Tumgik
#science vs pseudoscience
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Weapons-grade stupid.
35 notes · View notes
ectoberhaunt · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Ectoberhaunt 2023: Science VS Magic
Dear Phandom new and old, sorry for the delay but this here is our 2023 theme and prompt list! Once again we've changed it up a little to make it a little easier on all of us, and to invite fun and mayhem Phandom wide! Prompts are once again Monday-Friday, with Friday being singular prompts, and weekends being (mostly) free as catch up days. The only real change is our new 'isekai weekend' on the 21st and 22nd, with two different sub prompts for the days. Isekai is a subgenre of anime in which a character ends up in a different place or world all together. It literally translates to 'otherworld'! The two prompts for this weekend are 'past prompt', where we want to see the Phandom use a prompt from either of our previous calendars. The other is 'portal shenanigans'. We highly encourage you to create crossover content and AUs you've wanted to play with. As always, our last prompt day is October 24th to make way for the Ectober Week event. This means our free days are the 1st, 7th, 8th, 14th, 15th, with the 25th-31st being @ectoberweekofficial's time to shine. Please tag all prompt fills as "Ectoberhaunt23", and follow the additional posting guidelines below!
Posting for this event begins October 2nd!
Down below are our written out calendar prompts (for accessibility) AND our posting guidelines. Check 'em out!
The Prompts
Below are the listed prompts in date order, if it's blank it's a catch up day. First prompt is Science, second is Magic!
-
Tecnomancy vs Botonamancy
Black Cat vs White Crow
Aliens vs Zombies
Hunt vs Haunt
Tabletop
-
-
Robots vs Dragons
Pseudoscience vs Occultism
Dread vs Calm
Obsession vs Repression
Horror Flick
-
-
Revenant vs Death Echo
Blood vs Flesh
Unravel vs Intertwine
Claws vs Horns
Danse Macabre
Isekai: Past Prompts (2021 | 2022)
Isekai: Portal Shenanigans
Technus vs Magic
Science vs Dora Ectober Week!
coming soon
coming soon
coming soon
coming soon
coming soon
coming soon
coming soon
Post Guidelines
The following are the posting guidelines. Please follow them so we can reblog and share your posts without issue. We will also have this as a post available on our blog separately.
Tag all posts with “Ectoberhaunt23” so we can find it. If you do not use this tag, we may not find you.
Tag which calendar you're pulling from (“EH Science” or “EH Magic”), which day the prompt is for ("Day X"), and which prompt(s) you completed ("Eyes" "Teeth"). Example: #ectoberhaunt23 #EH science #day 5 #hunt Single day prompts, such as the ones on Friday, do not need a tag for which calendar it's for.
Put your fics under a readmore. Add a summary before the cut with a short preview, content warnings, and which prompts were used. Then, add a readmore no more than 150 words or 10 lines/groups of text under your summary. If you're using mobile, type :readmore: and hit enter to make a readmore. If you do not do this, we will NOT reblog your post.
Make sure to tag all common content warnings (blood, gore, death, drugs, body horror, existentialism, & vermin)
We will try to reblog every prompt we can. Feel free to @ us in the post too or send us a DM with the post!!
Feel free to shoot us an ask about rules/clarifications and any queries on prompts. Our discord is open as are our messages.
Here is a spreadsheet you can use to track your progress made by the talented @ajitated
Title graphic by @kawaiijohn | Calendar graphics by @ajitated
439 notes · View notes
transmutationisms · 8 months
Note
do you feel like SSRIs are mostly pseudoscience? I'm not sure if I should be open to trying them or avoid them at all costs since I'm not sure if they even work or if they will mess me up permanently
a preliminary note that i don't find the category 'pseudoscience' to be useful & would classify SSRI research more as 'methodologically shoddy science' or 'ideologically slanted' or 'part of a centuries-long effort on the part of psychiatrists to secure themselves professional prestige by claiming neurobiological etiologies where none are shown to exist' &c &c. imo the notion of 'pseudoscience' is itself pretty positivistic, ahistorical, and ideologically noxious (particularly apparent in any analysis of epistemological imperialism).
that aside: you raise two major issues with SSRIs, namely whether they work and whether they will cause you harm.
efficacy of SSRIs is contested. a 2010 meta-analysis found that in patients with mild or moderate depressive symptoms, the efficacy of SSRIs "may be minimal or nonexistent", whilst "for patients with very severe depression, the benefit of medications over placebo is substantial". a 2008 meta-analysis found a similar distinction between mildly vs severely depressed patients, but noted that even in the latter population, drug–placebo differences were "relatively small" and argued that the differences between drug and placebo in severely depressed patients "seems to result from a poorer response to placebo amongst more depressed patients" rather than from a greater efficacy of SSRIs. a 2012 meta-analysis found some SSRIs consistently effective over placebo treatments, but several authors disclosed major relationships with pharmaceutical companies. a 2017 meta-analysis concluded that "SSRIs might have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms, but all trials were at high risk of bias and the clinical significance seems questionable" (emphasis added) and that "potential small beneficial effects seem to be outweighed by harmful effects".
when evaluating any of this evidence, it is crucial to keep in mind that studies on antidepressant trials are selectively published—that is, they are less likely to be published if they show negative results!
A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 study viewed as positive was not published. Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies). According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive.
meta-analyses are not immune to this issue, either. in addition to the problem that a meta-analysis of a bunch of bad studies cannot magically 'cancel out' the effects of poor study design, the authors of meta-analyses can and do also have financial interests and ties to pharmaceutical companies, and this affects their results just as it does the results of the studies they are studying. according to a 2016 analysis of antidepressant meta-analyses,
Fifty-four meta-analyses (29%) had authors who were employees of the assessed drug manufacturer, and 147 (79%) had some industry link (sponsorship or authors who were industry employees and/or had conflicts of interest). Only 58 meta-analyses (31%) had negative statements in the concluding statement of the abstract. Meta-analyses including an author who were employees of the manufacturer of the assessed drug were 22-fold less likely to have negative statements about the drug than other meta-analyses [1/54 (2%) vs. 57/131 (44%); P < 0.001]. [...] There is a massive production of meta-analyses of antidepressants for depression authored by or linked to the industry, and they almost never report any caveats about antidepressants in their abstracts. Our findings add a note of caution for meta-analyses with ties to the manufacturers of the assessed products.
