Tails are surely wagging at six city-run animal shelters in L.A. thanks to the 'Biggies and Meow-Meows Adoption Event' where adoption fees are cut 50% for both dogs and cats.

The Dog That Didn't Bark

The internet was meant to be an “information superhighway” – a place where all human knowledge could be available, allowing humanity to find the truth of any situation at the touch of a button.Instead, it’s a place where anti-vaxxers tout deworming tablets for viruses and people pretend that birds aren't real. It’s a wild west of pseudo- and anti-science – and a recent paper into the two phenomena has now outlined just how dangerous it can get.What is pseudoscience?As therapeutic techniques go, few have quite as established a pedigree as acupuncture. It goes back, most scholars agree, at least a couple of millennia, and even today people swear by its healing power. There are regular calls across the Western world to incorporate the practice into standard medicine, with proponents pointing to its effectiveness for pain relief, addiction recovery, and even as a fertility treatment.So, here’s a question: how does it work?The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t. The benefits are mostly down to the placebo effect – you’re told these magic needles are going to help you feel better, and so they do. But that’s not what you’ll be told by acupuncture believers – ask them how it works, and you’ll be told something about connecting meridians in the body, stimulating blood and lymphatic fluid flow, or tweaking nervous system regulation.It can all sound very scientific – but it isn’t. And it’s that quality that defines pseudoscience: the term refers to “any discourse that kind of mimics the style of science,” explained co-author of the paper Tommaso Venturini, a researcher at the French National Centre for Scientific Research and associate professor at the University of Geneva’s Medialab.“So, particularly when we're talking about conspiracy theories […] they tend to pretend they are scientific,” he told IFLScience. “If you consider the type of writing that they use, for example, it does resemble a lot that [which] neuroscientists and researchers use.”This is why articles on, say, acupuncture will often cite research supposedly supporting their claims – and it will take a deeper dive on your part to find out just how low-quality or damning those papers really are. Pseudoscientists “quote the same way as researchers do,” Venturini said; “they tend to present what they write, in, you know, sort of similar pseudo-rationalist [ways].”“Of course, it's not the same thing,” he added. “But it looks the same.”What is anti-science?If acupuncture is pseudoscience, then anti-science would be something like the anti-vax movement. It is, essentially, exactly what it sounds like: an explicit rejection of science and scientific authority, often in favor of thought-terminating cliches such as “trust your gut”.“People will very [openly] present their argument as unscientific, or anti-institutional science,” Venturini told IFLScience. “[They will say,] we don't trust those institutions, we don't trust the epistemic authority that you have.”They are not trying to sound scientific – in fact they are specifically trying not to sound scientific.Tommaso VenturiniOf course, skepticism of science is not intrinsically a bad thing. “Science is not the only social authority in our society,” Venturini pointed out, “and to some extent, I think that's right. It is a very specific approach, which people have sometimes criticized, and rightfully so.”Indeed, for some sectors of society, there are good reasons not to trust the scientific establishment. Women and people of color have notoriously been mistreated by scientists over the years, being at best ignored entirely and at worst experimented on without their knowledge. There are still doctors around today who are taught, and believe, stereotypes about various ethnic groups that affect their treatment in dangerous ways.The problem comes, however, when “the scientific method is flawed” becomes “and so I shall trust this meme.” Anti-science doesn’t aim to ape real science, Venturini explained; instead, it “can be something more like entertainment.” “Donald Trump is a very good example of this,” he told IFLScience. “He [has] more of a television style, […] a talk show type of style, which is clearly not one of classic science, right?”