|
|
|
|
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/21/2009 10:55:30 PM | frogo
I have read many sites, yours and others posts, bacteria information that I have dug up etc. [more than most would before choosing to believe something as absurd as things happening all by themselves [selection doesn't make it any easyer for me]
to many steps in selection would have no benifit for survival.
and each mutation would have a million or billion retarded combinations to go through first and the correct one would still not have to ever come up.
and this is for each correct mutation, if I am not mistaken. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/22/2009 12:32:38 AM |
Would it be a coup to show the process both use is faulty?
Yes, of course. Check out this site to see how the process checks for frauds. esp. 'double-blind'.
When you and I both post in this forum we are peers. We did not choose each other.
You said that sellers and buyers on Ebay have a common goal, not I.
If one scientist can prove that another's rant on climate change is faulty that scientist will make the other look bad. The scientist who makes assailable claims will not be funded as much as the scientist who makes unassailable claims. There are plenty of journals that have published articles that support the idea of climate change. I can name examples of publications that refute those claims, such as The Fraser Institute.
The journal Nature and the publications of the Fraser Institute are peers, since they are both involved in the same medium. One did not invite the other to that medium. They compete on an intellectual basis.
If one scientist publishes BS about climate change it would be easy for another to refute it. It seems to me that you're saying the reason there is a buzz about climate change is that scientists are compelled to keep it going and will not compete with each other in this debate.
I am saying that your conspiracy theory that scientists are making up the idea of climate change is unsupportable BS. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:24:59 PM | to continue message 501
all mutations are, I believe errors, mistakes, something coming up that was not called for.
Is evolution the only science that depends 100% on errors?
science does experiments, but most of it is carefully done, not randomly done. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:35:00 PM |
science does experiments, but most of it is carefully done, not randomly done.
And therein is the devil in the detail since science also doesn't work with as many variables and subjects of the experiment. Scientists work with only a few members of the species vs. nature using thousands, millions and billions. | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/23/2009 6:02:58 PM |
If my lineage starts a new mutation, it will never be seen in another lineage.
Are you sure? No one else on earth has your color hair? shoe size? medical conditions? You must be one rare person!
You need to review and understand what a mutation is. It's a change. It's neither good nor bad until it exerts consequences. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/23/2009 9:55:38 PM | Do you think we fall in love with those who are the product of a similar end result series of mutations . Why do some voices bring a response from our ears that others don't ? Does this theory of it being impossible to not be unique rule out the idea of cloning a human being ? why do we get this feeling of 'knowing' another person , of being comfortable with them . Is it because in a sense they are from the same 'tribe' years ago ? | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/23/2009 11:47:10 PM | nevaagin,
I wish science would become interested in that area. At Harvard, some of the scientists began to study the mind. They did an experiment and found that plants reacted when someone was thinking about watering them. So often science is run by the profit motive and not to find the truth or not for the wisdom of the people. One day spirit will be understood and the division between science and spiritualism will be gone. Religion has nothing to do with it and I feel it is more a vehicle of the economy than having anything to do with science or spirit. Spirit is mind and I'd like scientists to begin to share knowledge about the mind. Our minds become aware many times, where we know something or sense a connection with someone. That is interesting and worth understanding. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 1:46:52 AM | Thank you ... I have only 5 posts which is like leaving a glass of water just out of reach for a thirsty person . Excuse my ignorance , but what State is Harvard in ? I may not give you my email or I'll be perma banned for sure . But if you want to private message me .? No pressure . I have a Masters in Literature but learnt a few languages alon g the way . | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 2:17:56 AM |
At Harvard, some of the scientists began to study the mind. They did an experiment and found that plants reacted when someone was thinking about watering them.
That's a great SOUNDING claim. Care to point us to the actual evidence? There is no shortage of similar naked claims. If you can't point us to it, odds are it's a fiction or a misrepresentation.
Even if the claim is completely true as presented, "plants reacted when someone was thinking " is purely subjective. Additionally, such claims have a nasty tendency to depend on results which are statistically insignificant - they just neglect to tell you the actual statistics. "Majority" can be 6/10, which is luck. It can also be 99/100, which generally is not simple chance.
So often science is run by the profit motive and not to find the truth or not for the wisdom of the people
False comparison.
Profit is irrelevant to scientific conclusions, though it can certainly bias the individual or the approach to the question.