so, do SSRIs work? they are certainly psychoactive substances, which is to say, they do something. whether that something reduces depressive symptoms is simply not known at this point, though it is always worth keeping in mind that the 'chemical imbalance' narrative of SSRIs (the idea that they work by 'curing' a 'serotonin deficiency' in the brain) has always been a profitable myth. look, any medical treatment throughout history has been vouched for by SOME patients who report that it helped them—no matter how wacky it sounds or how little evidence there was to support it. this can be for a lot of reasons: placebo effect, the remedy accidentally treating a different problem than it was intended for, the symptoms coincidentally resolving on their own. sometimes the human body is just weird and unpredictable. sometimes remedies work. i'm sorry i can't give you a more definitive answer about whether SSRIs would help you.
as to potential risks: these are significant. SSRIs can precipitate suicidal ideation, a risk that has been consistently downplayed by pharmaceutical companies and studies. SSRIs are also known to contribute to sexual dysfunction and dissatisfaction, again a risk that is minimised and downplayed in much of the literature and in physician communication with patients. further (known) side effects range through emotional blunting, glaucoma, QT interval prolongation, abnormal bleeding & interaction with anti-coagulents, platelet dysfunction, decreases in bone mineral density leading to increased risk of osteopenia and osteoporosis, jaw clenching / TMJ pain, risk of serotonin syndrome when used in conjunction with other serotonergic substances, dizziness, insomnia, headaches, the list goes on.
i don't mean to sound alarmist; all drugs have side effects, some of the ones above occur rarely, and you may very well decide the risk is acceptable to you to take on. i would, though, always encourage you to do thorough research into potential side effects before starting any drug, including an SSRI. more on SSRI side effects in david healy's books 'pharmageddon', 'let them eat prozac', 'the antidepressant era', and 'the creation of psychopharmacology'; 'pillaged' by ronald w maris; and 'the myth of the chemical cure' by joanna moncrieff.
in addition to the above, SSRIs are known to come with a risk of 'discontinuation syndrome'—that is, chemical withdrawal when stopping the drug. this, too, is often downplayed by physicians; many still deny that it can even happen. some patients don't experience it at all, though i can tell you purely anecdotally that SSRI withdrawal was so miserable for me i simply gave up on quitting for over a year, despite the fact that at that point i was already thoroughly experienced with chemical withdrawals from other, 'harder' drugs. again, i am not telling you not to go on SSRIs if you decide these risks are worth it to you! i simply think this is a decision that should always be made with full knowledge (indeed, this is a core, though routinely violated, principle of medical 'informed consent').
ultimately this is not a decision anyone should make for you; it's your body and mind that are at stake here. as always i think that anyone considering any kind of medical treatment should have full knowledge about it and should be making all decisions freely and autonomously. i am genuinely not pushing any agenda 'for' or 'against' SSRIs, only against prescription of them that is done carelessly, coercively, or without fully informing patients of what risks they're taking on and what benefits they can hope to see.
438 notes · View notes
rock-n-macabre · 5 months
Text
When you get into a debate with an ignoramus on a radio broadcast's thread in regards to what is science vs pseudoscience and school their ass ..... It's cute when they try to use big words you KNOW they googled since their points are very uneducated. Sir....your debate is null. Please go educate yourself.
7 notes · View notes
thecoolertails · 7 months
Text
i wish more people understood that mental illnesses aren't categorically defined in a way that's based in science or biology and that the lines we draw between them are ultimately arbitrary. we assign labels to collections of symptoms and behaviors based on their occurrence with one another, and like anything that tries to sort the infinitely diverse tapestry of human experience into neat and rigid categories it often falls short of capturing the full extent of what it attempts to represent. this isn't to say that these labels are useless (they're absolutely not) but to treat them as definite and concrete facts of reality can be both harmful and counterintuitive to actually helping people who experience these symptoms
not to mention that many mental illnesses and conditions are defined heavily by societal expectations and perceptions of the individual, and that what we consider to be someone who is mentally well or typical vs who is mentally unwell or atypical is biased by hegemonic cultural ideals in ways that can sometimes be regressive, bigoted, or otherwise harmful or close-minded. if neurodivergency and mental illness are viewed from a biologically essentialist lens and the dsm is treated like a an infallible scientific text, it completely removes the ability to notice or contest labels and definitions that are flawed, outdated, or those that should be disregarded altogether.
a well known example of this is how homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder, but there are stealthier examples that are still officially recognized to this day (such as Oppositional Defiance Disorder, which is disproportionately diagnosed in Black children and other children of color, as opposed to many white children with the same symptoms who are instead diagnosed as autistic)
anyway my point is that while modern psychology and psychiatry can be useful tools for understanding ourselves and each other, it's important to understand that at the end of the day it's still a pseudoscience and is not exempt from human error or social bias. at the end of the day we're all both more alike and more diverse than what those tools can show, and to fully understand ourselves and each other, we can't be entirely bound by them
17 notes · View notes
crossdreamers · 6 months
Text
On how language and culture make people homophobic and transphobic
Tumblr media
In an article about anti-transgender activism in Spanish speaking countries Amilka González makes some very interesting observations about what drives transphobia and homophobia.
She writes:
The ideas that give life to homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, racism and xenophobia are reproduced through discourse... Discourse is a form of social interaction in which those of us who speak and write "not only" speak and write. We are fundamentally social actors in a "social theater" and share our ideas, beliefs and thoughts through discursive actions. We will illustrate this with the problem of discrimination, which relates to the fact that we organize ourselves socially within an imagined order—country, state, monarchy, theocracy, democracy, capitalism, socialism, are social constructs imagined only by human beings—that legitimizes some kind of social hierarchy: free men vs. slaves, men vs. women, rich vs. poor, believers vs. infidels, whites vs. blacks, natives vs. foreigners, heterosexuals vs. homosexuals, cis vs. trans people.  Any idea or belief that suggests that the above oppositions have "natural" hierarchical relationships of superiority/inferiority, or morality/immorality, is based on fiction and arbitrariness. Groups that attempt to segregate other human beings always speak and write in the name of some kind of "truth" that justifies their segregationist ideas. Let's say that these groups "act" as bearers of a truth and, in turn, this truth hides some kind of hierarchy. It does not matter if this truth is a belief based on subjectivity, myth, pseudoscience or even the sciences we consider true. The main point is that this truth is always surrounded by criteria that vary historically from culture to culture. The role of discourse here is to legitimize and reproduce a hierarchy that "tells us" who should occupy which place in society. That is, discrimination needs certain beliefs to be repeated over and over again, implicitly and explicitly, through different means, to remind us that there are more valid people who deserve a better social position "because that's the way things are", "because it's natural", "because it's common sense", "because god says so", "because it's biology", and a long etc. Since homophobia and transphobia are not innate, people learn to be homophobic and transphobic. We can take it for granted that people learn these beliefs somewhere and somehow.