“That is very deliberate,” he said. “They are not trying to sound scientific – in fact they are specifically trying not to sound scientific.”Case study: Flat EarthersFor an illustration of the difference between pseudo- and anti-scientific views, let’s turn to one of the oldest conspiracies out there: the Flat Earth.Now, despite what some proponents of the idea suggest, the Flat Earth conspiracy is likely much newer than you realize. “It originated in the mid-19th century,” Venturini and his colleagues explain in their paper, “when Samuel Rowbotham, writing under the pseudonym ‘Parallax,’ published a pamphlet titled ‘Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe’ in 1849.” “This publication laid the groundwork for the modern belief that the Earth is flat,” they write.It took the internet, though, for the idea to really take off. The first website dedicated to spreading the gospel of the flat Earth appears to have turned up in 2004, three years after the Flat Earth Society had already disbanded, and since then it’s gone from strength to strength. Quote-unquote “proofs” of the supposed pancake-like nature of the planet abound on YouTube; there are dedicated subreddits and websites pushing the mythology; there have even been a few spurious celebrity endorsements over the years.And with this new frontier came a change in how the conspiracy was disseminated, Venturini and his colleagues discovered. What was once a mythology at least nominally supported by an attempt at scientific reasoning has now morphed into a virulent anti-scientific meme – and that is likely to make debunking it ever harder, the team predicts.And when Rowbotham first presented his unorthodox idea, he made a real go at proving it. He carried out a series of experiments along 6 miles (10 kilometers) of the Old Bedford River in Cambridgeshire, England – an artificial waterway, chosen for its lengthy and extremely straight path, as well as the stillness of the water within.“If the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity – every part must be an arc of a circle,” he wrote, correctly. “From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet […] after the first few miles the curvature would be so great that no difficulty could exist in detecting either its actual existence or its proportion,” he concluded, incorrectly.Rowbotham’s problem was that he had not accounted for atmospheric refraction – as a highly-publicized redo in 1870 by naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace made clear. Of course, that didn’t stop believers. “[Rowbotham’s] growing following led to the formation of the Universal Zetetic Society, which aimed to investigate and propagate the belief in a flat Earth,” the paper notes; even after his death, others like William Carpenter picked up the mantle, authoring books with titles like One Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe in an attempt to “prove” their ideas were correct.And over the next century and a half – and despite a few setbacks such as “literal photographic evidence that the Earth is a ball” – the Flat Earth Society “maintained an unwavering commitment to its core principles,” Venturini and colleagues write, “centered on the provision of empirical evidence to substantiate its theories, and actively participating in debates with the scientific establishment.”In other words: they’re wrong, but they’re trying.But while pseudoscientific ideas like this may rule the older, more traditional Flat Earth forums, the modern age has ushered in a new and aggressive form of debate – the anti-science approach.Amply typified by the discourse on Reddit’s r/flatearthsociety, anti-scientific arguments are – well, very much arguments: there is “a high presence of critical and oppositional voices, including mockers or haters who intervene in threads as trolls,” the paper notes, which “makes the communication atmosphere tense and reactive.” Discussions are characterized by “ad hominem attacks, cursing, and personal offenses” along with “a profound diffidence and skepticism also against any internal hierarchy.”Countering anti-science can be difficult precisely because the “debates” are so charged and vague: “the conversational style is simplistic and vague, characterized by highly ambiguous statements, open-ended terms, tongue-in-cheek allusions and vague empirical correlates, which all lend themselves to ex-post reinterpretation according to needs,” the authors write. People who accept the oblate spheroid nature of the Earth are labeled “Globetards”, and extreme paranoia, even about fellow Flat Earthers, is encouraged – even celebrated. “The goal of the conversation is not to establish truth as an intersubjective compromise, but to hammer one’s truth to everyone else through a hyper-simplified logic,” the paper explains. “For example [with] the recurrent claim about photos: ‘Pictures are not valid evidence.’”What can we do about it?Okay, so a few people have some bizarre ideas about the shape of the planet – so what? But what’s behind it is precisely the same kind of conspiratorial thinking that has led to climate change denial, anti-vaxxers, and Pizzagate.