<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Natural Home of Silliness</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/</link>
	<description>Ben Goldacre&#039;s Bad Science column from the Guardian and more...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:24:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: LittleRichardjohn</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-11487</link>
		<dc:creator>LittleRichardjohn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:10:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-11487</guid>
		<description>Most mysticism denies the possibility of progress through human action. Astrology for instance claims to be able to predict an inevitable future. If it&#039;s inevitable, there&#039;s no point in trying to make people&#039;s lives any better. Only The Great Cycle, or &#039;Gyre&#039; can do that, and it will turn in its own good time. And so any real progress is impossible, and any attempt a futile vanity by a vainglorioius speck of insignificance calling itself Mankind - which is the core agenda of fascism, after all. The delusion that all virtue lies in a mythical past which shall be reborn in the hands of a great redeemer. A Superman in contact with the forces of history.

This cyclical world-view, in which things happen over and over again is embodied in the favourite reactionary slogan &#039;There&#039;s Nothing New under the Sun&#039; and is routinely used to belittle all achievements which might make people&#039;s lives better while also reinforcing the idea that Man is a base animal who only responds to cruelty and force. This cyclical universe was most famously depicted in the Swastika, of course, and is in reality, nothing but political wish-fulfillment. A classic symptom of the poverty of reactionary thought. If it can be called thought.
Which is why there are always far more classified adverts for mystics in right-wing publications than in progressive ones (if any). And many more column inches devoted to this kind of mumbo jumbo.
And before anyone tries to put a fag paper between religion and Mysticim, ask The Endtimers if the future is predetermined or in the hands of mankind. They are Christian, Jewish and Muslim, after all.

http://www.prophecyupdate.com/End_time_signs.htm

The political power of mysticism lies in the fact that there has to be a secret code or lore to the understanding of The Cycle and predicting its stages. This secret is naturally too dangerous for anyone but a semi-devine sect with special &#039;gifts&#039; and &#039;crafts&#039; to have access to. They, in turn must be protected and nurtured and feared as befits their elite status. The member of the sect who succeeds in monopolising the lore becomes the natural leader, in constant touch with the very workings of time and space. The Divine Leader, repository of all justice and wisdom is created. All others are inferior by definition, but those nearest are less inferior, and most likely to survive and prosper, thereby promoting the myth of the lore even further. And so a rigid, exclusive hierarchy is encouraged, relying on inequality and fear to maintain itself. And there are publicly funded &#039;courses&#039; in Tarot-Reading and Astrology in adult education establishements all across the country. You don&#039;t hear the Daily Mail complaining about that.

I wonder why there is so little tabloid outrage at fascism being  peddled everyday in print. After all, these harmless bits of fun are promoting a very Un-British, anti-democratic world-view. The evening classes by Madam Arcaty and the endless columns for the hopeless are, in their turnip-headed way, the Madrassars of Suburbia, and every day their assumptions are backed by the most popular newspapers and the richest men in the world.