Read the whole article here: Anti-LGBTQ literature in the Spanish language
The Spanish version of the article can be found here: La literatura antiderechos LGBTIQ escrita en español
Illustration: Mihail Minin
17 notes · View notes
naturalrights-retard · 11 months
Text
self-styled “experts” are always very sure of themselves, but most of their advice ages like a fish head i once left under the sofa.
(and never actually made sense in the first place as this is basically impossible.)
and when it all goes sideways, they will then duck the blame and claim they never said that or go full “shaggy defense” and claim that it “wasn’t them.”
they’ll tell you “mistakes were made” and act like it was unavoidable.
the NYT puff piece out today trying to play at “even handed” is a hilarity of such.
yes, very clearly something went wrong.
and you and others like you were the reason.
don’t forget that early on, tony knew lockdowns did not work, covid was not high risk, masks were useless, and that people should not panic. he said every one of those things. they were true when he said them and they are true now. then he turned on a dime and said the opposite for entirely political reasons the moment debbie birx rode in on her security state horse and took charge.
he became the loyal spokes-hobbit for partisan pseudoscience, lied over and over about everything, then lied about lying and keeps on lying to this day.
he speaks of divisiveness, but what divided us was our “experts” and their endless hectoring and harangue to do everything wrong. they came after lives and livelihoods with known garbage science that they still try to whitewash to this day.
they made EVERYTHING political, sought to subvert choice and judgement at every turn and killed people in droves by turning our response into something far more deadly than covid ever thought of being.
the evidence that most of the “deaths” they claim using hyper-overstated counts with preposterously inclusive criteria were iatrogenic is extremely clear. there has never been a seriously dangerous respiratory pandemic in a post antibiotic society. this was an own goal. (read HERE and HERE for primer)
if these folks want to see who caused the death and undermined public trust, well, here, let me help:
this interview is just horrendous.
yes, you shilled for a completely rigged a set of trials and then pushed a barely assessed vaccine into 200 million american arms based on entirely false premises of “safe and effective. it’s a dead end for a virus”
and you were completely wrong. but you did not change course even when this was obvious.
this was not “a communication” issue. it was purposeful, bald-faced lying or incompetence so staggering as to disqualify one from being taken seriously on such topics ever again.
it was not a dead end. it did not stop spread and likely accelerated it. it was never even tested against transmission. and you knew or should have known that.
but “experts” said the opposite at every turn.
and my oh my the receipts we have on that one.
just who is tony trying to fool here? (perhaps himself?)
bad cattitude
yes, the vaccines were supposed to stop covid spread. yes, the "experts" told us so.
the revisionist history around vaccines is getting pretty extreme. let’s be VERY clear: yes, they were promised to stop spread, contagion, and provide herd immunity. yes, those promises were made by t…
Read more
a year ago · 970 likes · 413 comments · el gato malo
then you tried to hide the adverse events both by making them hard to find and failing to even look until forced.
so please, no grandstanding about the problem being the politics or the public or the public trust.
the problem was you and yours.
and you just keep lying.
this implies impossible numbers. it implies that covid would have killed 1.5% of americans (wildly off IFR estimates) and that the vaccine was over 80% effective vs deaths. none of it is remotely true and the case that the vaccine caused more all cause deaths than it prevented looks far stronger than the case it saved anything.
when we rolled it out, it bent the curves in the US the wrong way on covid alone.
the all cause deaths issues have been stark.
this has been an atrocity.
and the buck never stops here, does it? watch teflon tony pass it:
(and note that he cannot stop lying even now, the man is pathological)
it’s like watching idi amin say he just made policy, he never machine-gunned anyone (if “dr jaffa” was congenitally incapable of keeping his story straight.)
and “never criticized” well, let’s have a contest in the comments to see who can find the funniest proof of the towering mendacity of that statement. (seriously, do it. best one gets a free year of bad cattitude, maybe i’ll collect them all in a post.)
this is that classic “the CDC followed fauci and birx who claim they followed the CDC and no one is following any actual science, just politics and profit” washing machine/reputational laundry. it was always one unified edifice of talking points. there is no daylight between actors here.
it’s just buck passing and it’s nonsense.
this whole “expert class” of regulatory reprobates and public health harridans was in complete lockstep the minute debbie b swept in and made it a national security matter. they all got in line, lied their little faces off, and savagely stifled dissent to the obviously deliberate falsehoods they were spreading on origin and response.
everything about this is a whitewash.
covid is a coronavirus. there has never been a vaccine for or sterilizing herd immunity against a corona virus. they mutate. it’s what they do.
i mean, what did you think was going to happen when you deployed a leaky vaccine vs a mutating virus and generated herd antigenic fixation?
yup, this.
if this is what’s passing for “expertise” then i really have to ask:
because you failed at public relations, ethics, virology, epidemiology, biotech, vaccination, statistics, non-pharma interventions, and even basic math.
then you lied about all of it and your role in creating this pathogen in the first place.
there is no basis to trust you or ask your opinions on how to respond to the next pandemic. more so than covid, “the experts” were the actual plague on our house.
and no amount of these tawdry rehabilitation tours will change it.
but not all complex problems require complex solutions.
meet my one point plan for fixing US public health agencies…
7 notes · View notes
getthebutters · 4 months
Text
Revisiting the Semen Retention Controversy: Could I Have Been Mistaken?
