Search results

Not sure that's the best example, being as the dots on the right aren't that close together. I understand that's because of differing levels of glare but, still, probably a little too easy to challenge as a demonstration.

At the time of the anecdote he couldn't have read both books since Mack's didn't come out till several years later (unless his memory is wrong about when he first saw 'Communion' and it was actually around twenty-seven years after his encounter, in '94 or '95.) I think it's safe to assume...

From John Sides in the Washington Post, with plenty of references to studies and simulations: Non-voters are - on average - only a bit more Democratic than voters, and a bit more supportive of liberal policies...

Econ can comment on this: but I think electing parliament nationally rather than locally - ie, proportional representation based on the popular vote - would see an end to wasted votes and cure  our two-party system. Perhaps the enormous role money plays in the US would make it less likely to...

Yup: https://www.npr.org/2016/11/26/503170280/charts-is-the-electoral-college-dragging-down-voter-turnout-in-your-state Interesting that their figure for VEP (58.4%) is slightly different to the wikipedia one (59.2%). But the article was pretty soon after the election so I guess figures were...

Well, gee, I had no idea there was such a thing as "on topic" in this thread. But I catch your drift. PS A jolly interesting little tidbit that I find fascinating and useful: When not to capitalise president Other than [directly before a president's name or when used in place of a president's...

If only we had a Swiss member to let us know how it works out for them (not that they vote on every bit of legislation). The summary reads humorous. Worth a watch? I notice that even Peter Cook said Peter Cook wasn't very good in it.

Exactly. Cos what we mean by "skeptic" is actually "scientific skeptic" and they therefore wouldn't pass the test.

When I think of that particular dilemma I generally think of this thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-ejaculating-sperm-can-lead-to-loss-of-strength-energy.9614/ in which I wanted to investigate the very widespread idea that male ejaculation can lead to loss of strength - a belief...

I dunno: I think as Woolery demonstrated there's definitely potential for significant disagreement and confusion. What they (and we) actually mean is "scientific skepticism" or "rational skepticism" or "modern skepticism" or "the modern skeptical movement" as opposed to the traditional and root...

10/10. Piece o' cake.

It's an expression of my inability to be smart. :)

Because I didn't write what Woolery wrote about what he hoped for from metabunk. By "not all that smart" I really mean "when I look back it seems that quite a few of the things I did and said and thought were pretty dumb, even though it didn't seem so at the time" - and "looking back" can mean...

True! There were a whopping two lines between the paraphrase post and the reference to the posting guidelines. My bad! I hope you'll accept my apology. :)

Deirdre hits the nail on the head ^^^ but if you want the boring version that I already typed out... In my experience metabunk is primarily a debunking site used to explain mistaken beliefs about generally objective (and fringe, and geeky) subjects such as chemtrails, 9/11, flat earth, UFOs...

Well I only went back to the thing we were talking about. ;) Thank you too. :)

I think the solution is that we find a word other than skepticism as, you're right, the dictionary definition refers to a [school of] philosophy that "doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind" - and I don't think that's what metabunk is about.

I think you're misunderstanding. What you said I said/did is what you wrote in post 64 (and I quote in the list below). What I actually said/did is whatever you were referring to. You think this is quoting? "5 pages of you accusing me of being too stupid to read your sentence:quote correctly"...

Yep, that works for me, and enables me to see more clearly where we're both coming from. Very well conceived, explained, and articulated. Can I suggest an amendment? I may have forgotten where the conversation ("debate") started but I thought I started this particular strand ("the Electoral...

There's a difference, yes. The former is the better, even if the latter is true. See the difference between what I actually said/did and what you said I said/did? I'm amazed you would reference the guidelines right after delivering one of metabunk's greatest paraphrases! :D But, yes, you're...