed is coming to Tom Tom Check out the prototype video. Bondurant (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's so awesome, I almost wet myself. Stephen Fry too, please. They really just ought let people make sound themes for all their products, and let celebs sell voice packs. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposition Hate overturned[edit]

moved to here post-barchiving. Tiatton of (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be the greatest headline ever[edit]

Even topping the immortal "Headless Body in Topless Bar".

Monkeys hate flying squirrels, report monkey-annoyance expert.

MDB (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Monkey annoyance expert?" WTF? Does he play peek-a-boo with a banana, or something? "Yes, the monkey is now annoyed." --PsyGremlinTala! 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You know, while there is apparently at least one person on earth with the job description "monkey annoyance expert", I doubt you;ll find anyone who works as a "great white shark annoyance expert". Or "hungry grizzly bear annoyance expert."
I think I just like saying "monkey annoyance expert" MDB (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The best bit - "The research could pave the way for advanced methods of enraging monkeys." - just what the world needs, improved ways of upsetting primates. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
"'...advanced methods of enraging monkeys.' - just what the world needs, improved ways of upsetting primates." Fox News does a fine job already : D Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unknown unknowns[edit]

A while ago I read a blogpost about how dangerous "unknown unknowns" were, and how unwilling we are (as individuals and as groups) to acknowledge that they exist. The same blog post reference's Rumsfeld's infamous comment on the matter, and the blogger thought it the most intelligent thing anyone in government has ever said. I'm fairly certain the link to the post came through here... does it ring any bells? ONE / TALK 13:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

People often mistake that "known unknowns, and unknown unknowns..." thing for bollocks, but it is quite true (although the guy who originally said it could have presented it a lot better). What you might be thinking of is are Black Swans, which are major, often catastrophic, but rare and completely unpredictable events - they are the unknown unknowns because if you knew anything about them you'd have done something to stop it! I'm currently going through the book on the subject, but there are countless blog posts referencing the same kind of idea. One of Yudkowsky's longer posts on cognitive biases includes it, discussing the probabilities and so on, and that was definitely on WIGO, I'll try to find it. Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
This is actually considered standard practise in various industries, i.e. construction. When you create a budget for a project first you factor in a bunch of money for the "known unknowns" which is money put aside for things you know are going to screw up and will have to be re-built, ie a stair done incorrectly. No project -ever- gets done 100% perfectly in one go. Someone/something somewhere will screw something up. And then you actually have a bunch of money for things that are going to screw up beyond the things you knew will screw up. Sexy terms for them are contingency reserve and management reserve, Sen (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC)I don't think it's an issue of "not willing to acknowledge they exist" so much as, by definition, they are unknown. So trying overly hard to prepare for their existence is a fools game. By definition, you just cannot do it. I've only been involved with this as part of risk management for projects, and there's a lot of emphasis to try to figure them out, and as a result, oftentimes you make plans for shit that will never happen. Like, "Well, if a meteor hits the earth, and knocks out power, how will we keep the server running" Err.. Who gives a flying? And, although it may be true that it's an intelligent thing for government to say, I'm not sure we should qualify "stating the obvious" on such high terms. Like, "the sky is likely to be blue again tomorrow" could easily rank up there as well. Quarutapioca - You can't explain that! 16:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It's all fun and games until the unknown unknown unknowns arrive... Sen (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, in Black Swan Taleb sees that the issue isn't that people don't think they exist but that they refuse to learn from them properly. Although there is a hint of people thinking they don't exist because they don't properly acknowledge the risk of such unknown quantities, which are real, but unknown and unknowable until after the fact. This doesn't make them unreal and non-existent (what did an atom look like in the time of Elizabet I long before the development of quantum mechanics? Unknown doesn't mean unreal). But the failing to learn seems to be Taleb's biggest point so far (I haven't finished reading it, although I do remember Yudkowsky blogging about it quite thoroughly, almost as if he was the one that invented it but I'm pretty sure he got it all from Taleb) i.e., they learn specifics as to prevent something happening again but don't learn the general rules around it. Hence why we now have tight as a ******'s **** security around planes and airports after 9/11 (which is still useless by the way), but no one learned that oppressing other religious groups, invading countries, fucking people over and swinging your dick about tends to piss people off to the point where they start terrorising your country with stupidly violent acts, and so on. The root causes of 9/11 weren't anything to do with locks on cockpit doors, and the response required was completely independent of whether a plane hit those towers or a bomb did, or whether it was a building in New York or Chicago, or the US or Brazil. Remember the big publicity stunt about getting Hollywood script-writers in to suggest things to prevent? Good idea? No. Because what are the odds that, out of the trillions and trillions of potential terrorist strikes that could occur anywhere, your script-writers are going to pick the exact same ones as a terrorist; well, let's say it rounds down to zero. Even still, because you've prevented it, it's not going to happen or even be remotely attempted so when an attack does happen it will, by definition, be in an area you didn't think about. And that's the nature of the Unknown Unknowns; instead of trying to prevent each specific one you need to develop your response to take them as they come and roll with them comfortably (and Taleb does say a few things about "positive" Black Swans too). But the real punchline in the 9/11 story comes when, despite the millions upon millions spent on "disaster preparedness", the US was completely caught with its pants down when Hurricane Katrina hit; they thought that "disaster preparedness" meant very specific terrorist attacks and didn't even think about natural events. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Child (baby) abuse[edit]