In a recent article I wrote discussing semen retention, I presented my perspective, grounded in my understanding of contemporary scientific research, on why I believe regular ejaculation is healthy. However, Devi Ward Erickson a friend and reader and person much smarter on the topic has challenged some of the points with an insightful comment that brings forward the richness of Eastern science and the practice's historical roots. I value her knowledge and the depth of her response. I've included her entire unedited comment below for us to explore together.
 Devi’s Comment:
"Let's discuss the 'lie' vs. 'the truth'.
 #1. You say - 'But these claims have no scientific basis whatsoever. Literally pulled out of their ass and sadly not out of their sack.' - This is incorrect. The physiological benefits of semen retention are based on data that has been collated for over 5000 years. It is based in EASTERN science. Eastern science predates Western science by several thousand years.
#2. This is also incorrect - 'Semen retention can lead to a buildup of anxious energy that can’t be released through any other means except ejaculation.' - Orgasm is a release of energy. Orgasm and ejaculation are different functions of the nervous system. This has been documented by both Eastern and Western 'science'.
#3. you say- 'The concept of orgasm without ejaculation, also known as edging.' - This is incorrect. 'Edging' is a practice that may LEAD to non-ejaculatory orgasms. Orgasming without ejaculation is not 'edging'. My husband is not 'edging' when he has multiple non-ejaculatory orgasms while buried balls deep in my vagina. That's not edging. That's called an ORGASM.
#4. 'On a physical level, One study found that men who ejaculated at least 21 times per month were less likely to develop prostate cancer than those who ejaculated less frequently'. This study has been debunked by multiple sources, including the researchers themselves who stated very clearly that the results they were seeing could be attributed to the frequency of sex and healthy relationships, NOT necessarily the ejaculation. And that's only ONE of the caveats the researchers included in the journal.
#5. 90% of folks teaching about SR are uneducated and incorrect. Unfortunately, this article falls in that category. Full of incorrect info coming from uninformed sources. The reason many men believe in and practice SR is because of the benefits they see in their own bodies! Having multiple, non-ejaculatory orgasms while buried balls deep in the orifice of your choice, having total and complete CHOICE about when, how, much, and IF you WANT to ejaculate...THAT is sexual maturity. And that can be achieved through the PRACTICE of semen retention.
The belief that Western science is the only valid form of 'science' and dismissing African, Eastern, and South American wisdom as 'pseudoscience' is deeply racist and rooted in white supremacist ideology which prioritizes the Western European lens as the only valid authority on any given topic. The view that SR is pseudoscience is deeply uninformed, profoundly racist, and dismissive of the embodied wisdom of non-European cultures."
 Exploring further:
This comment is a powerful reminder that wisdom and practices from non-Western cultures have been shaping human understanding for millennia, often in ways that modern science is only beginning to grasp. The critique of my article suggests that there are long-standing traditions and scientific frameworks from Eastern perspectives that support the practice of semen retention and its benefits.
In respect to this viewpoint, I embarked on a quest to explore and verify the claims made. Indeed, Eastern medicine and philosophies such as Taoism and Ayurveda have long espoused various health practices, including those related to sexual energy and semen retention. These are often part of holistic approaches to wellness that consider the balance of physical, mental, and spiritual health. Devi’s expertise is literally in the area of Tantra – hence why I’m sharing.
The notion that orgasm and ejaculation are separate functions is also supported by both ancient texts and some modern sexual health researchers. The practice of achieving orgasm without ejaculation is a part of this understanding, and it's a nuanced distinction from what is commonly referred to as 'edging' in Western discussions of sexual health. Orgasm without ejaculation is something that I’ve talked about in the past and actively practice at times. It’s totally my fault for not including that information to round out the article.
Regarding the claim about semen retention and prostate cancer risk, I did deeper research and found that the study in question does indeed include caveats about its findings, highlighting the complexity of this issue and the need for further research. Adding this to my list common sex health myths to actually solve before I’m dead.
 The conversation isn’t over:
In sharing Devi’s comment, my goal is to open a dialogue that respects and includes diverse perspectives on sexual health. While my original stance was skeptical of semen retention benefits, I acknowledge there is a wealth of knowledge in Eastern science that deserves consideration and a place at the table in these discussions.
You deserve the best information available. I have always sought to find the western equivalent/translation for spiritual/traditional health science because I know there’s value there. Hence why The Butters products are designed in this particular way. It’s also why we’re going back over this topic more richly.
It's essential to approach such debates not as a matter of 'Western' vs. 'Eastern' science, but as an opportunity to integrate diverse insights for a more comprehensive understanding of human health and sexuality. My friend's expertise and experiences offer valuable wisdom, and I am grateful for her contribution to this conversation. As we continue to learn from each other, we can strive for a more inclusive and holistic approach to sexual wellness.
3 notes · View notes
Note
So how will you be choosing the answers? Just the answer with the most votes? Or if, say, "agree" won the poll, but if you added up "disagree" and "strongly disagree" and it came up to more than "agree" and "strongly agree" added together, then you'd choose disagree, or if they were about equal then "uncertain"?
This is such a good question!