Perhaps this is their idea of promoting a British Identity. A nation of gullible sheep, accepting every disaster and injustice as divine inevitability. But how different is that from the &#039;Inshallah&#039; used to justify the actions of the suicide bomber?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most mysticism denies the possibility of progress through human action. Astrology for instance claims to be able to predict an inevitable future. If it&#8217;s inevitable, there&#8217;s no point in trying to make people&#8217;s lives any better. Only The Great Cycle, or &#8216;Gyre&#8217; can do that, and it will turn in its own good time. And so any real progress is impossible, and any attempt a futile vanity by a vainglorioius speck of insignificance calling itself Mankind &#8211; which is the core agenda of fascism, after all. The delusion that all virtue lies in a mythical past which shall be reborn in the hands of a great redeemer. A Superman in contact with the forces of history.</p>
<p>This cyclical world-view, in which things happen over and over again is embodied in the favourite reactionary slogan &#8216;There&#8217;s Nothing New under the Sun&#8217; and is routinely used to belittle all achievements which might make people&#8217;s lives better while also reinforcing the idea that Man is a base animal who only responds to cruelty and force. This cyclical universe was most famously depicted in the Swastika, of course, and is in reality, nothing but political wish-fulfillment. A classic symptom of the poverty of reactionary thought. If it can be called thought.<br />
Which is why there are always far more classified adverts for mystics in right-wing publications than in progressive ones (if any). And many more column inches devoted to this kind of mumbo jumbo.<br />
And before anyone tries to put a fag paper between religion and Mysticim, ask The Endtimers if the future is predetermined or in the hands of mankind. They are Christian, Jewish and Muslim, after all.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.prophecyupdate.com/End_time_signs.htm" rel="nofollow">www.prophecyupdate.com/End_time_signs.htm</a></p>
<p>The political power of mysticism lies in the fact that there has to be a secret code or lore to the understanding of The Cycle and predicting its stages. This secret is naturally too dangerous for anyone but a semi-devine sect with special &#8216;gifts&#8217; and &#8216;crafts&#8217; to have access to. They, in turn must be protected and nurtured and feared as befits their elite status. The member of the sect who succeeds in monopolising the lore becomes the natural leader, in constant touch with the very workings of time and space. The Divine Leader, repository of all justice and wisdom is created. All others are inferior by definition, but those nearest are less inferior, and most likely to survive and prosper, thereby promoting the myth of the lore even further. And so a rigid, exclusive hierarchy is encouraged, relying on inequality and fear to maintain itself. And there are publicly funded &#8216;courses&#8217; in Tarot-Reading and Astrology in adult education establishements all across the country. You don&#8217;t hear the Daily Mail complaining about that.</p>
<p>I wonder why there is so little tabloid outrage at fascism being  peddled everyday in print. After all, these harmless bits of fun are promoting a very Un-British, anti-democratic world-view. The evening classes by Madam Arcaty and the endless columns for the hopeless are, in their turnip-headed way, the Madrassars of Suburbia, and every day their assumptions are backed by the most popular newspapers and the richest men in the world.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is their idea of promoting a British Identity. A nation of gullible sheep, accepting every disaster and injustice as divine inevitability. But how different is that from the &#8216;Inshallah&#8217; used to justify the actions of the suicide bomber?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ncullum</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9958</link>
		<dc:creator>ncullum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9958</guid>
		<description>&quot;we know that the most significant lifestyle risk factors for adverse health outcomes are social inequality, not obsessive, complex, individual tinkering with your diet.&quot;
Love your columns. Came across it by picking up an issue of I, Science at the doctors surgery.
Regret I must be a tad pedantic and point out that the quote above is ungrammatical: social inequality is a singular
I doubt you can object to the same rigour being applied to the basics of your use of the English language as you - rightly - apply to bad science...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;we know that the most significant lifestyle risk factors for adverse health outcomes are social inequality, not obsessive, complex, individual tinkering with your diet.&#8221;<br />
Love your columns. Came across it by picking up an issue of I, Science at the doctors surgery.<br />
Regret I must be a tad pedantic and point out that the quote above is ungrammatical: social inequality is a singular<br />
I doubt you can object to the same rigour being applied to the basics of your use of the English language as you &#8211; rightly &#8211; apply to bad science&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allan</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9842</link>
		<dc:creator>Allan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9842</guid>
		<description>In defence of Myers-Briggs Type Indicators:

MBTI defines 16 sterotypical personality types. Once you know the types, a surprising number of people appear to the casual observer to be one of these types. For instance, we all recognise the subclinical obsessive-compulsive who can&#039;t leave the house until the washing up is done (&quot;INTJ&quot; in the MBTI jargon). Likewise the scatty, extrovert, arty type who become nutitionists and colour therapists (&quot;ESFP&quot;). 