Don't watch this! Greg Laden Hat tip 15:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

The subtitled version is quite amusing, too. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's some good ol' Bible-bashin' child abuse for ya. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga..[edit]

I'm taking an extended wikibreak to work on some stuff, so I'm resigning my place on the Lackadaisical Jackals. See you in a few months. P-Foster (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, we don't do anything anyway. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Church music[edit]

I'm putting together an order of service for a wedding and have stumbled upon something that I have suspected for many, many years... ALL HYMNS SOUND THE FUCKING SAME!!!!! It's mad, really. I'm thinking of randomly mixing up the words and music and seeing if anyone notices because damn, I can't tell the difference. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

yer having HYMNs at a wedding ? why ? your only there 30 minutes tops. Hamster (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Great![edit]

I send Pres Obama a birthday greeting, now I'm getting spammed by Joe Biden. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I got a very nice thank-you note from Barry, for signing the birthday card Michelle put together. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I got the same thing that Human got. I also get the spam from Biden, among other groups like OFA, but I signed up for that stuff, so I don't mind it. Besides, that's how I knew that I could sign Obama's birthday card in the first place. All that spam is actually pretty fun to read, as you can see a bunch of rants from organizations saying "Kevin, will YOU help stop the tea party?!" or "The GOP is raising funds for an attack - please donate!" ~SuperHamster Talk 02:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And in our next story, Mel Gibson will address B'nai B'rith and the National Organization for Women[edit]

The subject above is false (to my knowledge.)

It is, however, true that Ann Coulter is going to address gay conservative group GOProud.

And I am not making this up: the group calls her "the right wing Judy Garland". MDB (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What in the fuck? Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no problems with gay conservative groups. Most of them are classic small government types who take the philosophy "if we get the government off our backs they won't care what we do when we're on our backs".
But inviting a nasty homophobe like Ann Coulter... ick. (Of course, she's also BFF's with Matt Drudge, who is widely rumored to... uuummm... be a heavy user of loafer-lightener.) MDB (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I kind of have more sympathy for gay conservative groups because they understand that politics is more important than just one attribute, namely their sexuality. And I know several people who will vote as liberal as possible for that reason only - it's quite one-dimensional and dull. At least with conservative gay groups there's a hint of thinking about wider issues such as fiscal policy or immigration. But that's in the UK where social conservatism doesn't have homophobia in it by default. Conservatives in the UK aren't going out of their way to promote gay issues but they don't actively condemn them and actively go out of their way to deny them rights, i.e., Prop 8 would get Conservative support in the UK no problem. Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So, concerning Ken...[edit]

I saw this mentioned somewhat on the CP:WIGO talk page. Should we take it upon ourselves to honestly try and get some professional help for the dude? None of the people who are supposed to be close to him are going to do it and those mass editing binges are extremely worrisome. Photovoltaic Array (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask on TWIGO:CP. But no, I've stopped caring personally. This is someone writing on the internet, it is not the be-all and end-all of their personality or character traits. If you want to get involved, personally, with people hundreds of miles away that you've never met just because you disagree with what they say, please be my guest. Don't bring a "we" into it. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There are poor people in Pakistan in real need of help at the moment. It might be more useful to do something for them than worry about a YEC-nutter. I've looked at CP's main page and there isn't a word about the disaster; not even an offer of prayers. This amoral, atheist, humanist has already contributed at www.dec.org.uk. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives censor digg[edit]