I'm planning on just going with the answer that gets the most votes
It would be interesting to weight each answer in some way to determine the average answer and get tumblr's average mbti. The 16 mbti personality traits don't show up in equal amounts so the results of this whole thing could possibly be one of them instead of getting the result of "undetermined personality" (which is possible if you're in the middle of e/i and j/p, etc)
But that would be more work for me and I'd have to pick ranges of what counts as each category. Like if there's only one more agree than disagree, should the poll result be uncertain or agree? Especially because the most common spread seems to have agree and disagree as the top two answers, or strongly agree and strongly disagree, so I think this would lead to too many questions picking "uncertain"
I think a better way to get tumblr's average mbti would be too have a bunch of people take the test (which I don't want to do) and then do math using the data of their personality percentage breakdown to get the average, instead of getting the average question by question. If you take the test (don't) it gives you what percent of each trait you are
So yeah to clarify, this is going to determine Tumblr's mbti as voted on by tumblr users, it's not going to determine Tumblr's average mbti results. Like in a bracket, the winner is chosen to move forward instead of an average of both competitors moving forward
Also... getting averages is real math, which is good for real science. MBTI is pseudoscience so I don't want to do real math to it because it kinda legitimizes it, you know? But with this, it's like mbti is pseudoscience and taking tumblr polls at face value and using them for statistical analysis is also v pseudosciencey so it's still fun, but doing real math would be kinda squicky. Like astrology is also pseudoscience but it's fun, but if someone takes it seriously then it's kinda squicky. It's 4pm on a Friday so IDK if this is making sense. Pseudoscience is fun if you don't take it seriously, averaging data is serious so it would make this whole thing less fun. Altho I do have other analysis planned (seeing which question got the most notes vs which question got the most votes, what percent of questions did I personally vote with the majority, that kind of thing) because some analysis is fun for me, but none of that is going to feed into the final result of what Tumblr's MBTI is
All the polls are gonna stay up so people can do their own math on it, and I definitely encourage people to tag me if they post their analysis
I'll try answer other questions with a little more brevity lol
7 notes · View notes
mintincense · 1 year
Text
video essay recommendations
i am personally a big fan of video essays and have watched a great number of them. if you're looking to learn about trans people and issues relating to us and like the video essay form, see here my personal list of video essay recommendations grouped by topic
if you want all the videos in a small neat playlist click here! (the only exceptions are two series of videos who are instead linked in the list as playlists)
on transphobia:
The History of Transphobia by Mia Mulder
Transphobia: An Analysis by Philosophy Tube
Tracing the Roots of Pop Culture Transphobia by Lindsay Ellis
What Are Women? by Lily Alexandre
Response to BBC transphobia by Shaun
The Continually Escalating Anti-LGBT Rhetoric by Jessie Gender
The Anti-Trans Disinformation Pipeline by Jessie Gender
How PragerU Creates Transphobia (in Trans-Affirming Folks) by Jessie Gender
on Gender Criticals/TERFs
What Are TERFs? - How "Gender Critical" TERFs Harm Transgender Folks by Jessie Gender
Gender Critical by Contrapoints
Inside a Cult - Gender Critical - Recruitment by Caelan Conrad
Inside a Cult - Gender Critical - Conversion Therapy by Caelan Conrad
Inside a Cult - Gender Critical - Fascism by Caelan Conrad
Exploring The "Gender Critical" Radicalization Pipeline by Jessie Gender
TERFs and the Fascist Roots of Anti-Trans Movements by Jessie Gender
TERFs and False Consciousness by Rosencreutz
TERFs Are Wrong About Biological Sex by Lily Alexandre
The TERF AI App That Uses Modern Pseudoscience by Jessie Gender
on J.K. Rowling
J.K. Rowling by Contrapoints
I'm Done With JK Rowling by Jessie Gender
Hogwarts Legacy, JK Rowling, and Trans Advocacy by Ro Ramdin
An Over-Emotional Look at Why JK Rowling is Bad by James Somerton
Death of the Author 2: Rowling Boogaloo by Lindsay Ellis
"Separating Art vs. the Artist" doesn't work for Harry Potter by Kuncan Dastner
on trans people in sports
Should Trans Women Be Allowed In Womens Sports? by Mia Mulder
Are Transgender Athletes The End of Sports? by Jessie Gender
The Science of Trans Women in Sport by Jangles ScienceLad
other topics
Autogynephilia by Contrapoints
Puberty Blockers Are Safe, As Far As We Know. Get Over It. by Mia Mulder
Irreversible Damage from a cog psych perspective (Series) by Cass Eris
Transmedicalism: An Investigation by CopsHateMoe
What Is "Gender Ideology"? (Hint: It Doesn't Exist.) by Lily Alexandre
Detransition, Gender by Mia Mulder
The Unending Lies of Matt Walsh by Jessie Gender
The Manipulations of Matt Walsh's "What is a Woman?" by Jessie Gender
Transvestigation: The Conspiracy Theory That Everyone Is Transgender by Mia Mulder
We Have Always Existed: Transgender Ancient History Show by We Have Always Existed Ancient Transgender History
I Emailed My Doctor 133 Times: The Crisis In the British Healthcare System by Philosophy Tube
Do "Binary Trans Women" Even Exist? The Politics of Gender Conformity by Lily Alexandre
5 notes · View notes
Video
youtube
You know how some of the medicines you see in drugstores are sometimes labeled as “homeopathic”? You might have heard somewhere that homeopathy is a “natural” way to treat things like colds, the flu, aches and pains, sleeplessness and a million other things.
Let's just get this out of the way right now.
Homeopathy is bunk.
Wrap your brain around this if you can.
Homeopathy is an idea from the 1700s that posits that a sickness can be cured with a toxic substance that would normally cause the same symptoms, so long as it is diluted to the point that the original nasty ingredient literally isn't there anymore. But that's okay because the water will still “remember” it. Because according to homeopathy, water molecules have memories.
What?
It doesn't work. It can't work. It's fake medicine.
And this is important. Drug retailers, they know this but they sell this stuff anyway.
This is why the Center For Inquiry - that's us - is taking on the world's biggest drug retailers and suing them for fraud.
Yeah, that's right. Fraud. Here's why.
Major retail and pharmacy chains like Walmart and CVS are selling useless homeopathic snake oil right alongside real evidence-based medicine under sections labeled “colds and flu” or “sleep aids” or what have you.
On their websites, homeopathic treatments are nested right alongside with real science-based FDA-approved medicines. For consumers, there's nothing to distinguish the fake medicine from the real thing, because their pharmacies have lumped them all together.
This needs to stop.
Taking cynical advantage of their customers’ trust, Walmart, CVS and other drug retailers are exploiting people's fears about chemicals and side effects to trick people into buying untested ineffective fantasy products.
It's time to put an end to the deception and to give people the facts.
