Waxing How To Treat Burn

The failure of sorcerers

The tome entitled "The Morning of the Magicians", misspelled by the "sorcerers" Gauls Pauwels and Bergier, became not only a hit (thanks to the ignorant masses who drooled borreguiles the new " revelation " pataphysical), but also became the Bible of pseudoscience whose gospel of "fantastic realism" was recited by the sacristan and altar boys pandas spiritualist journals wildest scene of the occult (in Newspeak macanera: Para-science), but the French rationalist Union reacted to such a silly string and bore his wonderful book: "The failure of the witches," rationalist and skeptical antidote to the poison of modern witchcraft P. and B., who refuted each and every one of the fallacies and impossibilities taradeces not only return but also the editorial monster "Planet" sorcerer Pauwels. Here are some refutations of this book that show the failure of the witches:
- "It is false to say that the world no longer plays the game right. The revolution that is announced is entirely due to rational knowledge. Nothing is built without reason. The great thing is no base to build anything. "
-" What would we gain from the scientific point of view, to study the thousands of pages of casters, visionaries, incontinent hacks whose works are sleeping in the library? The most notable, the most wonderful events that quote, they are completely unusable, because their stories are never accompanied by evidence. "
- "Now they tell us, if an electron is projected onto a screen pierced with 2 holes, observation by electron microscopy we show that the electron has passed the time by 2 holes. Well, "added P. and B - if one has gone through, there can be passed through the other at the same time. It's crazy, but it is an experiment. And underline the weakness of our reason refuses to admit that a body can be, at the same time, there and in other parte.Leyendo these lines either be convinced that an observer with an eye glued to the eyepiece of a microscope has followed the path of an electron and has seen him go through 2 holes. Not so, there has been no any comments of that kind, you can not select a particular electron. In fact the screen is bombarded with a beam of electrons is very weak even when containing large number of corpuscles, at the same time there is, through a photographic plate located on the other side of the screen, how to group the corpuscles, following interference circular shapes or different if more than one hole). These interferences are observed by weaker than the beam produced, causing the temptation of thinking that must be kept until the limit of reduction, ie until no more than a single particle. Hence to say that behaves "like if "had passed through 2 holes at the same time, there is but a step that sometimes cross a physical, because this formula is a convenient way to facilitate the development of theoretical constructs. This does not mean they have never thought of identifying this assumption with experimental reality. P. AND B. They take it to the letter without realizing that what they give as experience is only an extrapolation, an argument taken to its limits, ie the absurd, a procedure that could not replace the comments, especially if one intends to follow the nature y. .. to reason. "

Small Spud Gun For Sale

Excerpts from the book "The failure of the witches" (Editorial Jorge Alvarez, Buenos Aires, 1966).

"The claim by innuendo. Is perhaps the most practiced. The form doubting everything possible to conceive, forward all through a swing of suggestions that apparently does not assert anything, but repeated, reinforcing ... And imposing! I choose at random: "In this physicist has reason to believe ... This view is defended by X, Y, ... Nothing proves otherwise ... It is therefore legitimate to assume ... The USSR researchers claim, in effect ... It is thus conceivable that ... " Is indicative of the conditional pass, the way that both supports the statement that says no, but with half-words to understand the initiate. This slip subtle as possible in suspense as possible realizable, which is rapidly converted into certainty, leads to the strong acceptance of what remains essentially a hypothesis. "

" Think what they think the authors of the 'Morning of the Magicians' there is only one kind of truth: scientific truth, because only she is prepared to requirement of objectivity and control. What constitutes the legitimacy and strength of science is precisely its taboos which he is accused, these limits it imposes on intelligence to prevent loss. P. And B., although everything is not permitted, anything is possible and science, however, puts barriers of impossibilities. They make fun of a sage who was told the media to become invisible and later said: "Naturally, I did not test! ". Making fun of this reflection is not at all understand the scientific attitude. Try the talisman would accept the possibility of miracles, the supernatural, the indeterminism; would deny science, betray the thought and, moreover, wasting time and looking ridiculous. "