They need a life--Thanatos (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Now why am I not surprised. --PsyGremlinPraat! 11:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Would I be misrepresenting the situation and wearing rose tinted glasses if I say that you'd never hear about this the other way around? I.e., liberal groups censoring conservative groups just doesn't happen. This rarely happens as it's usually the case that liberals will actively link to and show conservative sites happily. Primarily this is because one of the central tenets of liberal/progressivism (whatever you want to brand it as) is not treating people like idiots, and assuming that exposure to evidence will change peoples minds - that this is incorrect and exposure to evidence doesn't change peoples minds is beside the point. Therefore there is no motive to actively censor from the liberal prospective, not least because inquisitive people will want to know and will bypass the censorship happily. Liberals will link to it, show it, and then laugh at it while making the assumption (through psychological projection) that other people will also see it as stupid; hence liberals are aghast when they find someone who don't immediately disagree with conservative positions! On the other hand, social conservatism lends itself to authoritarianism (absolute morality determined from "on high" for example) and the mechanism for this propagating is through a systematic cycle of propaganda and censorship. We see a clear example with RW and CP, the latter being extremely conservative while the former is undeniably liberal despite attempts to be more inclusive. RationalWiki never censors stuff and frowns on such things, while linking to Conservapedia quite readily and quite possibly being responsible for the majority of their page views - link to it, laugh at it, and assume everyone will agree with you. On the otherhand, Conservapedia does no such thing and it would be unimaginable for them to do so. Similarly with YouTube comments where liberal channels tend not to use vote bots or filter comments, instead relying on the weight of people to use the voting systems as they see fit. Those recent Creationism vs Evolution Facebook groups where the Creation side make no mention of the counter group but the Evolution group actively says "here's the group we're responding to, feel free to join it too!" (well, words to that effect in the case of the latter clause). So indeed, Psygremlin is right to not be surprised, this is just another example of that method in action. If something ridiculously Right-wing gets onto Digg, it's probably someone on the Left saying "look at this funny shit!". Conversely we see people from the Right censoring any links to more Left-leaning posts. Scarlet A.pngtheist 12:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
In general, I've always got the impression that liberals, or progressives, or whatever you want to call them.. Tend to abhor censorship. I mean, I won't read the most disgusting trash put out by people, but it's still their right to speak it. Even Stormfront has a right to be assholes. I won't digg them up, and will personally bury it, but the idea of creating a secret group just to bury shit I don't agree with is just.. Sick. Quarutapioca - You can't explain that! 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There's probably the exception to the rule, but I'd bet good money that 95% of any sites you see that moderate, or do not allow, comments; deletes comments they don't like; block users they disagree with; and remove links to sites they don't agree with, they would be conservative. I've seen plenty of conservative blogs, with things like "If you troll, you will be removed." Of course, in their case "trolling" means "saying something we disagree with." And then there's the bunch that are close to our hearts, who embody all of the above. Not to mention that DeanS's blog is "invite only." The one exception I can think of, is PZ Myers, who did edit Ken's attempts to link spam his evolution article (removed the link) and (I think) banned Ken. But that wasn't because of idealology, it was because Ken's an annoying little wanker. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This is true, and I don't mean to make blanket statements. It was supposed to be "in my experience." Part of the advantage conservatives have right now is there is a tight community, and liberals tend to.. well, think for themselves. (again, I don't mean to make a blanket statement, this is a refection of people I communicate with.) I always figured that was the point of the "Obama personality cult" if it could be called that far. His birthday this week being a good example. I signed his card. But I admit I felt a bit dirty doing it. But it did seem to work, at least this time. And in PZ's case, Ken was trolling. Quarutapioca - You can't explain that! 13:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
hang about! Just read the article - I've had several referrals to my blog from Digg Patriots, possibly from when I used to post to Digg & Stumble. That explains the lack of fame... fortune... groupies... --PsyGremlinParla! 13:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"95% of any sites you see that moderate, or do not allow, comments; deletes comments they don't like; block users they disagree with; and remove links to sites they don't agree with..." We do all that. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What worries me is that this way of dealing with liberalism seems to be becoming an accepted part of conservative culture. Look at Brietbart, Drudge and that fool from the Acorn videos. They are building up hate on dishonesty, and many conservatives are holding them up as heroes. β=(X′X)⁻¹X′Y 01:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Elsewhere[edit]