That is exactly what we're going to do. To learn more about the Center For Inquiry in our effort to put a stop to the fraud of fake medicine go to:
www.centerforinquiry.org
17 notes · View notes
Text
Astrology for Skeptics: Surprising Insights from the Most Compelling Astrology Books
Astrology has actually been around for centuries, but it is frequently misinterpreted and dismissed as pseudoscience. Many people think that astrology is absolutely nothing more than a form of home entertainment or a way to make unclear forecasts about the future. However, astrology is a lot more than that. It is a complicated system that can supply important insights into our characters, behaviors, and life occasions. In this post, we will explore the science behind astrology and its practical applications in our daily lives. We will expose common myths and misunderstandings about astrology and shed light on its true nature. Whether you are a skeptic or a believer, this article intends to provide a comprehensive understanding of astrology and its importance in today's world. The Science of Astrology: Understanding Its Roots and Principles Astrology is based on the idea that the positions of the worlds and stars at the time of our birth can influence our personality, habits, and life occasions. It is believed that each planet and zodiac sign has its own distinct characteristics and affects on our lives. By studying these celestial bodies and their interactions, astrologers can make predictions and offer insights into different elements of our lives. The principles of astrology can be traced back to ancient civilizations like the Babylonians and Egyptians. These ancient cultures observed the motions of the worlds and stars and noticed patterns and correlations with human behavior and events on Earth. In time, these observations were fine-tuned and become the complicated system of astrology that we understand today. Astrology vs Astronomy: The Key Distinctions It is important to distinguish between astrology and astronomy, as they are typically confused with each other. Astronomy is a clinical study of celestial items and phenomena. It includes observing, measuring, and examining the physical properties of stars, worlds, galaxies, and other heavenly bodies. Astronomy is based upon empirical evidence and follows the clinical technique. On the other hand, astrology is a belief system that utilizes celestial things to make forecasts about human affairs. It is not based upon empirical evidence or scientific concepts. Astrology counts on the analysis of symbols and patterns in the positions of the planets and stars to provide insights into different elements of our lives. Regardless of their distinctions, astronomy and astrology have a shared history and continue to influence each other. Numerous ancient astronomers were likewise astrologers, as they believed that the movements of the celestial bodies had an effect on human lives. Today, astronomers frequently team up with astrologers to study the results of celestial occasions on human behavior and events. The Function of the Planets and Zodiac Indications in Astrology The worlds and zodiac indications are the foundation of astrology. Each planet represents a various element of our personality and influences different locations of our lives. Mercury is associated with communication and intellect, while Venus is associated with love and charm. The zodiac indications, on the other hand, represent different characteristic and attributes. There are twelve zodiac signs, each representing a specific period of the year. Aries is associated with nerve and leadership, while Taurus is associated with stability and usefulness. In astrology, the positions of the worlds in relation to the zodiac indications at the time of our birth are utilized to create a birth chart or horoscope. This chart offers insights into our characteristic, strengths, weak points, and life occasions. By studying our birth chart, astrologers can provide assistance and forecasts about numerous elements of our lives. The Skeptic's Guide to Astrology: Typical Criticisms and Counterarguments Astrology has its fair share of doubters who question its validity and precision. Some argue that astrology is absolutely nothing more than a kind of home entertainment or a method to make unclear forecasts that can apply to anybody. Others think that astrology goes against the principles of science and does not have empirical evidence. Nevertheless, there are counterarguments to attend to these criticisms. While it is true that astrology can not supply accurate predictions or descriptions for each element of our lives, it can use important insights and guidance. Astrology is not suggested to be a deterministic system that determines our fate, however rather a tool that helps us understand ourselves much better and make notified options. Astrologists argue that astrology is a symbolic language that can help us use our subconscious and gain a much deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us. By studying the patterns and correlations in between celestial occasions and human behavior, astrology can offer insights into our strengths, weaknesses, and life events. One Of The Most Compelling Astrology Books: A Comprehensive Review There are many astrology books out there, however not all of them deserve reading. Some books provide vague and generic analyses that can use to anyone, while others offer practical insights and assistance. In this section, we will examine a few of the most compelling astrology books that use valuable details and useful applications. One extremely advised book is "The Only Astrology Book You'll Ever Need" by Joanna Martine Woolfolk. This book provides a thorough overview of astrology and covers subjects such as birth charts, zodiac signs, planetary influences, and compatibility. It likewise includes practical suggestions on how to analyze your birth chart and use astrology to your every day life. Another great book is "Astrology for the Soul" by Jan Spiller. This book focuses on the spiritual elements of astrology and provides insights into the karmic lessons and soul purpose connected with each zodiac sign. It uses practical workouts and meditations to assist you line up with your soul's path and fulfill your highest capacity. The Astrology of Character: Insights into Human Habits and Relationships Astrology can supply important insights into our personality traits and how we connect with others. By studying our birth chart, astrologers can identify our strengths, weak points, and potential obstacles. horoscope compatibility -awareness can help us understand ourselves better and make mindful options that align with our real nature. If your birth chart shows that you have a strong Mercury influence, you might excel in fields that require interaction and intellectual capabilities. Comprehending this can assist you select a profession course that lines up with your natural talents and interests. Astrology can also offer insights into our relationships with others. By comparing birth charts, astrologists can determine compatibility and prospective difficulties in romantic relationships, friendships, and company partnerships. This knowledge can assist us navigate our relationships more effectively and construct more powerful connections with others. The Astrology of Career and Finance: Finding Your True Calling and Monetary Success Astrology can likewise be used to gain insights into our profession courses and financial success. By studying the positions of the planets in our birth chart, astrologists can determine our natural talents, strengths, and locations of interest. This info can assist us discover our real calling and pursue a career that aligns with our passions and values. If your birth chart suggests a strong influence from the world Mars, you might flourish in professions that need management, assertiveness, and physical activity. Comprehending this can help you pick a career path that permits you to reveal these qualities and achieve success. Astrology can likewise supply insights into our monetary situation and potential for wealth. By studying the positions of the planets related to money and abundance in our birth chart, astrologers can determine opportunities for financial growth and success. This knowledge can assist us make notified decisions about financial investments, organization endeavors, and monetary planning. The Astrology of Health and Wellness: Understanding Your Mind And Body Astrology can provide insights into our physical and mental health. Each zodiac indication is associated with various parts of the body and has its own special qualities and vulnerabilities. By studying our birth chart, astrologers can recognize prospective health concerns and offer guidance on how to maintain balance and wellness. For example, if your birth chart shows a strong impact from the zodiac indication Virgo, you might be vulnerable to digestion problems and perfectionism. Comprehending this can help you make much healthier options in regards to diet plan and way of life and find methods to manage stress and stress and anxiety. Astrology can also provide insights into our mental health and psychological wellness. By studying the positions of the worlds related to feelings and mental patterns in our birth chart, astrologers can recognize prospective challenges and offer guidance on how to cultivate psychological resilience and inner peace.
