 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> There was a time when all of humanity honestly believed the world was
> flat, and anybody who claimed it wasn't was *obviously* a lunatic.
AFAIK that's an urban legend. "Popular history" so to speak.
*Some* people believed the Earth was flat at some point, but it was not
as common as most people nowadays believe. The concept has been inflated
a lot because it sounds like a funny piece of historical anecdote. Even
at medieval times many scholars not only knew the Earth was round, but
had a relatively good estimate about its radius.
> (There are people who think that accupuncture is nonesense. But now
> scientists are finding that it causes measurable chemical changes in the
> body that do, in fact, do something. As crazy as that sounds...)
The placebo effect also causes measurable chemical changes in the body.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> There was a time when all of humanity honestly believed the world was
>> flat, and anybody who claimed it wasn't was *obviously* a lunatic.
>
> AFAIK that's an urban legend. "Popular history" so to speak.
>
> *Some* people believed the Earth was flat at some point, but it was not
> as common as most people nowadays believe. The concept has been inflated
> a lot because it sounds like a funny piece of historical anecdote. Even
> at medieval times many scholars not only knew the Earth was round, but
> had a relatively good estimate about its radius.
I'm told the ancient Greeks placed sticks in the sand and measured the
difference in angle between the shadows of sticks seperated by great
distances, and thus came up with a pretty accurate estimate of the
Earth's radius. But I was under the impression that this information was
"lost", only to be rediscovered centuries later.
(Actually, the history of science and mathematics seems to involve quite
a lot of things being discovered, forgotten and then rediscovered, often
after a seriously large length of time.)
>> (There are people who think that accupuncture is nonesense. But now
>> scientists are finding that it causes measurable chemical changes in the
>> body that do, in fact, do something. As crazy as that sounds...)
>
> The placebo effect also causes measurable chemical changes in the body.
Sure it does. But, as I understand it, a placebo only works if you're
expecting it to work.
The way I heard it, damage to the body stimulates the release of natural
painkillers, and accupuncture has a similar effect. (It is, after all,
damage to the body.) Whether the diagrams depicting the best place to
put the needles have any validity is an entire other question,
however... ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Disproving a theory is every bit as important as proving a theory. By
>> proving that the psychic phenominon does not exist, now nobody else
>> needs to study it. This is beneficial.
>
> If *nobody else* studying it is good, an unqualified *nobody* studying it is
> even better, is it not?
The only way to scientifically determine whether a claim is valid or not
is to, you know, actually investigate it. If we wrote off anything that
sounded too weird, human kind would never have advanced anywhere.
> Besides, the nature of paranormal claims is such that they can not be
> conclusively disproven. There will never be a study to disprove that which
> is not a theory.
The experiment in question appears to be
"I can predict the future."
"OK, predict this."
"Um, I can't."
"OK, we'll be in touch..."
> Paranormal is by definition outside the scope of science. You cannot prove
> "the answer the other way".
Depends on who's definition of "paranormal" you use.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/28/09 04:59, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> There was a time when all of humanity honestly believed the world was
>> flat, and anybody who claimed it wasn't was *obviously* a lunatic.
>
> AFAIK that's an urban legend. "Popular history" so to speak.
That's an urban legend if you're looking at "recent history". It
wouldn't surprise me if 10,000 years ago everyone thought this. And if
not then, keep going further back in time...
--
Marge: You liked Rashomon.
Homer: That's not how I remember it!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/28/09 07:02, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I'm told the ancient Greeks placed sticks in the sand and measured the
> difference in angle between the shadows of sticks seperated by great
> distances, and thus came up with a pretty accurate estimate of the
> Earth's radius. But I was under the impression that this information was
> "lost", only to be rediscovered centuries later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Eratosthenes.27_measurement_of_the_earth.27s_circumference
Perhaps lost to _them_, but likely some other folks elsewhere in the
world knew the Earth was round.