" This book (referring to " Morning of the Magicians ") is the book of reason abolished, the world upside down: the glorification of the irrational. But has the talent to attract interest, and create unexpected relationships, to leave without saying hear what ever imagined, to make people believe in witchcraft, never expressing. Everything in the spirit about human doubt, uncertainty and emotion, is echoed in the book by a great alteration of reality. Modified, truncated trafficked and knowingly or not-a prodigious documentation to make more convincing reality of magic. "

" Pauwels has made itself a metaphysics that transcends all the old philosophies, RP Teilhard de Chardin, which know it is more materialistic and more spiritual matter that spirit. Add to this unrepentant optimism Pauwels and have the philosophy of the Planet. "

" The 'witches' are relevant only insofar as they treasure a piece of scientific truth to be stolen. Scientific truth requires a seriousness, a method of experimentation and a concern for analysis, incompatible with the attitude and literary magic. When you want to study the mysteries of the world must start with a real desire to bring them the real light of intelligence, clarity playful and not so thick haze of vocabulary. "

How Much Do The Rabies Vaccine Cost?

Death "of atheism?

of Venezuela in the web analytics is an article entitled" Death atheism "and written by Juan Muñoz, where he conducted a" critical "(sorry for the misuse of terms) of atheism unfortunate that just shows their ignorance about the topic it addresses. For example, this character does not understand the meaning of Buñuel's famous phrase, as evidenced by his comment: "It is a typical English, but attribute it to nothing less than Buñuel, who at the impertinent question would answer that he was an atheist, thank God. The funny thing is that more true than in the boutade joke: because only by believing in God in some way can be consistently atheist. "For me the only boutade is surreal commentary Muno, and apparently does not understand that phrase Buñuel tells us the truism that only an atheist can be defined to exist in the community concerned, the belief in the existence of a deity, and that in the absence of belief in God or theism would impossible to have an A-theism (at least in the positive and strong sense of the word) that precluded such a theistic belief. In the same way that anti-spiritualism of the skeptics would be impossible if there were previously pseudoscience nonsense of Muno espirita.El that "only believing in God in some way can be consistently atheist" is a common fallacy of the "stolen concept ", as this twisting, twisting, maim and omitting the semantic meaning of the term "atheist": an atheist does not believe in God, that's a-theist = without God and therefore advocates a-theism = negation of the negation of theism or belief in one God. Who refuses to pretend that God believes in him is as absurd as claiming that those who deny the existence of Zeus is because, deep down, believe in Zeus (sic) also the skeptic who denies the existence of ghosts because it denies ... believe in them? (sic) go, I swear that whoever denies the existence of anything is because they believe in that thing, but it seems that the logic is upside Muno, go. The alleged "Christian atheist" or "atheist theist", which "believes" Muno, is a fictitious entity as contradictory and non-existent as the "square circle" or "anarchist state," and only serves to expose the contradiction that lies deep in the brain in such agnóstico.Muy fun but not serious and aware, is the following nonsense Muno anti-atheist, "the atheist loses time and effort trying to prove the unprovable: that God does not exist." How do you know stumps that the absence of God is unprovable? Logically, this would only be possible pontificate agnostic dogma if it were shown that the demonstration of the existence of God is unprovable, and mathematics can be shown that certain assumptions are unprovable, but I do not see anywhere in the Muno article as "proof", nor I see Muno faces and refute the arguments atheists to prove the nonexistence of God, such as the argument from evil or the argument of the incoherence of the idea of \u200b\u200bGod or is it perhaps do not know?. If so, then Muño commits the fallacy of asking what the beginning and is intended to show ... which is typical of fundamentalist agnostics, still pontificating está.Muño clear falsehoods like this: "In principle, it is not proved the existence of nothing. If anything, we suggest the existence of something that is very different, that is, made part of the mondo and lirondo of what exists and, if not, ill be taken as a game. Wanting to prove its existence is as much like turning: from zero to reach the existence of what is to be tested. Absurd. What exists is there to be taken into account, there is a hidden treasure you have to look for special methods. "First, it is false that you can not prove anything: for example, in Euclidean geometry is shown it is impossible to square a circle, that is, square the circle there. Euler's theorem demonstrated by his lack of regular decahedron. According to the principles of thermodynamics, there is the perpetual engine of the second kind, etc. In the second place, not based on science that exists to prove just that There (sic) as if they did would be reduced to vulgar arguments in a circle (no part of the reality of apples to prove its reality), but hypotheses that can apply non-observable or detectable at the beginning of which is deducted predictive consequences that verified, may prove the existence of such entities postulated (as happened with the planet Uranus, the antiparticles, etc..). Muno curious that tell us that