“Maybe 10 or 20 years ago, I would have said, just laugh at them, how much traction are they going to get? I no longer feel that way,” Lee McIntyre, a philosopher from Boston University and an expert in the phenomenon of science denial, told Physics World in 2020. “The sort of reasoning that they use is infectious and if you don’t push back against them, it just gets worse and they’re able to recruit new members,” he warned.So, it’s in our best interest to counter this kind of thinking when we see it. But how?Well, it depends on what you’re faced with. “For a long time, conspiratorial thinking tended to abide by a scientific style – which did not make it easier to counteract, but at least we knew […] what we should do.”Indeed, countering pseudoscience is fairly straightforward: “It's probably best counteracted by debunking – by fact checking what they're saying,” Venturini told IFLScience. “Because they are at least claiming the argument is accurate scientifically. So it makes sense to fact check, and show that it is not the case.”It’s not a guaranteed slam-dunk, he cautioned – there are always those who will dig their heels in deeper, or turn up some obscure not-yet-discredited paper or professor to back up their claims. “But there are other people that may say, well, if we are if we are discussing on this level – the level of scientific arguments and demonstration – then one side can provide the best argument, and the best demonstration.”Unfortunately, those are precisely the tactics that will fail hardest against anti-science arguments. “Anti-science is precisely saying ‘don't trust this type of argument,’” Venturini explained – rather, anti-scientists are more likely to make jokes or memes to support their point.Countering it, then “depends on the precise type of anti-science,” Venturini told IFLScience. The key, however, seems to be to meet them on their own terms – don’t try to rationalize them out of the argument, because let’s face it: they certainly weren’t rationalized into it.“For example, if I write a poem about the Flat Earth, it doesn't really make sense to answer with a mathematical demonstration,” Venturini told IFLScience. “If I'm making a joke about the fact that the earth is flat, [don’t] answer ‘well, but look at these measurements.”“What you should say,” he advised, “is that this is bad. This is bad poetry [and] the joke’s not funny.”The paper is published in the journal New Media & Society.

A spade-toothed whale, the world’s rarest whale species, has been found washed ashore on a beach in Otago, New Zealand, one of only six specimens to have ever been documented.While marine mammal strandings are relatively common in New Zealand – there are around 85 per year – when experts from the Department of Conservation (DOC) and The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa turned up to investigate reports of a dead, beached whale near the small fishing village of Taieri Mouth on July 4, what they saw may not be common at all.They believe the 5-meter-long (16-foot) male beaked whale to be the rarest whale species of them all – a spade-toothed whale.Beaked whales are fairly elusive as it is, as they typically swim fast and deep and don’t make such a prominent spout compared to other types of whale when breathing at the water’s surface.Spade-toothed whales, however, really do take the rarity biscuit – only six specimens, including this latest find, have ever been recorded. While its identity still needs to be confirmed via DNA testing, if all goes as expected, this makes the male that washed up in Otago a particularly significant find.“Spade-toothed whales are one of the most poorly known large mammalian species of modern times,” said DOC Coastal Otago Operations Manager Gabe Davies in a statement. “Since the 1800s, only six samples have ever been documented worldwide, and all but one of these was from New Zealand. From a scientific and conservation point of view, this is huge.”Until 2010, the species had only ever been known from skeletal remains found in New Zealand and Chile, with scientists using these to declare the spade-toothed whale as a brand-new species back in 1874.The first intact specimens of a mother and calf were then discovered in 2010, with another single specimen following in 2017, finally allowing researchers to properly describe the species’ color pattern.While much of what there is to know about the spade-toothed whale is likely to remain a mystery until we see one alive, the freshness of this latest specimen might provide the first-ever opportunity for dissection, which could provide all kinds of insights into its biology.Having already taken samples to get genetic confirmation of its identity, the whale has since been placed in cold storage. It’ll be kept here until decisions have been made about how to best move forward – this might take a while, said Davies, given the potential importance of the discovery.The DOC are also working with Te Rnanga tākou as part of this process. “It is important to ensure appropriate respect for this taoka is shown through the shared journey of learning, applying mātauraka Māori as we discover more about this rare species,” concluded Te Rnanga takou chair Nadia Wesley-Smith.