"truth" and "wisdom" are also irrelevant. They are subjective concepts which are not subject to science, which is a purely OBjective philosophy.
One day spirit will be understood
To be subject to "understanding"; and by extension, science, "spirit" would have to be objectively defined and testable first. It's up to the claimants to define "spirit" before science can ever consider it in any way.
and the division between science and spiritualism will be gone
No, it won't. Science is, by definition, a specific philosophy dependant on objective evidence and logic. Spiritualism lacks any of these features. The two do not coincide, and for this purpose, are incompatible.
Spirit is mind and I'd like scientists to begin to share knowledge about the mind
Again, "spirit" lacks an objective and testable definition. Despite your use of the word "mind", you have not established that "spirit" is in any way subject to scientific study. Science can deal specifically with electrochemical impulses in the brain and how these correlate with specific thoughs, actions, or feelings. It cannot accomodate abstract concepts which lack any features detectable in the real world.
Our minds become aware many times, where we know something or sense a connection with someone. That is interesting and worth understanding.
Thus far, this claim is unsubstantiated. Similar claims HAVE been made and studied in past, and the results found to be identical to random chance and colored by confirmation bias. People remember when their "gut feeling" was right, and forget when it was wrong. In their minds, they're 100% right, but in reality it's closer to 50%. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 4:09:44 AM | We live on earth that perpetually spins, have gravatational forces that continually allow it to spin. We have an eco system that is perfectly balanced for life to continue.
A never ending discovery for our minds to be exercised. We have everything a species could ever need. Yet we still arnt satisfied "what more proof do you need". Examine your heart, soul, mind. Maybe you will find the proof you seek? | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 7:26:29 AM |
At Harvard, some of the scientists began to study the mind. They did an experiment and found that plants reacted when someone was thinking about watering them. That's a great SOUNDING claim. Care to point us to the actual evidence? There is no shortage of similar naked claims. If you can't point us to it, odds are it's a fiction or a misrepresentation.
FrogO, there are a great many "interesting" studies that come from academia and even more from leading research institutions. Are you proclaiming "Liar" without researching it yourself? Summary dismissal is not science.
Even if the claim is completely true as presented, "plants reacted when someone was thinking " is purely subjective. Additionally, such claims have a nasty tendency to depend on results which are statistically insignificant - they just neglect to tell you the actual statistics. "Majority" can be 6/10, which is luck. It can also be 99/100, which generally is not simple chance.
6/10 is the same ratio as 600,000/1,000,000 which could be a lot more significant than 99/100. A lot more information is needed to make a assesment of reasonable confidence. It would appear plants "think" in chemical process that are not significantly different than say our own chemical processes including hormones, phermones etc. Can you be certain there is not a "communication" between the person "thinking" about watering the plants? Could it be a chemical message from the plant to the person that stimulates a desire to water the plant? How many genes do we have in common with plants? Does such a communication require some genetic compatibility that could impact statistical analysis? Science is about open minds FrogO, not closed minds.
So often science is run by the profit motive and not to find the truth or not for the wisdom of the people False comparison. Profit is irrelevant to scientific conclusions, though it can certainly bias the individual or the approach to the question. "truth" and "wisdom" are also irrelevant. They are subjective concepts which are not subject to science, which is a purely OBjective philosophy.
Profit of some kind is always a factor in any conclusion. For this reason, the scientist should be open minded or he becomes no different than the religious zelot trying to "profit" by reinforcing his religious faith or "witnessing" his beliefs. The more we humans know, the more we find we don't know. If your mind is closed, the spirit of science dies. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 8:35:05 AM |
For this reason, the scientist should be open minded or he becomes no different than the religious zelot trying to "profit" by reinforcing his religious faith or "witnessing" his beliefs.
This is why strict adherence to the scientific method is the epitome of "open-minded", which as a term has the negation of confirmation bias as its primary epistemological definer. This is one of the many things that separates science from pseudoscience by definition. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 11:29:27 AM | The scientific method has limited application and tends to favor a preconceived bias. Columbus proved the hypothesis he could sail west to India and thus we have a continent of native American "Indians". Others before Columbus had a preconceived idea that anyone sailing west would fall off the earth and since those that tried never returned, that hypothesis was proven.