what is postulated to be already at the point of departure, a fact and lirondo mondo, but if so how to make a hypothesis to apply something you already know exists? Leverrier knew that planet Neptune that under certain postulated perturbations in the orbit of Uranus was a fact? if you knew Neptune before making their calculations "for lost time in so long and complicated equations? why bother to ask a German observatory to point your telescope at these coordinates whether the existence of Neptune was already at the point of departure, a fact?. We, thanks to science, we know many things that are "there": atoms, genes, cells, pulsars, etc. but in the past were not known or obvious and that, contrary to the assertions Muno, if they were: "a hidden treasure that had to be found with special methods, so I recommend to take a course Muño Epistemology accelerated to stop saying so many tonterías.Ahora read the catechism agnostic Muño pontificates from his ivory tower ... suspended in the air: "Agnosticism is, however, in a more radical and in other more neutral. It is more radical because it goes to the merits, not accept such beliefs, but is neutral in stating that the Lord in the same issue can exist that do not exist, the agnostic does not even rule on the point. Just do not waste your time on such a matter. "agnosticism is radical because it accepts the belief in God, but based on grounds or reasons that do not accept the belief in God?" will not accept the belief in God because, yes? if so, then agnosticism is a radical ... irrationality that has little to envy fideists irrational believers who accept the Lord's sake. Very neutral agnosticism is admitting the possibility of God, yet that is not very rational, and to admit an extraordinary possibility (as is the existence of God) without testing this possibility is to commit the fallacy of "free statement" and is so irrational as to admit the possibility of demonic possession ... just because. That the agnostic does not rule on the existence of God is not a sign of maturity, but of ignorance in the matter, and that agnostics are not aware that the existence of God if it has been falsified (Contrary to the view of the agnostic Popper) by the critical rationalist atheist that proves the existence of God by demonstrating the absence of his idea, which is impossible as contradictory as a square circle, and in fact, if the idea of \u200b\u200bGod is impossible, ergo the event object denoted by the concept is too. Similarly, if the concept of the squared circle there could exist no empirical square circles (or square rounds) in Muñoz universo.también gives us the following pearl of his parish bulletin agnostic: "So are pathetic efforts professionals and militant atheists, and Communists, with being religious beliefs. First, because the wrong target: atheism is a doctrine that argues against a particular existence, is not neutral, areligious, quite the contrary, deeply religious in their belief that God does not exist. But also because it assumes that you are removing the only arguments are irrational beliefs. The results are obvious. "Muno here makes a slip of confusing irrational anti-religious atheistic doctrine with religious doctrines (which are the exact opposite) committing a fallacy of bifurcation curious as to this there are only 2 types of doctrines in theodicy: areligious and religious agnostic, what happens to the anti-religious doctrines? ah well, for its sophistic trickery subsumes within the religious, which is as absurd and foolish as it would subsume the anti-capitalist Marxist doctrines within the category ... capitalism (sic), taradez that neither Mises nor Von Hayek dare cometer.Por true, how does Muño that belief in God is an irrational belief? where are the tests that demonstrate their irrationality? where are the criticisms of the rational arguments for the existence of God to test at least, that the existence of God is unprovable? answer: no, because agnosticism Muño feeds sophistical irrational beliefs and he attributes their enemies. Usandoun simile of the Bible, Muno "sees the mote in your neighbor's eye and not see the beam in your own." ;-) Amen. Finally Muño boutade gives us her latest showing how irrational and fundamentalist fanatics who are agnostics like him: "Take the two ends of Europe (not just geographically): Spain and the Soviet Union. Spain, after forty years of fundamentalist Catholicism and arrogant, has the highest rate of irreligion in Europe. In the Soviet Union, after seventy years of militant atheism and aggressive, 60% of its population believing declare: seventy million Orthodox, ten million Catholics, Protestants and sixty four million Muslims, excluding the unruly Jews. The lesson is very short, nothing like atheism religion to flourish, not least being the reverse true: nothing like religion to detach from it and come to think for themselves. "We are told that 60% of Russians are believers, this means that in Russia 40% are non-believers. ask what you enough?, in the USA only 3% of the population is incredulous, and if we consider that the average percentage of atheists in the world is 10%, we have that Russia has perhaps the largest proportion of ATEA THE WORLD, the result of that bastion atheism was the USSR. Then reality gives the lie to the stupidity of Muno, because as the English, despite its growing irreligion, have a lower percentage of atheists that Russia would have to conclude (contrary to Muño): "Nothing like atheism ( state) to distance themselves from religion and get to think for themselves, being no less true in reverse: nothing like religion to endure it in broad masses of the population, as in Catholic Spain (spiritual reserve of the West, according Generalissimo Franco). "

