Talk:The Spirit Science

	This New Age related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Red Links

So much....red.....TheAtheistPumpkin (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Better now? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ripping off Extra Credits

For basically anybody who's seen his terrible work, it is basically Extra Credits if they somehow went so far into the conspiracy bucket that it was the bucket. Is it worth mentioning here? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 09:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw an accusation some years ago that the two were the exact same person. Had to dig trying to confirm this, only to find out they aren't. Chillpilled (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Codons

While there are 64 possible ways to have a sequence of 3 nucleotides (A, C, T, and G being 4 in number, and 4x4x4 being 64) they only code for 20 different amino acids. This means (fairly obviously) that some amino acids are each represented by several different codons. If you add stop and start, perhaps that's where the prolific stoner gets 22 from? While the number is technically 64, most references on the subject will mention both numbers, 64, and the number of amino acids the code can represent.

So he could be right on this issue, even if it's probably by coincidence in his case. 188.29.165.219 (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Rearrangement

I've rearranged most of the page, since it was quite repetitive and the "Conflicts with science" section was just non-sense. The contents of the "Beliefs" section haven't been deleted, but moved into a subsection of "Themes" named "History". --Ander Garin (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Great! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

References clean-up and rearrangement

When I have time, I'll put all the references under the same format (author(s), name/video, site/journal, date) and fuse the ones that are different but refer to the same thing into one (using "ref name="). Don't worry if a reference disappears, it'll be temporal. By the way, don't you think that suggesting that SS is a "passive-aggressive cult" is a little bit excessive? I've found no accounts of anyone considering it that so far. If no, we should remove from its definition, because it's unfair. If some people indeed consider it as such, it'd be helpful to add a header discussing its status as a cult.--Jagoe (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's done. Wow, 35 woo themes. The sheeer amount of wackyness is scary. --Jagoe (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)