As we learn more, we find our previous concepts were often flawed. Many of those flawed concepts were assumed accurate in the observation and conclusion steps in unrelated application of the scientific method. Where this becomes most troubling is in highly complex systems. In the previous example of plants responding to people thinking about watering them, the "easy" conclusion is to assume no such possibility exists. Our powers of observation are limited particularly when it comes to say chemical communication between living things. Phermones are a good example where decisions we make are highly influenced by the chemicals in the air yet despite our intellect, we are pretty much clueless about the immediate influence on us. To complicate this further, the possibilities of genetic compatibilities within test individuals can throw off statistical data in both creating the experiment and reducing the observations. In reality, the scientific method is best as a teaching tool for demonstration purposes as it is poor at advancing any leading edge knowledge. Exploration is often best done without preconceived hypothesis. Let's see what's out there and then try to figure it out. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 11:46:21 AM | As we learn more, we find our previous concepts were often flawed.
Which is why the method itself evolves so as to self-correct. As such examples given before Karl Popper's contribution to "scientific method", illustrate their omission of this progressive self-correction = red herring.
In reality, the scientific method is best as a teaching tool for demonstration purposes as it is poor at advancing any leading edge knowledge.
Okay, then please cite examples of derivative methods that produce a larger/better scope of synthesis in regards to tangible, perceptible, palpable, sensible, corporeal and substantive byproducts. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:01:59 PM | Are you proclaiming "Liar" without researching it yourself? Summary dismissal is not science.
I was dismissing a claim which was accompanied by no evidence. If the claimant has done nothing to support their argument, there is no onus on myself or on "science" to investigate anything. The claim was presented as if it was scientific - well, then, PROVE it!
6/10 is the same ratio as 600,000/1,000,000 which could be a lot more significant than 99/100. A lot more information is needed to make a assesment of reasonable confidence.
You're right. SO what? My point is unchanged - there are many examples where pseudoscientific claims are made and then substantiated with statistics. Actually examining those statistics is often a big factor in establishing the claims as BEING pseudoscience. 6/10 would be such an example, in which the claim is for a "majority", even though examination of the numbers would show no significant variance from random. Clearly you KNOW this. Don't obfuscate to make an irrelevant point.
Can you be certain there is not a "communication" between the person "thinking" about watering the plants? Could it be a chemical message from the plant to the person that stimulates a desire to water the plant?
Unimportant at this point. We cannot determine with any degree of certainty what thoughts any particular person might ACTUALLY have; which, if any, have any influence on the plant; nor whether the thoughts of any other person might have an influence. It's an experiment without a control, and with a strong suggestion of a confirmation bias. Whether such things are possible is irrelevant. Whether they are objectively supported IS, and no claimant has shown that here.
Science is about open minds FrogO, not closed minds.
Open mind, insert fallacy and fantasy? Science is about objective evidence. A claim made without such is rejected. That is NOT the same as saying the claim is impossible. If you wish to suggest I have made such a claim, then please feel free to compound one fallacy with another.
Profit of some kind is always a factor in any conclusion. For this reason, the scientist should be open minded or he becomes no different than the religious zelot trying to "profit" by reinforcing his religious faith or "witnessing" his beliefs. The more we humans know, the more we find we don't know. If your mind is closed, the spirit of science dies.
Human nature applies to all humans, scientists or not. The poster's claim that science is someone specially biased in this way is fallacious, as is the red herring you compound it with.
Others before Columbus had a preconceived idea that anyone sailing west would fall off the earth and since those that tried never returned, that hypothesis was proven.
Yet Columbus and others were more than likely well aware of fishermen and whalers, such as the Basque, crossing the ocean for centuries. The spherical nature of the planet was also well known, even if it would have been thought mythical among the more ignorant. | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:46:45 PM | frog0,
your comment is a little disturbing.
Sort of a summary dismissal of any debate which is not " scientific" in its origin.
a veritable end before discussion begins -- remember modern sciences' beginning came from the oppressive and supressive church. Which did the same thing that perhaps you are doing now, dismissal of anything that was not supportive of the church's authority.
It's a heads I win, tails you lose deal if you dismiss all the non supportive of science.
perhaps the histories between authoritarian autocracies- and the people that know somethings just point to a "different" conclusion than what is acceptable to those in charge- do to quash any enlightening idea before it proliferates.