A day after an assassination attempt on former US President Donald Trump, a prophecy video (see below) has been going viral. A self-styled Christian pastor, Brandon Biggs had predicted the assassination bid on Trump four months ago and its accuracy has shocked the people. Brandon Biggs, a pastor did an interview four months ago during which he spoke about how he saw an assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Four months later, an attack did happen on the Republican Presidential candidate and Biggs’ prediction have come true, word-by-word. The video that is going viral is an interview which was released on March 15, 2024 and at 11:06 minutes, prophet Brandon Biggs talks about the assassination bid on the former US President. In his words, “Then I saw an attempt on his life… this bullet flew by his ear and it came so close to his head that it busted his ear drum.” He further said, “And I saw he fell to his knees during this time frame and he started worshipping the Lord; he got radically born during this time.” The pastor went on to say that he saw Trump winning the presidency; however this is yet to be ascertained because the US Presidential Elections will take place on November 5, 2024. The post Prophet predicted an assassination attempt on Trump months ago appeared first on Anomalien.com.

CBS ran a news special on Sunday night after President Biden’s remarks in the Oval Office. CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell interviewed former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and dragged him right back to January 6 to discuss how rhetoric has grown hotter. Typically, CBS didn’t include itself in the atmosphere of overheated rhetoric. Kevin McCarthy came on CBS, and Norah O'Donnell went right to January 6. McCarthy said it was important to tone down the rhetoric, so Norah asked TWICE if he pushed Trump around on that point. pic.twitter.com/W2ZkX5ZiCr — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) July 15, 2024 O’DONNELL: You were speaker of the house on January 6th. We spoke that day. We were live on the air for more than ten hours or so, and I remember our conversation vividly, because you called on the president, to come forward, come before the cameras, and ask for the violence to stop. And you said, this should be a moment that brings us together, not divides us. But it's almost like the rhetoric's gotten hotter since then. McCARTHY: It seems as though, from all campaigns. I've never seen something like this, where they go after somebody even through the Department of Justice and others. I hope all Americans reflect on this moment. Have you pushed something too far where a 20-year-old kid – we don’t know his background, but he’s gotta have something mental -- that would take an opportunity to try to assassinate somebody in a race. You would question whether you're safe to go to affiliate with any political party that you're fearful of your life. That's not America. That's not democracy. I will tell you today, I had other leaders from other countries call me about what transpired, that they're concerned about democracy, even in their own country, what they're hearing coming back. And this is a moment in time all parties should reflect and know that they should tone it back. We've got to start respecting individuals that we disagree with. You can respect somebody, at the same time disagree with them and debate in a manner that's respectful. O’Donnell turned it right back on Trump, a day after he was shot: “Does Donald Trump bear some responsibility for that? Does he need to change his rhetoric?” McCarthy was taken aback by the question, and its timing, but he said he meant everyone: McCARTHY: You know it's odd. This is a man that came less than an inch from losing his life, and the question is you're worried about him? I think when I look at all Americans, I mean, I don't know that -- I look at our current president that less than two weeks ago said, you put a bullseye on Donald Trump. What I'm trying to be is a fair American to tell everybody to dial back. I think anyone that gave any rhetoric has some responsibility to where this country has gotten in the last couple of years when it comes to politics. O’Donnell wasn’t letting up on Trump, like she hadn’t heard the answer: “Did you say that to Donald Trump today? Did you say, look, we need to think about the kind of rhetoric we have here? We can set a standard here.” McCarthy replied: “My call today with the president, with a man that came so close to losing his life, wasn't about that. It was a concern for him personally. And I'm amazed he's here today. He doesn't push anything back. What it shows to me is what Donald Trump really values. It's not about him. It's what he wants to do for the country. And think about it. Anybody who runs for president, though, the fear that they could have. He could do a lot more in life. He could be very happy at Mar-a-Lago, but he's willing to risk that, even when his own family is concerned.” McCarthy suggested Trump would have a new tone in the coming days. But when will the pro-Biden media hold Biden to account for his rhetoric? Or hold themselves responsible for their apocalyptic Democracy Dies in Darkness tone about Trump?

