There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:The Spirit Science
Red Links[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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)
DNA activation woo is bigger than this guy.[edit]
There are a lot of New Age woomeisters and cultists who spout things about "reactivating DNA", such as it being triggered by "frequencies of love" or giving us access to the "powers of our ancestors" etc. I feel like we should have a whole page on this subject, but since I'm not experienced enough to know if this needs to be brought to a vote or something, I'm not just making the page. I do have some drafts though. PLMMJ (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)