Psychiatric Hotline Answering Machine Funny

10 great moments in the history of male pickup

1. A hottie with the comment about the girl who had danced a tasty sauce "I would have given 10 years of my life to see you dance to that song"
2. The favorite freak of a friend, trying to mystically ligársela "I want to give beauty"
3. twice, just because they seem "You have an enigmatic look" / "You have eyes of charm"
4. Galán open the game and lost in a move check "I want to know what your dreams are made"
5. girl claims to be a woman of strong character; Galán Generic replied "I am a lion tamer"
6. strong-willed girl receives the following mail and dies of laughter "If you know what is the real place of women in a relationship, answer " of course, he replied:" What do you think is the real place of women? "and retreated Subject: " Deveras have strong character! "
7. Galán open the game and not even open the game " The stars tell me you are to me, "
8. comforting Unknown Type Distraught " You're not ugly ... I say, neither are Miss Universe, right? But if you walk with confidence, look ... bring them here "(hand to stop drooling) Unknown Distraught bellowing and making further therapy for years.
9. Subject believed to be irresistible to extreme "feminism" Well, Mom, and you also have a rich ass, what do you do? "
10. The same character, naked, lying in bed with a girl who just missed going to the bathroom: "Talk to the doll, look who is sad" Chava who missed toilet leaves to go to sleep the couch.