In professions where personality types need to be discussed (for instance, when a professional services company puts together a project team), MBTI types are a very handy shorthand, each having their own strengths and weaknesses.There isn&#039;t much science in it, but there doesn&#039;t need to be any at all.

However, I do observe that MBTI predicts the non-existence of certain types who are also rare in my experience (how many IT professionals do you know with an interest in modern dance)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In defence of Myers-Briggs Type Indicators:</p>
<p>MBTI defines 16 sterotypical personality types. Once you know the types, a surprising number of people appear to the casual observer to be one of these types. For instance, we all recognise the subclinical obsessive-compulsive who can&#8217;t leave the house until the washing up is done (&#8220;INTJ&#8221; in the MBTI jargon). Likewise the scatty, extrovert, arty type who become nutitionists and colour therapists (&#8220;ESFP&#8221;). </p>
<p>In professions where personality types need to be discussed (for instance, when a professional services company puts together a project team), MBTI types are a very handy shorthand, each having their own strengths and weaknesses.There isn&#8217;t much science in it, but there doesn&#8217;t need to be any at all.</p>
<p>However, I do observe that MBTI predicts the non-existence of certain types who are also rare in my experience (how many IT professionals do you know with an interest in modern dance)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: roGER</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9324</link>
		<dc:creator>roGER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:16:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9324</guid>
		<description>All this would be well amusing except in the early 1990s, I was asked by a large(ish) &#039;hi-tec&#039; company for a handwriting sample as part of a half-day interview program.

OK it was in France (!), and the personnell lady assured me that it was &#039;just some fun, you know&#039; but my comment that my star sign was Aries and that horoscopes were also &#039;fun&#039; may, just may, have been the reason why I didn&#039;t get the job.

Had it been in Britain I would have seriously considered legal action, if only for the fun of seeing graphology taken apart in a court of law.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All this would be well amusing except in the early 1990s, I was asked by a large(ish) &#8216;hi-tec&#8217; company for a handwriting sample as part of a half-day interview program.</p>
<p>OK it was in France (!), and the personnell lady assured me that it was &#8216;just some fun, you know&#8217; but my comment that my star sign was Aries and that horoscopes were also &#8216;fun&#8217; may, just may, have been the reason why I didn&#8217;t get the job.</p>
<p>Had it been in Britain I would have seriously considered legal action, if only for the fun of seeing graphology taken apart in a court of law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Delster</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9277</link>
		<dc:creator>Delster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:18:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9277</guid>
		<description>I can see that bootboy is going to be right at home here! :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can see that bootboy is going to be right at home here! <img src='http://www.badscience.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bootboy</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9275</link>
		<dc:creator>bootboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9275</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;in its new computer science usage, an ontology is a classification schema over which one can reason in an automated way&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;b&gt;pedantic computer scientist warning&lt;/b&gt;

More precisely, it&#039;s a classification schema and a set of relationships between the classes over which one can reason in an automated way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>in its new computer science usage, an ontology is a classification schema over which one can reason in an automated way</i></p>
<p><b>pedantic computer scientist warning</b></p>
<p>More precisely, it&#8217;s a classification schema and a set of relationships between the classes over which one can reason in an automated way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aspiring Pedant</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9272</link>
		<dc:creator>Aspiring Pedant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:11:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9272</guid>
		<description>WRT Myers-Briggs Personality types, I summarise this from Bob Carroll to mean that it&#039;s bollocks - 

  http://skepdic.com/myersb.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WRT Myers-Briggs Personality types, I summarise this from Bob Carroll to mean that it&#8217;s bollocks &#8211; </p>
<p>  <a href="http://skepdic.com/myersb.html" rel="nofollow">skepdic.com/myersb.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DrHyde</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9269</link>
		<dc:creator>DrHyde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:20:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9269</guid>
		<description>If the Daily Hate Mail wishes to have a computer program to reason automagically about oncology, it would be easy to write.

