If Richard Dawkins had simply been like "ok, so you don't believe in X amount of gods already and I just choose to believe in one less god" people wouldn't be so fired up about him. If he had only been less of a complete jackass and been non militant. The way he is, he conflates atheism with being anti-theism in general and anti-Christianity in particular, and I will simply not abide by a person like that.

As for the main topic, my mom (God love her) once almost bought me a 500 dollar plastic bracelet because the makers of it were promising that it would cure everything from AIDS to high-functioning autism. I had to sit her down and talk with her about why it was a bad idea. Then wouldn't you know it, a week after our talk the people selling these little things were shut down by the FBI and slapped with federal charges.

Dodged a bullet, I like to think.

Odd you would pick Broca's Brain since it is mostly a compilation of articles regarding the inherent fallacies and even charlatanism in pseudoscience. I don't find it embarrassing at all. I consider Sagan quite dedicated to separating his own knowledge from his speculation and correcting himself. As for Sagan's speculation that the birth experience may be an answer for "near death experience", while I respect Restak, I am also quite aware that nobody has any direct evidence on either "near birth" or "near death" so it is completely a subject of speculation and to call anyone elses speculation "embarrassingly naive" is absolutely silly and possibly simple posturing of the very type you describe as a "con".

I am fully aware that the largest percentage of deniers are US Protestants, probably in part due to Spencer, but it exists among Catholics, Islam, and even some Asian religions representing many millions of people globally. That Dawkins was brought up in British Kenya and England and was religious until his teenage years, mainly over that exact conflict, should demonstrate that it wasn't only "a minority of Protestant Christians" that he found in opposition to Evolution.

It is fruitless to even discuss Scientism since it is a very broad and indefinite term. The term, as I imagine you know, was popularized by F.A. Hayek who arrived at it largely because of the misapplication of Darwin's Theory of Evolution again being misinterpreted in a Spencer-influenced manner of "survival of the fittest" to justify colonialism and early 20th Century Fascism.

Why would anyone need a chair for the public understanding of History? or to a lesser degree Anthropology? since both of them regard unchangeable past events? Science OTOH while certainly having a historical component, is mainly about exploration of new understanding. Since the late 1800s Science requires more and more expertise as well as funding for technology to actually gain data of increasingly more difficult recording of observation. It seems to me that very much warrants such a chair since it should be in-your-face obvious the problems that arise and have already arisen from the public, especially public officials, lacking understanding of scientific discovery and even the fundamental methodology of Science.

There is no need IMHO of a term like Scientism since it is either actually Science or it is not. Puffing up some opinion, speculation, or con job, by throwing around scientific sounding terminology is simply either merely mistaken or an outright con. In fact, it is my estimation that conflating Science with Religion is simply flawed from the outset, especially since the 20th Century and is a good example of why such a chair is needed to inform laymen of what is real Science and what is not.

It is ironic that Dawkins could stand a "spoonful of his own medicine" but I hardly think he fits the definition of a con man and Carl Sagan? Absurd. A con man by definition intends to steal from another, leaving "the mark" with less than they had. Neither Dawkins nor Sagan can honestly be defined as such thieves when they both so obviously have worked to enrich others, not deplete them.

I do agree with you that Dawkins can be abrasive and even a bit pompous in that abrasiveness but that doesn't make him a disingenuous con man, the subject of this thread. Good on ya for helping your Mom avoid a scam. I'm afraid my Mom is quite similar and I was unable to dissuade her from buying not one but several of those "spark therapy" muscle relaxer devices that were basically just grill fire starters. I think she may also have worn one of those stupid copper bracelets for a time too as well as buying into magnet therapy. Sheesh!

Reminds me of the scam gasoline mileage "improvers" during the 1970s gas crises where you put magnets on your gas line to improve mileage.

Well.... seems to get a good rating (range I'd consider buying) but I too can't imagine how it could work to reduce lime/calcium or other minerals common to "hard" water.

example.

https://www.amazon.com/Eddy-Electron...9HV0PR1VP1ZM6B

Since I have lived on rain water for 25 years, I have to try to increase my hardness. Maybe those gizmo's can fix that too?

More properly, a con dressed up as a religion.

Lol don't get me started on Scientology

With the stated purpose of the Sea Org in mind, not to mention its role within the church, I keep expecting Clearwater to play host city for the next big ATF standoff. How many of you have seen that Leah Remini show on A&E?