Jim Rice never did like talking to the press. During his 15-year career (all of it spent with the Boston Red Sox) the power-hitting left fielder preferred to keep his head down and do his job. It wasn't so much that reporters asked questions as it was the kind of questions they asked. "This was a very private guy from a small town in South Carolina who just wanted to play ball," retired Boston Herald sportswriter Joe Giuliotti told the New York Times in 2003. "At a time when he was the only black player on the team, he made it known that he was not getting into the black-white issues, but when he said he didn't want to talk about it, writers just kept coming after him.''Rice's chilly, taciturn nature didn't endear him to the journalists who covered him — would it kill him to chat a bit after the game? These same journalists would have their revenge once Rice became eligible for the Hall of Fame in 1994. Baseball writers decide which players get this honor; Rice didn't make it in until his 15th and final year of eligibility. "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played," reads the Hall of Fame election rules. It's certainly feasible that sportswriters dinged Rice for not being an easy interview.But if character counts, then an incident at Fenway Park 42 years ago this August 7 should've made Rice a shoo-in. The Red Sox were hosting the White Sox; Tom Keane was taking in the game two rows above the Red Sox dugout with his 4-year-old son Jonathan and his 2-year-old brother. Red Sox second baseman Dave Stapleton hit a foul that rocketed toward the family, hitting Jonathan square in the face. As blood gushed from the screaming boy's forehead and people called for help, Rice jumped into the stands and grabbed Jonathan, cradling him in his arms as he rushed him to the dugout, where the Sox team doctor was waiting to rush him to the hospital. Jonathan's skull was fractured, and he was unresponsive. But after emergency surgery and five days in Boston's Children's Hospital, he made a full recovery. To this day, both Jonathan and his father credit Rice with saving Jonathan's life. As usual, Rice didn't want to make a big fuss about it. "If it was your kid, what would you do?” he said. “The baby was crying and there was a lot of blood. I think he was more in shock than anything.” Spoken like a true team player.

Milwaukee — The Republican National Convention opens Monday in a very different world from the one we all expected when we left work on Friday. Republicans are in complete and total unity. Even former governor, professional Trump critic, and perennial neocon Nikki Haley is getting in on the action, squeezing into a speaking slot at the last minute. Blaze News has learned that rapper and businessman 50 Cent started making calls this weekend to see if he can join the festivities. “We’re trying to make it happen,” a person involved with the talks told me on the way to Wisconsin. On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats are in total disarray. Calls went out suspending campaign advertising shortly after the deadly attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump Saturday evening. Much to worried donors’ chagrin, the entire campaign strategy had focused on demonizing Trump as a “threat to the nation,” an “enemy of democracy,” and “a threat to the very soul of this country.” That isn’t going to work any more. Meanwhile, Republicans stand ready to rule the news, with Trump’s vice presidential announcement coming any moment now. The former president even flew into Milwaukee Sunday night (far earlier than normal for a secured nominee) to ride the wave of party excitement. Democrats' day-to-day plans, on the other hand, are a mess. Joe Biden canceled a planned speech at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, where he was set to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Rumors ricocheted around the capital Friday that former President Barack Obama had pressured him to use the speech to announce he was stepping aside as the presidential candidate in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris, but that Aaron Sorkin-style Democratic fantasy will have to be put on the back burner. The White House apparently didn’t think it was worth it to commemorate the legislative landmark if it would have to be done in a dignified and nonpartisan manner. Corporate media will likewise have to tamp down on the rhetoric, if only due to how little time has passed since the Republican candidate dodged a bullet to the brain by mere millimeters, a 5mph wind, and the hand of God. Other innocents in the crowd were less fortunate. Since the shots rang out in Butler