Click to enlarge

Thanks to Barry Ritholtz

  1. observer says:

    Is there a “Venn diagram for Rational Nonsense?” You know, for skewering “sciences” like economics, sociology, etc?

    • noname says:

      Is there such a thing as “Rational Nonsense”?

      • observer says:

        Have you looked through academic journals in the last 10 years? There is a LOT of “Rational Nonsense.”

        • noname says:

          I guess.

          One mans Rational Nonsense is another mans grant application.

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    noname in a surprising and wondeful change of pace says:
    3/28/2013 at 7:04 pm

    Be careful, context can be a cruel mistress. /// Context in relevant part can only mean the truth. If the truth is “cruel” then you need a little bit more existentialism in your life. Its like choclate milk.

    In her delight, she will inflict pain.
    You think of her as a pleasure, no wine can bring.
    You bare your heart, she stings with utter distress.
    The draw is insanity, the pain more then a bee, the destruction lasting. //// Very nice poetry. But it doesn’t sound like its about context. Reread x3. Well, easiest read is as usual.. love. Could it be love this cruel mistress? I don’t know how the draw could be insanity, but if the context is heroin, I don’t know how or why you would bare your heart to it. A vein… yes. Maybe thats close enough???

    Some come here to sit and think,
    some come here to shit and stink.
    Often I come here to scratch my balls
    And read all the bullshit on the walls.

    • noname says:

      “Very nice poetry. But it doesn’t sound like its about context.”

      Why not and what makes that so?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Gee nogame==I said why in my first sentence. Too much CONTEXT for you? Ha, ha. A pat on nogame’s forehead, assuming he has one.

        From bright star to riding Pedro’s donkey in one short post?

        Can I provide more context, analysis? Let’s Fisk together:

        In her delight, she will inflict pain. /// Ok, trying to place an idea, fact pattern, argument into its proper context can be difficult. A delight when found and experienced, thinking can be described as painful when the answer doesn’t easily come or comes not at all. FIRST LINE FITS.

        You think of her as a pleasure, no wine can bring. /// Calling the search for the proper CONTEXT is not most properly thought of as a pleasure. It is an intellectual necessity, a restriction in what might be more pleasurable to too many: thinking whatever you want to. Wine in its temporary out of the box/uncorked thinking about an issue helps on occasion but then CONTEXT has to be soberly established. So, the first half of the line kinda half way fits, the second half does fit, so….LINE TWO FITS.

        You bare your heart, she stings with utter distress. /// Starting to go off track now. How is the heart bared when one is trying to understand an issue? One bares on heart in psychotherapy or in return to anothers…two limited more emotional endeavors compared to the intellectual application of finding CONTEXT. Regardless of the effort it can take, those who engage in the search will find CONTEXT quite often once they understand its function. Not much stinging going on. THIRD LINE IS A FAIL.

        The draw is insanity, the pain more then a bee, the destruction lasting. /// This a a total fail in each section. The draw of finding CONTEXT, is learning and understanding. There is no bee sting. The destruction of failing to find the proper CONTEXT(S) is not lasting. You just try again until you find it.

        CONTEXT is not a cruel mistress.

  3. MikeN says:

    I didn’t know bobbo was a scientologist.

  4. sargasso_c says:

    A very helpful diagram.

  5. Glenn E. says:

    While I agree with the intersection of all four “orbits”, and many of those of only two or three intersections. I wouldn’t be comfortable of labeling everything, isolated, in their own orbits as “bollock”. Besides that, I seem to see some things missing from the “Pseudo-scientific Bollocks” orbit. Such as Polygraphs, for one. Never proven or validated scientifically. And yet, a few Federal security agencies appear to believe in them. Even though they’ve never caught a single spy, with a polygraph test. It’s more of a badgering tool, to keep people in line. Kind of like IRS audits. Useless for uncovering the multi-million dollar tax cheats (an audit never caught Burnie Madoff). But screw with the govt., slave, and you’ll get one on your minimum wage income. So maybe “IRS Audits” should also be added to that orbit.

    Obviously some british atheist designed this Venn diagram, because of the Turin Shroud & Intelligent Design, being snuck in there. I notice that neither Global Warming, or Global Warming Denial, didn’t make the orbit. Gutless? And really, shouldn’t “Life in Space” be another? When they’re yet to be a single shred of evidence of any, other than on earth. But scientists, just keep on “believing”. It’s their form of religious faith, and therefore valid, only because they say so. But they’ve got no more to back it up, than any Biblical scholars do of God. Actually the archeological evidence of ancient earth, is more on the Bible scholar’s side. And it didn’t cost the tax payers tens of millions of dollars, to find this “evidence”. The way it has for NASA to keep searching for life on other planets. Hoping to prove what? That Darwin wasn’t just an atheist crackpot? Who knew nothing of actual genetics. And couldn’t explain how an eyeball could evolve, over thousands of generations, from useless to useful organ. Seems to me that “Evolution” deserves a “Bullocks” position, just as much as “Intelligent Design”. It’s not a real Theory either, since I can’t be tested. A Hypothesis, at best.

  6. Sebastién Ferré says:

    “Global Warming Hysteria” is missing.