youtube
The Astrology of Love and Relationships: Finding Your Soulmate and Navigating Love Astrology can likewise be utilized to acquire insights into our love lives and relationships. By comparing birth charts, astrologists can determine compatibility and possible difficulties in romantic relationships. This knowledge can assist us make informed choices when it comes to choosing a partner and navigating the ups and downs of love. If your birth chart suggests a strong influence from the planet Venus, you may have a deep requirement for love, consistency, and charm in your relationships. Comprehending this can assist you attract partners who share these values and produce a caring and harmonious partnership. Astrology can likewise provide insights into our relationship patterns and dynamics. By studying the positions of the planets associated with relationships in our birth chart, astrologists can determine possible challenges and supply guidance on how to cultivate healthy interaction, trust, and intimacy. The Surprising Benefits of Astrology for Doubters Despite its skeptics, astrology can provide practical insights and assistance for our daily lives. While it is true that astrology can not supply exact predictions or explanations for every aspect of our lives, it can help us understand ourselves better and make notified choices. Astrology is not implied to be a deterministic system that identifies our fate, however rather a tool that assists us navigate life's challenges and make the most of our capacity. We encourage doubters to keep an open mind and check out the benefits of astrology for themselves. Whether you are trying to find guidance in your career, relationships, health, or personal development, astrology can offer important insights and practical guidance. By studying your birth chart and dealing with a knowledgeable astrologer, you can get a much deeper understanding of yourself and the world around you.
1 note · View note
riyasharma05 · 2 months
Text
Astrology vs. Astronomy: Debunking Myths
Tumblr media
Astrology and astronomy, often used interchangeably, are distinct fields with unique purposes. While astronomy is a science that studies celestial objects and phenomena, astrology is a belief system that suggests a connection between celestial movements and human affairs. In this blog, we'll delve into the differences between astrology and astronomy, aiming to dispel common myths surrounding both
.
Myth 1: Astrology and Astronomy are the Same:
Many people mistakenly think astrology and astronomy are synonymous. In reality, astronomy is a scientific discipline that explores the cosmos, using observations and mathematics to understand celestial bodies. Astrology, on the other hand, is a belief system that suggests the positions of celestial objects influence human affairs and natural events.
Myth 2: Astronomers Believe in Astrology:
Another misconception is that astronomers endorse astrology. In truth, the scientific community widely regards astrology as pseudoscience because its principles lack empirical evidence. Astronomers focus on rigorous scientific methods, relying on observations and experiments to build our understanding of the universe.
Myth 3: Astrology Predictions are Scientific:
Astrology predictions often claim to offer insights into personality traits, relationships, and future events based on celestial positions. However, these claims lack scientific validity. Scientific predictions require reproducibility and falsifiability, criteria astrology does not meet. Astronomers emphasize the importance of evidence-based conclusions, distinguishing their work from astrological predictions.
Myth 4: The Zodiac Sign Constellations Have the Same Positions:
Many astrology enthusiasts believe that the zodiac signs align with the constellations in the night sky. However, due to the Earth's axial precession, the positions of constellations have shifted over time. This misalignment challenges the accuracy of astrological claims based on specific zodiac sign placements.
In the realm of understanding the cosmos, it's crucial to differentiate between astronomy and astrology. While astronomy follows scientific principles and contributes to our knowledge of the universe, astrology relies on beliefs that lack empirical support. Debunking these myths helps foster a clearer understanding of these distinct fields, allowing us to appreciate the wonders of the night sky without confusing science with pseudoscience.
0 notes
thesongthesoulsings · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
‘Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism’ is Pseudoscience
November 5, 2018
Guest Post: Whyser
You know, I wish provaxxers looked critically at their own studies that they believe to prove their own point.
For example, the idea that vaccines are not associated to [insert your favorite adverse reaction here], is currently not strongly supported by any of available science that I’ve seen.
Let’s take the most popular one of all, that ‘vaccines are not associated to autism’.
If you were to try to support that with studies, you’ll likely be linking study after study that shows:
MMR is not associated to autism
Thimerosal is not associated to autism
Like this one: “Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies”, by Luke E. Taylor, published 2014]
Here’s the problem with those studies in terms of design: you’re comparing a vaccinated population vs. a vaccinated population, but using the MMR as a variable.
As an exaggeration, let’s assume the following vaccination histories of the case and control group:
Case Group Hep B x 3 DTaP x 4 Hib x 3 Pneumococcal x 3 Polio x 3 Influenza x 1 Varicella x 1 Hep A x 1 MMR x 1
Control Group Hep B x 3 DTaP x 4 Hib x 3 Pneumococcal x 3 Polio x 3 Influenza x 1 Varicella x 1 Hep A x 1
The only difference being that the case group has been vaccinated for MMR and the control group has not.
When you find that the autism rate between both groups is statistically insignificant, you then conclude that MMR is not associated to autism.
Fair enough, so as long as the PROPER CONTEXT of this conclusion is established, that is, if you’re going to be vaccinating anyways, then the MMR isn’t going to pose any more significant risk.
But for the life of me, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how people use these studies designed in this manner to conclude that VACCINES are not associated to autism.
You want to attack Exley and Shaw, fine. But if you’re going to do that, you should be just as upset with the multitude of studies that don’t even come CLOSE to answering the question, are vaccines (as a whole) associated to [adverse reaction]?
The vast majority of vaccine safety science is designed similarly to this, so to say that you have science on your side when there are no real studies to support that conclusion shows to me who really believes in pseudoscience.
Here is the 2014 meta-analysis: “Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies”.
The header image is from that study. This study is supposed to reassure parents. It’s supposed to be the nail in the coffin–‘no stone unturned’, vaccines have been exhaustively and objectively investigated for a relationship to vaccines. And lo and behold, it proves over and over that we have simply failed to do the research.
Here are the tables of studies included in that study that they use to “prove” that “vaccines” do not cause autism. Yet, each and every study only ever looks at MMR or Thimerosal (Hg). How can that be used to explain that ALL VACCINES or ANY VACCINES do not contribute to autism? It doesn’t.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
OK, so someone, please tell me how we can draw any conclusions about ALL VACCINES, or ANY vaccines, when we are only looking at ONE vaccine or one ingredient (thimerosal)?