Democrats are splitting the tea party vote Conservapedia Hat tip - not sure how to take this but it looks similar but opposite - and much funnier! 13:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Wait a tic.. Wasn't it great that all the teabaggers were making the ticket? Now that they realize they shot themselves in the foot, it must be a liberal conspiracy? I admit, it may be true. Just as it may have been true that Republicans financed Ralph Nader the last few times he's run. (Why not? Conspiracy Theories are fun!!11) But it is a bit funny. As a Michigander, we actually don't recognize political affiliations of voters. Like, I think you can declare it, but it's not necessary. I think I'm "unaffiliated" right now. Changing it is as simple as walking into a Secretary of State office, and changing it. But last time I changed my address (and had to re-register at the new address) they told me not to bother with declaring myself anything. And I've stated elsewhere, that I voted in the republican primary this time. But to keep teabaggers the fuck away from office, however I was able to. If I'd wanted to guarantee a democrat would win, I'd have voted for the teabagger. Quarutapioca - You can't explain that! 14:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
So you give voters a choice between a conservative and ultra-conservative candidate, and it's the liberals' fault that the conservative vote is diluted. Wow. There are some very "special" people running around in the US. --PsyGremlinTal! 14:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I love how helping somebody get on the ballot is tampering with an election. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TerryH, naughty naughty[edit]

Was looking at the article about this on Digg, and I saw in the comments that one user was accusing another user commenting, Temlakos, or being one of the gamers. Temlakos was indeed named in the alternet article. And Temlakos is the name TerryH goes by the the SDG. So I go to Temlakos's DP page, search for CP, and find....this. TerryH, you free speech-hating bastard. EddyP (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Did we expect anything less from that man? Good find Eddy. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe Temlakos is his username on several sites, e.g. Creationwiki & Twitter, and he even signed up here as both user:Temlakos and user:TerryH (but according to the SDG he immediately threw away the passwords). It's not a name that comes up on Google searches for anything other than a handle for TerryHatebutt. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Article-A-Week Club members[edit]

Get off yr goddamn asses and arses and brag. Remember the RationalWiki slogan: "We're not Citizendium." - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Most boring Sb post ever. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've got Black Swan on my to do list, but I'm probably going to wait until I've finished reading it first. Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorta articles-every-other-week, but working on Marjoe at the moment. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bo Hansson dies at 67. WHY !!!![edit]

For those who know of musician and composer Bo Hansson , he died in april this year. He was 67. Born april 10, 1943, died april 24, 2010. Hamster (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect because he was 67. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Bo Hansson. Wasn't that the guy who did that Lord of the Rings album in the mid 1970s? Strictly a Rick Wakeman wanna-be, and Wakeman was way out in pretentious land to begin with too. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to post something here...[edit]

...but I can't remember what it was. Oh well. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A russian man and a finnish man went to sauna[edit]

The russian died and the finn is still in a hospital. (at world championships, the finals were cut short after 6 mimutes) --85.76.49.3 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Worst. Punchline. Ever. Vulpius (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely calling Poe![edit]

I'm sorry, but based on the childish commentary on these cards, I can only draw the conclusion that it is either a not-so-well hidden Poe's Law, or that someone we know well created them. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow. They're like friendly dictator trading cards. Except, you know, without any artistic or literary merit. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I suspect it absolutely has to be parody or made by Ken. Nobody can possibly make cards that childish and be serious. The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 20:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You have seen the usual level of reason from sources we know to be serious, right? Scarlet A.pngtheist 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I know that. Thus why I left the Ken escape option. Either the source is a total parodist gaming the system, or holds logic and paranoia the are challenged only on a Ken-like level. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 22:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Clinical trial, comparing to established treatment[edit]

I have seeing a "clinical trial" methodology popping up more and more lately. It is talked about on dynamiclear article, but I saw it as well with Heel and their traumeel product. It is a bit of a subtle manipulation that makes the studies worthless but is subtle enough to be missed by people unfamiliar with experimental pitfalls or people just casually glancing.

It goes something like this:

Take woo product A and established medical treatment or drug B.

Gather a group of people with the symptoms to be treated and divide the group in half.

Give one half A and one half B.

Compare improvement after some amount of time.

If there is no difference then A has to be as good as B, and since B is approved for treatment and is accepted then A should be too.

Some look quiet impressive at first pass, but the issue is that there is no control. Without a control you can make the conclusion they are trying to make. You have to compare the amount of improvement to people who received no treatment. Headaches are a great example, if you do the above method but don't look for improvement till 2 days later your likely to see 95 percent improvement in both groups because headaches go away naturally in a time less than the observation time of the experiment.

