 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] ieee org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b111fbd$1@news.povray.org...
> >> 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.
Person A: I can read minds.
Scientist: Hypothesis: Some people can read minds. Sure, let's test it.
- Test yields a negative result -
Person A: I was off that day. I cannot read minds on Fridays.
Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test on a Monday.
- Test yields a negative result -
Person A: The room was too cold. It doesn't work in the cold.
Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test in a warmer room.
- Test yields a negative result -
Person A: There are too many lights. I cannot concentrate.
Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test in the dark.
- Test yields a negative result -
Person A: Today's subjects were antagonistic. It doesn't work with
everybody.
Scientist: Sure, let's find new subjects.
Person A: No, I've had enough. I don't have to prove myself to you.
- next day -
Person B: I can read minds.
... rinse and repeat.
So what did the scientist "prove"? Even if she tests a million people with
negative results, she can not conclude that reading minds is not possible
because there will be a million and first person making the same claim or a
similar claim with minor variations. The supposed hypothesis stated at the
beginning was patently inadequate and nonsensical, for she did not take into
account the effect of Fridays, temperature of the room, alignment of moon
and venus, the effect of coffee... etc, all of which the subject made up on
the way. Not only that, but one cannot disprove *some* without exhaustive
search. Do you think scientists should investigate if "some" apples might
fall up?
A claim itself is not evidence (unlike what some people here seem to think).
With paranormal, there are only personal/subjective claims.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b11384d$1@news.povray.org...
> 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...
Sure, and at one point, all proto humans were hurling feces at each other.
None of this is relevant to the question of *modern* science investigating
paranormal *today*.
There are many myths about "establishment" of science wholesale laughing at
"maverick" thinkers who end up proving themselves, be it flat earth or
impossibility of heavier than air flight.
But there's a deeper issue here as well besides rewriting history to fit a
hollywood theme: If someone makes the correct (as proven later) prediction
based on faulty reasoning and/or insufficient data, are those contemporaries
laughing at him correct in doing so or not? With billions of people
expressing billions of opinions today, some are bound to make predictions
that, to a future generation, may appear to be spot on. But if that person,
at this time, is unable to provide supporting evidence or articulate a
reasoning for his prediction, I feel I would be correct at laughing at him.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b11abcc$1@news.povray.org...
> 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?
Good question, with complicated answers. If people in position of trust
telling the populace that economy is recovering makes economy recover, why
(and we not) not do that? Isn't a doctor telling you that taking aspiring
will make you feel better already pushing an extra placebo bias, even when
aspirin would have healing effect without his endorsement?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
> news:4b11abcc$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> 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?
>
> Good question, with complicated answers. If people in position of trust
> telling the populace that economy is recovering makes economy recover, why
> (and we not) not do that?
Different type of trust between populous and expert. Government experts
are appointed outside your control, doctors you can change if you
dislike how the current one handles your visits. Plus, you add the
assumption that telling the populous the economy is getting better will
have the result of it getting better, without any proof that this is the
case.
So, bad analogy or straw man.
> Isn't a doctor telling you that taking aspiring
> will make you feel better already pushing an extra placebo bias, even when
> aspirin would have healing effect without his endorsement?
Yes, it is. And yet, that has been the standard doctor advice since
Aspirin was trademarked. So much so that "Take two of these and call me
in the morning" is a common phrase. I do not see the problem with using
placebo bias to treat common and non-threatening ailments, where the
placebo is as effective or more so than complex prescriptions. Even if
it is marginally less effective, if the placebo has fewer side effects
it may still be a better treatment for certain patients.
"So, Mrs Soandso, we have two drugs we can treat you with today. This
one is the latest that some company is paying me to push, and has lots
of side effects. This other one is a little less effective, but has
roughly the same side effects as Aspirin. Both should help you feel
better in a few days. Which would you like me to send you home with?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> But there's a deeper issue here as well besides rewriting history to fit a
> hollywood theme: If someone makes the correct (as proven later) prediction
> based on faulty reasoning and/or insufficient data, are those contemporaries
> laughing at him correct in doing so or not? With billions of people
> expressing billions of opinions today, some are bound to make predictions
> that, to a future generation, may appear to be spot on. But if that person,
> at this time, is unable to provide supporting evidence or articulate a
> reasoning for his prediction, I feel I would be correct at laughing at him.
What if that person got together some money and did some actual
investigations into their predictions. By providing a testable
hypothesis, statistically and scientifically sound testing, and found
some results, either confirming, disproving, or offering no conclusive
proof. Person takes confirmation as vindication, disproving as reason to
rethink their stance, and the last as reason to refine their experiment.
Still laughable?
What if instead of doing it all themself, they talked it out with some
academics and convinced them it was worth investigating. The same was
done: hypothesis, scientific testing, etc. End with same possible
results. Still laughable?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Not only that, but one cannot disprove *some* without exhaustive
> search. Do you think scientists should investigate if "some" apples might
> fall up?
They are, see physics and astronomical research into antigravity and
negative mass.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