Here’s another study: “Vaccines and Autism: Evidence Does Not Support a Causal Association”  by CDC epidemiologist Frank DeStefano.
The title of the paper uses the word “vaccines”, however the paper only investigates the MMR vaccine and thimerosal, the mercury containing preservative that was used in some vaccines. The conclusion specifically says:
The current scientific evidence does not support a causal association between MMR vaccine or TCVs and autism.
Notice how he doesn’t conclude…”all vaccines,” because it’s literally never been studied.
Vaccine studies routinely lack zero exposed control groups
1. Association Between Estimated Cumulative Vaccine Antigen Exposure Through the First 23 Months of Life and Non–Vaccine Targeted Infections From 24 Through 47 Months of Age, Glanz J, et al. JAMA. 2018; 319(9):906-913. 
Notes: Comparing health outcomes for different ranges of antigen exposure. The lowest antigen exposure reference group is 0-198 antigens.  So, no unvaccinated group. 
2. Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Taylor L, Swerdfeger A, Eslick G. Vaccine. 2014; 32: 3623-9 
Full study here—->Taylor, et al
Notes: 5 case-control and 5 cohort studies. Studies were included that looked at either MMR vaccination, cumulative mercury (Hg) or cumulative thimerosal dosage from vaccinations.  No individual study had an unvaccinated control reference group.  
3. Patterns of childhood immunization and all-cause mortality. Natalie L. McCarthy, et al. 2017
Full study here —–> McCarthy, et al
Notes: Study compares mortality rates between children following the ACIP recommended vaccine schedule against children considered “undervaccinated” which are children missing at least one dose. Curiously, 3.3% of the “undervaccinated” group received no vaccines but they are not examined distinctly from the “undervaccinated” group.  So, no unvaccinated reference group. 
4. Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal From Vaccines and Immunoglobulins and Risk of Autism. Cristofer S. Price, William W. Thompson, et al. 2010
Notes: This study wanted to examine the relationships between prenatal and infant ethylmercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and or immunoglobulin preparations and ASD, but it forgot to include unvaccinated kids.  No unvaccinated reference group. 
5. Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism. DeStefano, et al. 2013.
Notes: They tried to evaluate the association between autism and the level of immunologic stimulation received from vaccines administered during the first 2 years of life, but forgot to keep the ZERO exposure group all by itself in its own cute little section. The reference groups are: 0-25 antigens, 0-125 antigens, and 0-311 antigens. And then for an even more sensitive analysis, their reference group for a single day exposure was 0-25 antigens, 0-25 antigens, and 0-100 antigens (compared to kids with 3000-6258 antigens). Sadly, this was another missed opportunity.  No unvaccinated reference group. 
6. Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7-10 years. Iqbal S, et al. 2013
Full Study —-> Iqbal, et al
Notes: They used a publicly available dataset to evaluate the association between antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides from early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7-10 years. Lowest exposure reference group is <100.  So, no unvaccinated group. 
7. On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes. Michael J. Smith 2010
Full Study —–> Smith, et al
Notes: Comparing timely (within 30 days of recommended schedule) to untimely (children who did not meet that criteria).  There is no unvaccinated group. 
8. Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders. Brian S. Hooker, et al. 2020
Notes: This does have an unvaccinated group. This is their findings:
Vaccination before 1 year of age was associated with increased odds of developmental delays (OR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.47–3.24), asthma (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.04–9.88) and ear infections (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.63–2.78). In a quartile analysis, subjects were grouped by number of vaccine doses received in the first year of life. Higher odds ratios were observed in Quartiles 3 and 4 (where more vaccine doses were received) for all four health conditions considered, as compared to Quartile 1. In a temporal analysis, developmental delays showed a linear increase as the age cut-offs increased from 6 to 12 to 18 to 24 months of age (ORs = 1.95, 2.18, 2.92 and 3.51, respectively). Slightly higher ORs were also observed for all four health conditions when time permitted for a diagnosis was extended from ⩾ 3 years of age to ⩾ 5 years of age.
Conclusion: In this study, which only allowed for the calculation of unadjusted observational associations, higher ORs were observed within the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group for developmental delays, asthma and ear infections. Further study is necessary to understand the full spectrum of health effects associated with childhood vaccination.
Tumblr media
0 notes
jarredlharris · 5 months
Text
A journey out of creationism.
This post is a copy of the answer I wrote to a Quora question.
Have you ever believed in creationism?
I did. I grew up believing in specifically Young Earth Creationism. I as convinced it was true and that all those “evolutionists” were either liars or just easily fooled idiots.
If so, what convinced you that evolution was a more logical explanation?
The short answer is “I learned about science.” Read on for the longer answer.
When I went to college, I got accepted into my university’s Honors Program. This was a program that involved taking a number of specialized courses that tended to focus on critical thinking and important subjects of the day. One of the classes I was required to take as a part of the program was called “Thought and Science,” and I took the second semester of my freshman year.
The name of this course could have just as easily been called “Philosophy of Science.” In fact, that was the title of the textbook the professor chose as our primary textbook for the course. In this course, we learned about the philosophy of science and how scientific inquiry worked. We also learned about pitfalls scientists can fall into like confirmation bias.
The final topic covered at the end of the semester was the subject of pseudoscience. The professor — who was a botanist, a professing Christian, and a dancer, spent a lot of time specifically talking about creationism and why it was a pseudoscience. During his final lecture of the semester, he said something that has stuck with me ever since:
“You can claim that God blinked the universe into existence last Tuesday as a matter of faith. But you cannot make that claim on any scientific basis.”
I realized he had a point. The alleged “scientific” arguments I had learned to support my creationist views were simply rhetoric that my mentors had disguised as being science. I could not deny this because I had just spent the past few months learning what science was and who science worked, and my creationist arguments looked nothing like that.
I didn’t stop believing in creationism right away, but I found myself being more honest — including with myself — about the fact that I accepted it as a matter of faith rather than something that could be scientifically demonstrated to be true.
I don’t really know when I quit believing in creationism. I didn’t really think a lot about the evolution vs. creation debate after that course. But no matter when I finally let go of my creationist beliefs, I know that the class I took from the dancing botanist was the genesis of its demise.
0 notes
eptoday · 8 months
Link
0 notes