10 PRINT &quot;Immigrants cause cancer&quot;
20 PRINT &quot;Cancer scare: house prices may tumble&quot;
30 GOTO 10</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the Daily Hate Mail wishes to have a computer program to reason automagically about oncology, it would be easy to write.</p>
<p>10 PRINT &#8220;Immigrants cause cancer&#8221;<br />
20 PRINT &#8220;Cancer scare: house prices may tumble&#8221;<br />
30 GOTO 10</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Clegg</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9265</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Clegg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:52:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9265</guid>
		<description>Robert (#14):

Since ontology is the study of being or existence which seeks to separate the world into the basic categories to which things belong, or in its new computer science usage, an ontology is a classification schema over which one can reason in an automated way, it seems entirely appopriate.

Although the ontology/oncology thing is good. I nearly did a PhD with someone who wanted me to build an oncology ontology, I&#039;m glad I didn&#039;t, I&#039;d have got really sick of typing that after three or four years.

Andrew.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert (#14):</p>
<p>Since ontology is the study of being or existence which seeks to separate the world into the basic categories to which things belong, or in its new computer science usage, an ontology is a classification schema over which one can reason in an automated way, it seems entirely appopriate.</p>
<p>Although the ontology/oncology thing is good. I nearly did a PhD with someone who wanted me to build an oncology ontology, I&#8217;m glad I didn&#8217;t, I&#8217;d have got really sick of typing that after three or four years.</p>
<p>Andrew.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Goldacre</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9263</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 13:34:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9263</guid>
		<description>i have no strong feelings either way on the myers-briggs personality inventory but your argument against it seems to be that it is partly influenced by some ideas from Jung, along with lots of other ideas, and that Jung had some funny ideas?

anyway, you said:

&lt;i&gt;As an aside, I&#039;m having some &#039;consultancy&#039; training at work at the moment, and I got into an involved discussion about the Myers-Briggs personality testing. I&#039;m very skeptical about it, especially given its a commercial product, but it was interesting hearing a &#039;business psychologist&#039;s&#039; view of the situation - not surprisingly, he saw less reason to have solid evidence for the test.

Have you written much about this? The &#039;proof&#039; for MBTI reliability looks a lot like &#039;proof&#039; of the accuracy astrology. Its your classic unfalsifiable test.&lt;/i&gt;

and what i replied in characteristic speedtyping rush was:

&quot;well, it&#039;s got some sort of vague &quot;facce&quot; validity, ie it feels
p;lausible, but more than that, for ttests like these psychologists
spend a lot of time looking at reproducibility, whether it ocrrelates
with other tests, and how the results cluster or spread, etc. v
interesting field. i&#039;m not sure mbpi is all that awful. it&#039;s most
amusing instantiation is on okcupid website (not something i frequent
personally).&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i have no strong feelings either way on the myers-briggs personality inventory but your argument against it seems to be that it is partly influenced by some ideas from Jung, along with lots of other ideas, and that Jung had some funny ideas?</p>
<p>anyway, you said:</p>
<p><i>As an aside, I&#8217;m having some &#8216;consultancy&#8217; training at work at the moment, and I got into an involved discussion about the Myers-Briggs personality testing. I&#8217;m very skeptical about it, especially given its a commercial product, but it was interesting hearing a &#8216;business psychologist&#8217;s&#8217; view of the situation &#8211; not surprisingly, he saw less reason to have solid evidence for the test.</p>
<p>Have you written much about this? The &#8216;proof&#8217; for MBTI reliability looks a lot like &#8216;proof&#8217; of the accuracy astrology. Its your classic unfalsifiable test.</i></p>
<p>and what i replied in characteristic speedtyping rush was:</p>
<p>&#8220;well, it&#8217;s got some sort of vague &#8220;facce&#8221; validity, ie it feels<br />
p;lausible, but more than that, for ttests like these psychologists<br />
spend a lot of time looking at reproducibility, whether it ocrrelates<br />
with other tests, and how the results cluster or spread, etc. v<br />
interesting field. i&#8217;m not sure mbpi is all that awful. it&#8217;s most<br />
amusing instantiation is on okcupid website (not something i frequent<br />
personally).&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jj_hankinson</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9262</link>
		<dc:creator>jj_hankinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:47:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9262</guid>
		<description>Ben - a while back I e-mailed you re: having to do MBTI at work as part of my &#039;stakeholder management&#039; training. I think I remember at this time you were fairly comfortable with the use of that particular &#039;indicator&#039;.