Sogo Hotel Executive Room

Science is the mother of philosophy pearls

Some illiterate morons like starving acevedito, who wants to persuade and convince yourself himself (in his own insecurity of being unable cowardly) to be a "thinker" (in vain, of course, since their delusional little speech are typical of the deep philosophical jargon ... Mery Poppins) spits us your Finally pataphysical vomiting (he learned in the Encarta) that philosophy is nothing less than the mother of science (sic) using as a mantra the stupidity of the new science began with Galileo (XVI century) with little question about "how" processes occur (which apparently is the only question that can be answered by science), because the question on "why" of things would be the responsibility of the metaphysical blah bla.Refutación bla: "Apparently this ignorant big head does not take into account, as we rightly said Gustavo Bueno, the ideas of philosophy are systematic constructions resulting from the dialectic of individual categorical science concepts (geometry, astronomy , acoustics, etc..) and worldly knowledge and technical (social, political, etc.), which implies that science and knowledge, from which emerge the concepts are prior to the philosophical categories to which they gave rise, ergo science and knowledge are the matrix from which emerged the philosophy as knowledge of second-degree foundation is science, and science without philosophy would be impossible to be based science or philosophy would be an unfounded and unscientific sophistry filosofastrería as unintelligible jargon and mangy of Heidegger, for instance ;-). hopefully this obrerito "Flintstones" in the build not you can think of playing at being an architect, since it seems this jerk is capable of laying the foundation of the work (science) ... once the building (philosophy) only to see the structure collapses due to its alleged "genius" architect chanta ;-).
He notes that this orangutan has no idea of \u200b\u200bthe history of science no less than the history of philosophy (although, yes, I am told their masters of the zoo this ape is a fine taster of bananas and peanuts ... well, something that your instincts serve as MONIL ;-)), at the time of the Presocratics, when he gave his first steps philosophy and science were like geometry (systematized by Euclid), astronomy (the predicted eclipses and Aristarchus of Samos developed a heliocentric model), acoustic (Pythagoras discovered the mathematical relationship between the length of the vibrating string and tone issues) and technical and the molten metal, forging weapons, textiles, medicine, architecture, surveying, etc. that posibilitaronel emergence of philosophy and the "geometry of ideas "(phrase inspired by the science of geometry to be precise) of the Greek philosophers who also made contributions to science: Such developed his famous theorem and measured the height of the great pyramid based on the length of its shadow, Pythagoras proved his famous theorem, discovered irrational numbers and made contributions in acoustics, Aristotle systematized logic and made discoveries in zoology, etc.. to Plato gave great importance to the mathematical sciences, the foundation of his philosophy, so far as to send to record on the frontispiece of his academy his famous "no man may not know geometry." For above shows that both the stupidity of acevedito that in the beginning "of time? was the philosophy and then (sixteenth century) science as the arcade there was no science before Galileo (sic) are nothing more than pure piss asshole marijuana in the very safe copy of the poor parts of this ass of Icarito, since both formal sciences like mathematics and logic (Aristotle's Organon) as factual science of acoustics, astronomy, zoology, botany (Theophrastus), Static (Archimedes), etc. predate Galileo (to Copernicus' heliocentric theory predates Galileo).
"With respect to the raspberry static science that Aristotle (sic) addressed the "what" and only advanced science when Galileo came up with the brilliant idea of \u200b\u200bkeeping to the "how" I would say that:
a) this asshole gym confused with magnesium, and one thing is the metaphysics of Aristotle and are quite another aristotelian empirical research in sciences such as zoology (which were recently overtaken by Linnaeus in the eighteenth century) characterized by answering the HOW and not just what, in Contrary to the claims of this charlatan simiesco.Por course, neither the metaphysics and physics of Aristotle were "static", as Aristotle took into account the motion of bodies (as Parmenides did not deny it) as demonstrated by the argument of the unmoved mover that sets in motion the rest of the phones (the unmoved mover being a device to not contradict the principle of Plato symploké), and regard to tidal movement of Aristotle's explanation is better than Galileo, and Aristotle argued that it was due to the influence of the sun and moon (in anticipation of Newton). Instead Galileo held the erroneous view that the tides were caused by the rotation of the earth ... (sic).
b) what science is only concerned with "how" is completely wrong, because science do not just descriptions of phenomena (how?), but want to give explanations of processes = describe mechanisms (Mario Bunge dixit) and explain a topic screens is just one mechanism why?. Indeed, metaphysics does not respond any reason (that science does), since who says hypostatize metaphysical content in the world says, and who does hypostasis commits a monumental fallacy of reification, and as a fallacy is an argument wrong, ergo no may be an explanation of anything or answer any why.
Conclusion: I gained and lost acevedita = thinker. Amen, "p