--
Marge: You liked Rashomon.
Homer: That's not how I remember it!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The experiment in question appears to be
> "I can predict the future."
> "OK, predict this."
> "Um, I can't."
> "OK, we'll be in touch..."
>
>
"I can predict the future."
"OK, predict this." WHACK!
"Ouch!"
"OK, we'll be in touch..."
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Disproving a theory is every bit as important as proving a theory. By
>>> proving that the psychic phenominon does not exist, now nobody else
>>> needs to study it. This is beneficial.
>>
>> If *nobody else* studying it is good, an unqualified *nobody* studying
>> it is
>> even better, is it not?
>
> The only way to scientifically determine whether a claim is valid or not
> is to, you know, actually investigate it. If we wrote off anything that
> sounded too weird, human kind would never have advanced anywhere.
>
No argument there. Now.. Given how only the people that cheat, lie,
stack the deck, or consider "Blair Witch" style theatrics, followed by
babbling, "That random sound sort of sounded like...", or, "Gee that
random camera glitch moved like moved 'purposefully', why can't we drop
the supposed paranormal already? Oh, and I love that last one, "move
purposefully". By whose definition, by what criteria? That its less
random than some other random light? More? Moved in what you *think* is
a pattern? What the hell does "moved purposefully" even fraking mean
without context of the ability to determine what the purpose *is*?
The most famous people in the paranormal are 1) a group (or several) of
idiots wandering around wetting themselves over random noises, 2) people
caught cold reading and/or staging methods to get information out of
people before a show, 3) another cold reader who had to film 8 hours of
show, with one *very* tired audience, then edit together the mind tricks
and BS methods he used to *trick* people into thinking that something
they told him 3 hours ago was a "new revelation", people counting random
similarities between scribbles and locations as "hits" for distance
viewing, and a whole host of similar people that are either confused or
intentionally lying.
Its been tested and retested ***over and over*** thousands of times,
some times even by bloody grade schoolers, and the conclusion reached in
every single case is either that its a magic trick, run by someone
denying that they are a magician, coincidental, non-repeatable, and
usually damn vague, accidents, or deluded idiots, who actually fell for
an earlier scam, and now have invested so much effort into being right
that they are mentally *incapable* of admitting that the initial con,
while long gone by, is now being perpetuated by them, because they
can't, or won't, use the same logic with their "paranormal" stuff as
they do to decide if the guy selling them a used car is telling them the
truth, or when looking for their keys, instead of, "asking the spirits",
where they put them.
And, that is the problem. Dowsing doesn't work. Gluing non-functioning
bits of wire and a crystal to it doesn't make it work, it just makes it
a lame ass sci-fi version of a wand from Harry Potter. It still won't
work, because there is no "science" behind how it works, its just
dowsing, with an even stupider dowsing rod. For someone to examine the
validity of the idea, at this point, they need a) a plausible mechanism
by which it works, and b) something that isn't blindingly obvious to
anyone using their brain, or predisposed to believing in it, is nothing
more than a different divining rod, not a "new technology". And the same
goes for "all" of it. All anyone ever comes up with is trivial blather
about how these things work, which are not quantifiable, and don't
actually say anything at all about "how". Its word salad. Like gluing a
"Heisenberg compensator" to a transporter in Star Trek to get around
that it flat out *doesn't exist* and no plausible means to make one work
correctly exists. Even if someone found and answer, and even if they
called it the same thing, it wouldn't matter, because the HC is just a
made up word, with no factual, mathematical, or scientific model for
*how* it works. Anything that did work would have to actually *have*
those. And none of the stuff sold, marketed, or babbled about, even
attempts to present a usable theory (or, when they do, its one
indistinguishable from not having one, since it breaks 50 other laws of
physics, which the people who come up with it either don't know,
understand, or actually get completely backwards).
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Sure it does. But, as I understand it, a placebo only works if you're
> expecting it to work.