Given you&#039;re anti-graphology perhaps you should take another look at MBTI - i think you might be surprised just how skepticism there is around it. After all, its based on the work of Jung, a man who believed books spontaneously exploded on his shelves and that his cousin could cause knives to shatter while still in their draws with loud bangs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ben &#8211; a while back I e-mailed you re: having to do MBTI at work as part of my &#8216;stakeholder management&#8217; training. I think I remember at this time you were fairly comfortable with the use of that particular &#8216;indicator&#8217;.</p>
<p>Given you&#8217;re anti-graphology perhaps you should take another look at MBTI &#8211; i think you might be surprised just how skepticism there is around it. After all, its based on the work of Jung, a man who believed books spontaneously exploded on his shelves and that his cousin could cause knives to shatter while still in their draws with loud bangs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Goldacre</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9261</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9261</guid>
		<description>heh nice one dudley</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>heh nice one dudley</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dudley</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9260</link>
		<dc:creator>Dudley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:18:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9260</guid>
		<description>No need to quote Adorno, the big ol&#039; fraud.  

Try quoting a master of precise prose and logical thought instead:

&quot;It is not clear at first glance why hatred of democracy and a tendency to believe in crystal-gazing should go together... [B]ut it is possible to make two guesses.  To begin with, the theory that civilization moves in recurring cycles is one way out for people who hate the concept of human equality.  If it is true that &quot;all this&quot;, or something like it, &quot;has happened before&quot;, then science and the modern world are debunked at one stroke and progress becomes forever impossible.  [...]
&quot;Secondly, the very concept of occultism carries with it the idea that knowledge must be a secret thing, limited to a small circle of initiates.  [T]he same idea is integral to Fascism.  Those who dread the prospect of universal suffrage, popular education, freedom of thought, emancipation of women, will start off with a predilection towards secret cults.
There is another link between Fascism and magic in the profound hostility of both to the Christian ethical code.&quot;

- George Orwell, &quot;W.B. Yeats&quot;, in Horizon, Jan 1943.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No need to quote Adorno, the big ol&#8217; fraud.  </p>
<p>Try quoting a master of precise prose and logical thought instead:</p>
<p>&#8220;It is not clear at first glance why hatred of democracy and a tendency to believe in crystal-gazing should go together&#8230; [B]ut it is possible to make two guesses.  To begin with, the theory that civilization moves in recurring cycles is one way out for people who hate the concept of human equality.  If it is true that &#8220;all this&#8221;, or something like it, &#8220;has happened before&#8221;, then science and the modern world are debunked at one stroke and progress becomes forever impossible.  [...]<br />
&#8220;Secondly, the very concept of occultism carries with it the idea that knowledge must be a secret thing, limited to a small circle of initiates.  [T]he same idea is integral to Fascism.  Those who dread the prospect of universal suffrage, popular education, freedom of thought, emancipation of women, will start off with a predilection towards secret cults.<br />
There is another link between Fascism and magic in the profound hostility of both to the Christian ethical code.&#8221;</p>
<p>- George Orwell, &#8220;W.B. Yeats&#8221;, in Horizon, Jan 1943.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kim</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9257</link>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9257</guid>
		<description>Na, Kells, it should be &quot;pejoratively&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Na, Kells, it should be &#8220;pejoratively&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Delster</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9256</link>
		<dc:creator>Delster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:56:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9256</guid>
		<description>should send one of those analysts a sample of my hand writing... after two broken wrists it&#039;s more illegible than most doctors </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>should send one of those analysts a sample of my hand writing&#8230; after two broken wrists it&#8217;s more illegible than most doctors</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kells</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9255</link>
		<dc:creator>Kells</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9255</guid>
		<description>I thought this was the home of the pedant? Shouldn&#039;t it be &#039;pejoritively&#039; ?

