Confirming everything that I have ever said about science on this blog since 2007, according to this study by the New York Times, dentists and the government that runs them have been lying to children about the value of flossing since 1979. You will recall with fervor that 1979 was the year that Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ruhollah Mūsavi Khomeini returned from exile to rule Iran.
Not only that, but it was the last time there was a total sun darkening over America, interpreted here:
The next time there will be a total eclipse in America? Sufficing to be said, basically right now.
“Nothing in my life is a coincidence.”
― Kami Garcia, Beautiful Creatures
Very sorry I cannot find much on this topic right now except for this.
Just yesterday the New York Times published a study about a species of animal that has achieved immortality. Or, we should say, inertial immortality. Inertial immortality is defined by me as follows: an object is inertially immortal if but only if it exists and will continue to exist unless another object destroys it. Many non-living objects have inertial immortality, e.g. plastic bottles, plastic bins, nuclear missiles, and so on. However, very few living objects have inertial immortality. Alex Chiu claims that he is one such object, but these claims have yet to be reviewed by the FDA or NASA.
Unfortunately, the author of the study, professional tweeter Nathanial Rich, falsely claims that this discovery has “barely registered outside the academic world.” Yet I, who am (proudly) outside the academic world, clearly registered the discovery back when Nathan was in diapers. It would have been nice to receive credit in Rich’s article.
I will end with a striking quote from the leading jellyfish scientist, Shin Kubota, who triples as a professional web designer and singer-songwriter.
Turritopsis application for human beings is the most wonderful dream of mankind. … Once we determine how the jellyfish rejuvenates itself, we should achieve very great things. My opinion is that we will evolve and become immortal ourselves.
Strike that. I will in fact end with an emotional video (different from the one in the singer-songwriter link) of Dr. Kubota presenting his research lyrically.
(1) Someone gave scientists a grant to figure out that, the heavier a pregnant women is, the heavier her baby is likely to be. We already knew this. Newton showed that if you put a heavy object X inside of a lighter object Y, you get the weight of X plus the weight of Y. That gives you the weight of Z.
(2) Someone gave scientists a grant to figure out that, insofar as you continue drinking habits into youth, you feel like you are still a kid. We already knew this. Newton showed that an object that stays at rest does so precisely because it doesn’t do anything new. Those who remain immature, will remain so.
(3) Someone gave scientists a grant to figure out that, the less you sleep, the more obese you are. We already knew this. While Newton did not show it, other people showed that when you sleep, you are not eating. The less calories you consume, the lest you weigh. Mutantis matandis, as they say, the more you sleep, the less you eat!
When scientists aren’t indulging in their weird fetish conferences, they are busy giving bad advice to young people.
This time around, scientists have given people even more incentive to become moderately intoxicated. Inebriation, they argue, will “lower” the risk of certain kinds of diseases. By the same logic, because drunkenness lowers inhibitions, and confidence raises attractiveness, and romantic partnerships increase lifespan, moderate drunkenness will “lower” the risk of death. But that is clearly nonsense!
And in any case, as anyone paying attention will know, buzzed driving is drunk driving. See for example this study.
You might be saying to yourself, “Wait a minute how can we reduce the risk of disease, when this guy Kevin says we are disease?” To this I say: Just because some lowly grad student named “Kevin” says something, doesn’t mean it’s true. After all, which is more likely: (1) That you are a person with free will, thoughts, feelings, and a body or (2) that some grad student on the Internet named Kevin has made an original contribution to science?
So says this new research done by Science Daily. Thus we are now beginning to see the fruits of Sam Harris, who says that science can answer moral questions.
Well here’s an answer of science – eliminate the birthrate.
But if you eliminate the birthrate, then modus ponens you eliminate childhood, but then fortiori you eliminate adults! And what are we, if not adults?
Yet wellbeing is part of the fabric of the universe, as Brian Greene has vomited.* So you can’t have wellbeing without having the universe, and you can’t have the universe without adults.
The Vienna University of Technology should have its accreditation revoked by NIH.
*Yes, I know. A rare instance of my agreement with this Melchizedek of nonsense.
Mr. Tomato Man, who has always been a friend to me when closest comrades have deserted, posts this link to a blog containing wonders. Sadly, the transportation specialist who maintains that blog has been absent for some time, pursuing other projects. I think personally that he should continue his noble quest to undermine the scientific establishment.
Quick question: If we can’t even rely on scientists to understand a finite man-made mechanism and situation in one finite part of Earth, then how can rely on scientists to design other areas of public policy, like climate change?