000000000

[tags via : @heavenly-havoc]

I can't even get to the syscourse stuff yet because the rest is so stupid.

First, on the Bible... that is not a hypothesis AT ALL!

As it says, a hypothesis does need to be based on known facts.

The Genesis creation story is not consistent with any scientific facts and contradicts all existing science. It's mythology. If you call that a hypothesis, you can call anything a hypothesis. I could say a pink unicorn farted the universe into existence and it would be exactly as valid as a hypothesis as the Genesis creation myth.

Second, humans didn't evolve from monkeys... Humans are primates and share a common ancestor with modern monkeys. But technically speaking, those ancestors are not any species we classify as monkeys.

And third, I repeat, humans are primates... we just are. That's how human beings are classified. That is not treated as hypothesis or theory. That is just cold hard fact. There is no debating that at all.

Humans are primates and share a common ancestor with monkeys, apes and other primates.

If you think humans were just made as complete humans by a magical wizard in the sky, then you are rejecting the very classification of humans as primates.

I cannot stress enough how absurd it is to say: "humans being primates is just a hypothesis, same as humans being made by God."

Let's talk about the Absorption Hypothesis: What it is and isn't.

To summarize, the Absorption Hypothesis is that the Vineyard Evangelicals use a trait called Absorption, which is also associated with tulpamancy, to create these experiences of two-way communication with what they consider God. This is also treated as a skill that can be trained.

Notably, what is not up for debate here is the existence of the experiences. There is no debate that these experiences exist. It isn't a hypothesis that the Vineyard evangelicals experienced this sort of back and forth communication with something.

The hypothesis assumes the experience does exist as a phenomenon, because many congregants report it, and it attempts to provide a scientific explanation for how it. It also suggests Absorption is built as a skill rather than something in-born.

It's the Varieties of Tulpa Experiences study that actually connects the practice to tulpamancy.

...

The thing that gets me in all of this though is lack of critical engagement.

Yes, it's a hypothesis. But it's a hypothesis she does a good job supporting. If you want to disagree with her hypothesis, you should present an alternative hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.

It's not enough to just say, "this isn't valid because it's a hypothesis" and leave it at that.

It's not about being tough on crime, because the absolute toughest most brutal measure you could take against "crime" as a social problem is to alleviate poverty, and increase access to education, healthcare and social mobility.

It's about performing "tough on crime" as an aesthetic by enacting violence against a prop, i.e. minorities and the impoverished, who are fetishized and objectified to represent "crime." They are brutalized as punishment for crime, but never with the purpose of alleviating the problem of crime.

Today, before I went out, I spotted one on the gate