I can see why woo pushers like these study designs. They can incorporate all the buzz words for good clinical design, random assignment, double blind, etc. But still have the results come out positive for their product. But its a fundamental methodological flaw that voids all the research.

I think it would make an interesting article to discuss it but I am not sure what to call it. Anyone got any ideas? Thoughts? tmtoulouse 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No idea what to call it, but I've seen legitimate studies done that use similar methodologies but with actual control and proper blinding. The recently completed study that demonstrated St. John's Wort was totally useless at treating depression, for example, was run in parallel with a conventional anti-depressant, and neither actually worked worth a damn. Of course, the woo community is all over making excuses for their pet quack nostrum, not least of which "well, the alternative doesn't work either..."
Still, I think you'd need more examples before it justifies an article. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I (red)linked it, Trent. We should have snartikle on topic. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Randomized controlled trial? Scarlet A.pngtheist 09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Reading the study outline above in some more detail, I can spot some issues with the "control" aspect. Basically, the overall design is fine, but devil is in the detail in this case. A control is more than "doing nothing", it has to be because of the placebo effect and that doing something is always going to work better than doing nothing (unless your cure for headache is decapitation, but let's assume no unwanted side-effects). But for ethical (as well as practical) reasons it also has to be more than just a placebo, usually it's the established treatment; we don't want to know if something works better than a placebo, we want to know if it works better than what we're already prescribing; as despite some claims of alternative medicines working only as placebos (homeopathy being one of the rare ones that really does) it's not difficult to beat a totally non-active placebo. So your design above is fine, the established drug (assume it has been control tested against something else or a placebo too) acts as the control. Furthermore acts as the standards to beat, as if you just compared Woo Product A with a placebo, how do you thoroughly compare it against the Established Product B? The issue comes not with these aspects of design (although randomisation/blinding/control are important and if they aren't present, such as with recent "fish oil trials" and the proposed phonics one in UK schools, proper alarm bells should ring) but the acts of randomisation and the design of a placebo themselves, i.e., how are these achieved? Case study. I was reading a study on the effect of SeaBands, a particular acupressure treatment for motion sickness, that were labelled in the abstract and randomised and controlled, which they were but a more thorough analysis of the written methodology is needed. The overall design was okay, it directly compared the SeaBands (which have specific "acupressure balls" inside them to press on a certain area) with what were basically normal sweat bands. This satisfies the overall idea of trial design nicely and would suffice for someone doing a science project at school. However, was this a true control? The method stated that the nurse picked a box at random and then instructed the person in how to put it on. Immediately the blinding becomes an issue because obviously the practitioner would know the difference, and studies have shown that such knowledge transfers across at the subconscious level to affect the placebo response. Secondly, it was implied that the placebo bands were just placed on the wrists, while for the SeaBands the patients were given instructions about how to find the acupressure point - obviously, acupressure needs the pressure at specific points. But this is where the design falls down and ceases to be a fair trial because the complex intervention is then stronger in the SeaBand group rather than the control group - it would be like comparing a homeopathic treatment involving a doctor giving an extended explanation of treatment and care and then giving out the placebo with a "here, take this and piss off"; you have not minimised the variables in this case. So, a proper control requires a lot of detailed looking at the design of how the control is managed. Pills are easy, because you can make a sugar pill look the same as a "real" pill no problem. Similarly, homeopathic treatments are easy because they're water. In this case, double-blinding can also be quite easy. Acupuncture is more difficult, although you can stab randomly rather than specific points for your control (but given the thousands of acupuncture points that have now been "discovered" you'd have trouble trying to miss them). Others are difficult and you have to be a bit more creative; for SeaBands, I'd give everyone the same generic instructions about moving the "white spot" to the right place and then issue them the random box, rather than have a nurse instruct it post facto, you then minimise the interaction after the blinding disappears. Anyway, that's my essay over, if someone wants to figure out how to article-ify this screed, please do. Scarlet A.pngtheist 11:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. One could design a study of headaches comparing fairy dust (TM) and being whacked on the head with a hammer. Fairy Dust will likely "win" but that doesn't mean dick, does it? -- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --'scuse me, while I kiss the sky 15:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More accurate than normal[edit]

Glenn Beck telling it like it is, with 100% accuracy?--Thanatos (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's frightening how well they make fun of Beck's tendency to promote himself by seeming modest by pretending to make fun of himself. (Wow, that sounds a lot more confusing when you say it that way!) Tetronian you're clueless 04:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock and 404 server ban me please[edit]