County, Pennsylvania, Democratic Party politicians have called for a new sense of unity that few of them have practiced over the past half-century. They’re saying political violence has no place in American society after cheering on race riots, demagoguing opponents, and repeatedly denying the existence of the left-wing terror group Antifa. Even the last political shooting — when a left-wing would-be-assassin opened fire on the Republican congressional baseball practice, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) — barely dented their rhetoric. If Democrats were remotely serious this time, they’d drop the lawfare against Trump. They won’t, because they are only serious about destroying Trump. Any delay in the Democrats’ plot to force Biden aside will cost them dearly, and they know it. But to quote former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” The assassination attempt might lead to renewed calls for a change of candidates for a historically changed race but is far more likely to cool political rhetoric across the board. Americans aren’t used to seeing their candidates’ faces smeared with blood. It's been more than 56 years since former Attorney General Bobby Kennedy was shot on TV while celebrating his win in the California Democratic primary. His assassination, a few months after war-weary Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson's shocking decision not to run for re-election, helped fuel the tears, tumult, and tear gas that consumed the party’s fateful August convention in Chicago. “The presidential contest ended last night,” one person NBC News described as a senior Democratic operative said after the instantly iconic photos were released of a bloodied and defiant Trump, surrounded by Secret Service and pumping his fist in the air beneath the American flag. “Now it’s time to focus on keeping the Senate and trying to pick up the House. The only positive thing to come out of last night for Democrats is we are no longer talking about Joe Biden’s age today.” “We are so f***ed,” a “longtime Democratic insider” added. When Congress returns next week, lawmakers will have just two weeks until the long August recess — and less than a month until the Democratic National Convention, where they’ll tempt the fates by returning to Chicago. Don't count on less chaos. Blaze News: Biden makes another brief statement about 'assassination attempt' against Trump Blaze News: Shadow of infamous 1912 assassination attempt still looms over Milwaukee Blaze News: Christian father killed in attempted Trump assassination lived and 'died a hero' Spectator World: Milwaukee readies itself for Trumpmania Blaze News: DEI professor fears black men might identify with Trump following deadly assassination attempt Glenn Beck: Pray for Donald Trump, our leaders, and our republic Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford's newsletter. IN OTHER NEWS ‘Blaze News Tonight’ heads to Milwaukee Julio Rosas and I landed in Milwaukee Sunday night for what’s sure to be a historic event. We’ll be running around Brew City, chasing down politicians, covering protests, and reporting details to bring to you every night on “Blaze News Tonight.” Tune in each night at 8 p.m. ET at BlazeTV.com, on YouTube, or on X for exclusive interviews with top Republicans, presented by anchor Jill Savage and worked over by editor in chief Matthew Peterson. And if you’re in town, let us know! We’d love to buy you a Pabst. The fire rises: Unherd: The terrible echo of 1968 A nation divided, an unpopular president stepping down, a chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago, and political assassinations caught on camera. If you had managed to miss comparisons between 2024 and 1968 until the weekend, Saturday’s deadly violence will have changed that. Emily Jashinsky reports on a wound that hasn’t healed: “I was 10 years old when my uncle was assassinated and I remember it like it was yesterday,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Fox News, hours after a bullet skimmed the side of Donald Trump’s head. Kennedy recalled the days after that tragedy in 1963. “There was a healing that took place,” he said. Not five years later, Kennedy’s father lost his life at the hands of an assassin, just months after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Andy Warhol took a bullet the day before. More than half a century later, the Smithsonian describes 1968 as “the year that shattered America.” Anti-war protests rocked campuses. Democrats planned to convene in Chicago. A man named Robert F. Kennedy was on the ballot. It may seem like we’ve been here before, but what if we never actually left?