Talk:Ben Goldacre

Doesn't make sense

"Ben Goldacre brought up the point that vitamin pills don't cure AIDS and devoted a chapter of Bad Science to it. Rath's response was to in fact quietly show Goldacre his convincing research, which was then published with Goldacre as a co-author... actually he sued. The Guardian happily paid for the lawyers to defend Dr Goldacre, and he won the court case, with Rath paying out around £500,000 in fees due to his massive spanking at the hands of reason."

"Rath's response was to in fact quietly show Goldacre his convincing research" seems opposite to the sense of the rest of that section, seems to be missing a negation somewhere. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a joke. possibly not a perfectly expressed one, though. seventhrib (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Zoomed right over my head, it did. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First law of bullshit dynamics

I was reminded by a nice quote:

I should therefore like to posit the first law of bullshit dynamics: "There is no imaginable proposition so absurd that you cannot find at least one person, somewhere in the world, with a PhD or professional post, who is happy to endorse it." [1]

And I wonder where to stick it - here, Appeal to authority, Credentialism or somewhere else.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)