1. MythBuster Adam Savage: 3 Ways to Fix U.S. Science Education

Comment #241405 by Misha Vargas on September 2, 2008 at 7:32 am

A late correction for J Mac:

The original sentence was actually not "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo", but "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo", because the buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo aren't just any buffalo, they're buffalo buffalo.

I hope that clears things up.

2. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #234214 by Misha Vargas on August 21, 2008 at 2:20 am

I have nothing of my own to add, I just wanted to thank every single commenter for the beautiful dialogue; maybe especially dloubet, AtheistAspy, Pythagoras, and spacepenguin.

Besides helping people to understand themselves in a very deep way, I think this debate can help to clarify the whole realm of "justice", where misconceptions of it might be doing harm already.

3. Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

Comment #206538 by Misha Vargas on July 8, 2008 at 12:55 pm

This is wonderful, more evidence to support our faith. We Pastafarians are secure in the knowledge that our lives have a solid moral FOUNDATION, PASTA, the very BASE of the food pyramid, AS ADMITTED BY THE USDA!!!

4. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #194915 by Misha Vargas on June 17, 2008 at 11:59 am

earthling, you could at least acknowledge my post, I was the only one to take you seriously enough to even bother responding. I hope you're still hanging around; you seem like you might be dedicated enough to do that.

Did you understand what I was saying; my concerns about the method of exclusion during phase 3? And whether the experiment has been repeated?

I'm just like Dawkins and Randi, I'd be extremely interested if this were true. I think I'd really like to see an article published in something other than the Journal of Bioelectricity.

5. 'In Our Time': Trofim Lysenko

Comment #190455 by Misha Vargas on June 9, 2008 at 6:21 am

I do like hearing about Lysenko. I think it's something to do with the natural karmic destruction unleash'd upon a pseudo-scientific plan and a system which does not allow for free inquiry.

Ah, the schadenfreude is strong in me. (Though sadly, Stalin and Mao were not the ones most directly affected by Lysenkoism.)

An out-of-context quote:

"In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments -- there are consequences." - Robert G. "Big Bob" Ingersoll

6. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #188467 by Misha Vargas on June 4, 2008 at 6:05 am

(Warning: I know absolutely nothing about how to scrutinize scientific articles)

earthling appears to have done exactly as we would have wished and produced a study, apparently published in something that has the word "Journal" in its title.

I was a bit worried at first that the first important test phase was only single-blind, but it claims that the later stages were double-blind. Good.

There was a tiny error with the presentation in one place, where the number of dummy tests in phase 3 was accidentally typed as 60, instead of as 80 as was twice elsewhere shown.

earthling, I'd really like to see if that strong result could be reproduced (or HAS been reproduced in the 17 years since then), with special care to ensure double-blindness.

I'm also slightly worried about the method of exclusion of "patients" during analysis of successive phases, especially phase 3, which seems deceptive. As long as only phase 4 is considered to be meaningful, I suppose it's okay. (For an idea of why the first few phases might be less usable as evidence, watch Derren Brown's The System. It's on YouTube.)

Off to bed I go now. Bed I now go off to. Now off I to bed go.

7. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #69360 by Misha Vargas on September 11, 2007 at 1:52 am

DNAproduct...

Thanks for the scrounging.

IF that's Ulf's only source, he is being quite unfair in his statement. And by not quoting, his readers are left unaware of Ulf's bias. Dawkins original statement was not a broad characterization of all religious scientists.

Of course, this whole thing has been translated twice between English and uhm...Swedish.

8. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66488 by Misha Vargas on August 30, 2007 at 5:50 am

Father Ulf Jonsson is using slightly warped versions of what Dr. D actually wrote. Here is one example:

Dawkins declares......Religion is a by-product of evolution and has survived since mankind has benefited from it.

He does admit here and there that not all believers are fundamentalists and that there are even some very prominent scientists who believe in God. However, he finds that extremely puzzling, even to the extent that he wonders whether they really are believers or have allowed themselves to be bribed by religious organisations.

9. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62687 by Misha Vargas on August 10, 2007 at 9:48 pm

The other significant difference is that religion, at least in its modern manifestations, does not attempt to challenge the scientific method...

I've noticed just the opposite. I've always seen religion as the main enemy of science.

I'd guess there are millions of christians who believe in some sort of a vague conspiracy of scientists, or that the methods are fundamentally blind to certain kinds of evidence. I hear it all the time.

10. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56764 by Misha Vargas on July 17, 2007 at 6:32 am

Small, unimportant factual error:

Bonn and New York are mention'd early in the piece as Western capitals.

11. Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll

Comment #49174 by Misha Vargas on June 10, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Hey, I think I actually responded to this poll. All the questions were the same.

Hmm...the dates don't really match though.

It seem'd like the poll I took was actually just an advertisment for a business, trading your opinions for money. Which is a pretty sneaky way to get past the rules of the Do Not Call Registry.

12. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48869 by Misha Vargas on June 9, 2007 at 9:08 am

To baal (I prefer ba'al)

You may have a very good case about this (quite unimportant) issue.

Most definitions of theology do seem to assume a god's existence. I was surprised at that. It seem'd to me that atheism was a very simple form of theology. I feel the term is a bit nonintuitive.

Also the word godless. (Defined in my dictionary as worshiping or recognizing no god) It's almost as if the users of the word are admitting that god is only in your head, and if you don't believe in it, it doesn't exist (for you). Weird word.

Hey, that reminds me of the paradoxasaur!

13. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #48697 by Misha Vargas on June 8, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Brian's blog disappear'd shortly after he posted that he had told his mother, and they spoke for a long time, and he agreed to pray, almost to humor her. I've no idea what happen'd.

14. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48219 by Misha Vargas on June 7, 2007 at 4:45 am

I don't think the term "atheistic theology" is such an oxymoron.

Atheist is a word that does refer directly to "god".

A lot of "atheists" don't even like to use the word, because it's so specific and doesn't mention all of the silly things they don't believe in.

Still, "atheistic theology" seems a little misleading.

15. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42447 by Misha Vargas on May 18, 2007 at 8:09 am

Early in the article he seems to have misspelled the word freisinnig. I looked it up because I'd never seen it before.