Warp wrote:

>   You wouldn't believe how easily scientists themselves are fooled by
> magicians and tricksters because they, for whatever reason, don't understand
> the importance of some of the most basic scientifical testing, such as
> double-blind controlled tests.
> 
>   The "double" there is quite important. Many scientists are way too
> confident on their own capacity to not to influence the test results and
> to interpret the results impartially.

It does happen. For example, some scientist designs a chemical that's 
supposed to interact with a naturally occuring molecule in the human 
body. They mix the chemicals in the lab, and it does what it's supposed 
to. They pour the chemical onto a cell culture, and it does what it's 
supposed to. They inject it into a mouse and it does what it's supposed 
to. They inject the stuff into a human and... well, the effect smaller 
than we expected, but it is still there.

Except that no, no it isn't. You're just *expecting* it to be there. 
Confirmation bais.

In this instance, however, it seems unavoidable that the creators are 
fully aware that their device is completely useless, and are simply out 
to make a quick buck. The device has no remotely plausible mechanism of 
action, and a trivial test quickly demonstrates that it is ineffective.

As an aside, I saw some physicist has built a flying machine that defies 
current understanding. The device really does fly. And the scientists 
really have no clue why it flies. (As best as I can tell, the device is 
some sticks of wood with wires strapped to it, and you pump very high 
voltage, high frequency electricity through it, and this makes it 
levitate for some reason...)

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b0e6a77@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> And then, half way through, you see the manufacturer's claims. And it
> suddenly snaps into painfully sharp focus that this is pure fairy dust.
>
> 'The device can find guns, ammunition, drugs, truffles, human bodies and
> even contraband ivory at distances up to a kilometer, underground,
> through walls, underwater or even from airplanes three miles high. The

>
> Hah. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
>
> Seriously. If they printed this nearer the top of the article, it would
> become more immediately clear that we're talking about utter nonesense.

One has to but marvel at the gutsiness of the scammers, not just at the
claims, but at the price tag of $15,000 to $60,000. But maybe that's the
trick, the more outlandish the claims and the higher the price, the easier
it's to reel in the suckers.

Post a reply to this message

"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote in message
news:4b0e75a2@news.povray.org...

> The guys should be granted the Nobel Price, for sure.
>
> To be able to create an electrical field strong enough to attract ions
over
> a distance of 5000 m from a plane: respect!

And it doesn't even need batteries.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> As an aside, I saw some physicist has built a flying machine that defies
> current understanding. The device really does fly. And the scientists
> really have no clue why it flies. (As best as I can tell, the device is
> some sticks of wood with wires strapped to it, and you pump very high
> voltage, high frequency electricity through it, and this makes it
> levitate for some reason...)

I think I have seen that. Doesn't seem too difficult, if the wire and
sticks are light weight. A high voltage  would create some ionization
which would direct the air to flow around the wires. If everything is
small enough then that air flow, and the turbulence from the air hitting
the surface under the device, should be enough to lift it.

Look up negative ion generators, or build one yourself they are rather
easy. A bunch of capacitors and diodes in a ladder like arrangement.
"Capacitor diode ladder" being a good phrase to start googling from. Or
to just see it in action, and explained, check the Mythbusters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk2GGoMJ7NU

Post a reply to this message

>> 'The device can find guns, ammunition, drugs, truffles, human bodies and
>> even contraband ivory at distances up to a kilometer, underground,
>> through walls, underwater or even from airplanes three miles high. The

>>
>> Hah. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
> 
> One has to but marvel at the gutsiness of the scammers, not just at the
> claims, but at the price tag of $15,000 to $60,000. But maybe that's the
> trick, the more outlandish the claims and the higher the price, the easier
> it's to reel in the suckers.

Indeed. Price it high enough and people will believe that it *must* 
work, otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell it for that price.

It's a bit like the way MS sells Office for several hundred pounds, 
convincing people that "it must be good if it's that expensive. Nobody 
would buy it otherwise."

Post a reply to this message

>> As an aside, I saw some physicist has built a flying machine that defies
>> current understanding. The device really does fly. And the scientists
>> really have no clue why it flies. (As best as I can tell, the device is
>> some sticks of wood with wires strapped to it, and you pump very high
>> voltage, high frequency electricity through it, and this makes it
>> levitate for some reason...)
> 
> I think I have seen that. Doesn't seem too difficult, if the wire and
> sticks are light weight. A high voltage  would create some ionization
> which would direct the air to flow around the wires. If everything is
> small enough then that air flow, and the turbulence from the air hitting
> the surface under the device, should be enough to lift it.

Well, the PhD who built it said he had no idea how it works, and none of 
hsi collegues could figure it out either.

(One wonders though... If you don't know how it works, how did you make 
it??)

Then again, this was on TV, so...

Post a reply to this message

4b0e83f5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Indeed. Price it high enough and people will believe that it *must* work, 
> otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell it for that price.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oil_Sniffer_Hoax

Marc

Post a reply to this message

>> Indeed. Price it high enough and people will believe that it *must* work, 
>> otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell it for that price.
>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oil_Sniffer_Hoax

There is a phrase that is somewhat over-used on the Internet which none 
the less seems to fit this perfectly.

Truly Epic Failure.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>> Just when I thought my opinion of humanity could not get any lower:
> 
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
>> http://www.ade651.com/ade651in.html
> 
>   You wouldn't believe how easily scientists themselves are fooled by
> magicians and tricksters because they, for whatever reason, don't
> understand the importance of some of the most basic scientifical testing,
> such as double-blind controlled tests.
> 
>   The "double" there is quite important. Many scientists are way too
> confident on their own capacity to not to influence the test results and
> to interpret the results impartially.

Didn't both the CIA and the KGB at a stage seriously study psychokinesis, 
"reading" and other types of "extrasensory" phenomena for possible military 
applications?

-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:

> Didn't both the CIA and the KGB at a stage seriously study psychokinesis, 
> "reading" and other types of "extrasensory" phenomena for possible military 
> applications?

Hey, studying things is a valid way to determine whether there's any 
truth to them - provided you do the studying correctly and don't just 
try to dream up data that supports the conclusion you want to reach. ;-)

Post a reply to this message