Sorry - good article but does it matter if the shadow chancellor will read tea leaves rather than the FT? He will never get the keys to the treasury, it is written in the stars.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought this was the home of the pedant? Shouldn&#8217;t it be &#8216;pejoritively&#8217; ?</p>
<p>Sorry &#8211; good article but does it matter if the shadow chancellor will read tea leaves rather than the FT? He will never get the keys to the treasury, it is written in the stars.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Carnegie</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9254</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Carnegie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:04:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9254</guid>
		<description>...and National Unawareness Day was 1st November?  Right, -that- one&#039;s going in then.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;and National Unawareness Day was 1st November?  Right, -that- one&#8217;s going in then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Carnegie</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9253</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Carnegie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9253</guid>
		<description>Either I&#039;ve heard &quot;The steaks are too high&quot; joke on BBC radio or else someone else did and put it in their Internet signature.  It&#039;s Milton Jones&#039;s thing, at least I hear it in his voice, but I&#039;m not good at voices.  Or perhaps it isn&#039;t his at all if he nicked it from there.

Hmm, I shall have to bookmark the Web site that accepts unfinished jokes.  It seems to be mostly [Viz] readers but it also would be useful to me to release the tension - it&#039;s so difficult to let crap jokes go, but if it&#039;s out then it&#039;s out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Either I&#8217;ve heard &#8220;The steaks are too high&#8221; joke on BBC radio or else someone else did and put it in their Internet signature.  It&#8217;s Milton Jones&#8217;s thing, at least I hear it in his voice, but I&#8217;m not good at voices.  Or perhaps it isn&#8217;t his at all if he nicked it from there.</p>
<p>Hmm, I shall have to bookmark the Web site that accepts unfinished jokes.  It seems to be mostly [Viz] readers but it also would be useful to me to release the tension &#8211; it&#8217;s so difficult to let crap jokes go, but if it&#8217;s out then it&#8217;s out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Mingay</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9250</link>
		<dc:creator>David Mingay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:52:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9250</guid>
		<description>Re #14: This personality analysis stunt is a fairly standard classroom activity for undergrad/A Level students, done by cynical lecturers/teachers (like me). Even without priming, they still generally rate the accuracy of the &quot;analysis&quot; at about 8/10. And even if you use that widely-used piece of nonsense, the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re #14: This personality analysis stunt is a fairly standard classroom activity for undergrad/A Level students, done by cynical lecturers/teachers (like me). Even without priming, they still generally rate the accuracy of the &#8220;analysis&#8221; at about 8/10. And even if you use that widely-used piece of nonsense, the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Goldacre</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/the-natural-home-of-quackery/comment-page-1/#comment-9247</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=334#comment-9247</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Elsewhere in the comments, someone seems to have confused ontology and oncology, or maybe thatâ€™s the joke and I didnâ€™t get it?&lt;/i&gt;

ha, sounds like it could be one of the idler&#039;s unfinished jokes..

http://www.idler.co.uk/archives/?page_id=41</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Elsewhere in the comments, someone seems to have confused ontology and oncology, or maybe thatâ€™s the joke and I didnâ€™t get it?</i></p>
<p>ha, sounds like it could be one of the idler&#8217;s unfinished jokes..</p>
<p><a href="http://www.idler.co.uk/archives/?page_id=41" rel="nofollow">www.idler.co.uk/archives/?page_id=41</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