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 1:04:17 PM | Sort of a summary dismissal of any debate which is not " scientific" in its origin.
Again, there are defined frames of reference that by their nature are inclusive and exclusive of different aspects of "true". These frames of reference have terms of reference which are criteria that must be met for any consideration to be valid within the respective purviews. - science/not science (et al).
Science is self-correcting in that the terms of reference are open-ended as to what is shown to work and what is shown to not work within its frame of reference without the influence of confirmation bias (see: "open minded").
It really is that simple | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 1:15:52 PM | Sort of a summary dismissal of any debate which is not " scientific" in its origin
This is a discussion of pseudoscience in a science forum. Claims of "science" or "evidence", or anything of the like, in absence of substantiation, are rejected. The onus is on the claimant to validate their OWN claims, not for someone else to do it for them. No evidence is needed to reject a claim which has no support.
a veritable end before discussion begins
This is not a discussion of philosophical thought. It's a discussion of science. If no evidence is presented, there is nothing to discuss.
remember modern sciences' beginning came from the oppressive and supressive church. Which did the same thing that perhaps you are doing now, dismissal of anything that was not supportive of the church's authority
Do we need to spell out all the fallacies in this argument? Rhetorical question.
This has nothing at all to do with authority. It's a question of methodology. The scientific method is the only objective system for determining how or if things "work". Part of that methodology is the exclusion of claims which do not meet basic standards of evidence, logic, or objectivity. The claims offered fail to meet basic objective standards.
and the people that know somethings just point to a "different" conclusion than what is acceptable
"Just knowing" is the veritable essence of pseudoscience. It's an argument from personal authority, as in "I don't have to prove anything, because I know I am right and anyone who disagrees with my superior reasoning is by definition wrong". Thus, the claimant places himself outside of any standards which apply to the rest of the universe. Sorry, but objectively verifiable claims trump subjective "I'm right" every time. | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 2:42:48 PM | | Yes, but the context of the OP determine the nature of the thread. This is not a discussion of philosophy in the more general sense, but of science and what does or does not qualify as such. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 4:48:27 PM | Frog0,
galileo knew the earth orbits the sun.
Da Vinci, the human body.
Copernicus, loads of info.
The church authorities, either squelched completely or " governed" the way and censored their communication/interaction with others in public/private lives.
Columbus, Just knew the earth was round.
All met invariably the same Rx; that of scorn,ridicule,and for the most part were dismissed as fools/heretics/persons to be monitored, excommunicated, arrested, or outright put to death.
All because they just knew , and asked questions, and stated their beliefs publically opposing the intelligensia of their day.
Dale | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 6:57:39 PM | some thinkers don't fit anywhere.
they just plod along.
crying in the wilderness.
after a while they don't even expect anyone to agree, or argue sensibly.
everyone says THIS, so it must be so.
most don't know why they are of a certain persuasion, they just go along with the thought of the day, and anything that supports THAT view. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/24/2009 7:33:09 PM | All because they just knew , and asked questions, and stated their beliefs publically opposing the intelligensia of their day
Um...no. Every one of them had plenty of evidence in support of their positions. It was the CHURCH which "just knew" they were wrong, despite all evidence each of these people had in their favor.
Galileo and Copernicus STUDIED the stars. Da Vinci STUDIED the human body. Columbus had the background knowledge of fishermen crossing the Atlantic regularly, many centuries of scientific reasoning which had concluded long ago that the planet was "round", and the personal experience of being a sailer and SEEING personally that it was. It would likely only have been his more UNeducated sailors who feared otherwise. In fact, Columbus was financed specifically to reach the EAST by sailing WEST. Not only did he know the planet is a globe, but his backers couldn't have been too uncomfortable with the idea. Not one of these people was making claims in absence of evidence. If they were doubted, they could substantiate their claims.
Not so here. No evidence of Nibiru has been provided. No evidence of alien spacecraft has been presented. No evidence of gremlins has been presented. No evidence of "spirit" has been presented. No evidence of "creator" has been presented. No evidence of thoughts influencing plant growth has been presented. In the absence of evidence, these are non-science. Claims deserve as much effort from the audience to consider them, as the proponent has provided to back them up. Dismissal in the face of evidence is ignorant. Dismissal in lack of evidence is appropriate. | |
|
|
| Page 21 of 22
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 |
|
Home
login 