>
> The way I heard it, damage to the body stimulates the release of natural
> painkillers, and accupuncture has a similar effect. (It is, after all,
> damage to the body.) Whether the diagrams depicting the best place to
> put the needles have any validity is an entire other question,
> however... ;-)
>
Sadly, while plausible, its not the case. It been done using the "wrong"
places, and even using needles are fake, and don't cause any sort of
puncture at all. In fact, the only thing that seems to effect outcomes,
based on the experiments done by one person, who used to be an advocate
of it, until he started wondering why the hell the multitude of
acupressure methods neither agree with each other, or the acupuncture
chart, is if the explanation "sounds" plausible to the patient, and the
practitioner appears to believe it themselves. Mostly the later. If you
stick someone in the room to do the procedure that pretends to think its
all BS, and who won't provide any facts, details, or explanation, the
result is complete failure.
Also, its a failed premise since the body doesn't react with pain to
such needles, and any "localize" changes, from damage, do not generate
release of the bodies pain killers, or other changes that are supposed
to be part of how it works.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sadly, while plausible, its not the case. It been done using the "wrong"
> places, and even using needles are fake, and don't cause any sort of
> puncture at all. In fact, the only thing that seems to effect outcomes,
> based on the experiments done by one person, who used to be an advocate
> of it, until he started wondering why the hell the multitude of
> acupressure methods neither agree with each other, or the acupuncture
> chart, is if the explanation "sounds" plausible to the patient, and the
> practitioner appears to believe it themselves. Mostly the later. If you
> stick someone in the room to do the procedure that pretends to think its
> all BS, and who won't provide any facts, details, or explanation, the
> result is complete failure.
Have any links to those studies, I would love to see it in print and be
able to pass it around to others.
Still, how is that not a placebo? Patient is told it will work, patient
believes that practitioner is sincere, patient feels better. It may not
have a standard medical explanation other than placebo effect, but if it
makes the patient feel better then it works. There was some similar data
in JAMA or another medical journal that showed placebos were just as
effective, if not more, as prescription anti-depressants in treating
mild to moderate depression and anxiety. And if the placebo makes them
feel better, why now let them use it?
> Also, its a failed premise since the body doesn't react with pain to such needles,
and any "localize" changes, from damage, do not generate release of the bodies pain
killers, or other changes that are supposed to be part of how it works.
The brain does react to things you convince it will happen. See flinch
responses, phantom pain and mirror-box treatment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b106c78@news.povray.org...
> On 11/27/09 17:18, somebody wrote:
> > Exactly. Lacking evidence one way or the other, odds are, the person
making
> > extraordinary predictions is a Bozo.
> Except that evidence wasn't lacking.
Claims motivated by greed is not evidence.
> >>>> You've set up a strawman.
> >>> How so?
> >> Your diamond mine scenario is not even close to analogous with the one
> >> we're talking about.
> > Again, how so?
> Because no one came to you stating that they had dug a little and found
> reason to believe there is a diamond mine there. No one came to you with
> a story about how 200 years ago, someone found a diamond there, or found
> clues indicative of diamonds.
So your litmus test is *someone* telling you something. Let's see how you
respond to the Nigerian scam problem:
> > I am sure you get hundereds of Nigerian mail scams a month. Do you
> > investigate any one of them? Maybe one of them is not a scam and is the
real
> > deal, could it be not?
> It sure could be. Your point? I don't pursue them, because that's not
> my area of interest. It's not exactly an academic activity, and if I
> were to dig deep and find that some are legitimate emails, humanity has
> gained nothing. Sure, I may get rich, but I didn't realize this whole
> discussion was oriented towards /personal/ gain.
So, instead of admitting that they are *all* scams (which would invalidate
your point above, since they are claims made by *many people*), you are
saying that you are not interested in money. Admirable. But why not pursue
them anyway, get the money, and donate it all to a worthy cause that
benefits humanity?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
