 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
On a lighter note:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/apple_claims_new_iphone_only
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] y com> 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.
A "blind test" is when the subjects don't know the nature of the objects
being tested. For example, some people might be given real medicine while
others are given placebos, and these people don't know who is getting what.
But the testers know.
A "double-blind test" is when the testers themselves don't know either
(only people who are completely detached from the testing procedure know,
or in some cases where it's possible, the objects are randomized so that
nobody knows before they are later revealed by examination). This way the
testers themselves cannot affect the outcome or have subconscious bias in
their interpretation of the results because they don't know either.
As an example, James Randi went once to Russia (I think it was still the
Soviet Union back then) to test many so-called supernatural phenomena claimed
to being happening there. In one case some medical professionals were convinced
that a psychic was able to influence the blood pressure and other vital signs
of other people: They had made numerous tests and confirmed that people's
vital signs changed according to what the psychic claimed.
James Randi was a bit sceptic about it and wanted to perform something that
they clearly hadn't been doing: A *double* blind test. Surprisingly, suddenly
the test results and what the psychic claimed became completely contradictory.
The problem became clear: By knowing what to expect, the medical doctors
were interpreting the test results which was output by the machines to
conform the expectations. Even minor random variations seemingly confirming
the expected result were taken as confirmation, while opposing minor random
variations were simply discarded as minor and random. But of course
immediately when they didn't know what to expect, the interpretation became
equally random and didn't match what the psychic said at all.
The doctors were clearly not malicious. They were simply subconsciously
biased and too confident on their own capacity to interpret the results
impartially.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html
I read half way through this thing, and all I saw was people shouting
that the device works or that the device doesn't work. It honestly looks
like they're arguing about a device which might work, but not very well.
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
device works on “electrostatic magnetic ion attraction”.'
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.
"You need more training."
My God... The human race is doomed.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
"Many skeptics doubt its effectiveness."
WTF? On which planet?! Because I'm pretty sure on *this* planet most
rational people would be able to determine pretty quickly that this is a
trivial Get Rich Quick scam.
> http://www.theonion.com/content/news/apple_claims_new_iphone_only
Hahahahaha... Oh, that's nice.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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!
Of course - I would not recommend using a device this highly charged near
any combutible or instable substances, especially when one is doing the
detecting from a few meters away. I am pretty sure if such a device could be
built, it would detect explosives from a few meters distance for sure. Once.
And in a very terminal way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
> device works on “electrostatic magnetic ion attraction”.'
>
> 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
>> device works on “electrostatic magnetic ion attraction”.'
>>
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
wrote:
> 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!
>
> Of course - I would not recommend using a device this highly charged near
> any combutible or instable substances, especially when one is doing the
> detecting from a few meters away. I am pretty sure if such a device could
> be built, it would detect explosives from a few meters distance for sure.
> Once. And in a very terminal way.
Teehee! Good one.
It reminds me of Terry Pratchett's "dragon detector" that CMOT Dibbler was
selling in "Guards! Guards!" - a piece of wood about as long as your hand.
You knew it had detected the dragon when it had burned completely through.
Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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. ;-)
Also if the potential benefits are high enough then even things with a tiny
chance of being successful should be studied.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It reminds me of Terry Pratchett's "dragon detector" that CMOT Dibbler was
> selling in "Guards! Guards!" - a piece of wood about as long as your hand.
>
> You knew it had detected the dragon when it had burned completely through.
>
> Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.
ROTFL! I had completely forgotten about this one!
But there is a difference between CMOT's dragon detector and this gadget
(for want of a better word): The dragon detector, while being completely
useless, will actually to the job. And it is much more reasonably priced.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news: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.
Plus, a high price leaves a healthy margin for bribes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polardcom> 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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
Goes to tell how much influence the so-called "psychics" have had in the
world. Some scammers really do.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/26/09 10:03, 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?
Well, if they did it was decades ago, and the evidence against
psychokinesis wasn't that strong.
I guess my phrasing is poor. There were always lots of _reports_ of it,
so it was worthy of looking in to.
--
"Gentleman, this computer has an auditory sensor. It can, in effect,
hear sounds. By installing a booster, we can increase that capability on
the order of one to the fourth power." - Captain Kirk in "Court Martial".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
>
> Goes to tell how much influence the so-called "psychics" have had in the
> world. Some scammers really do.
Looks to me like the government seriously looked into it, concluded it
was nonesense, and dropped it. Nothing strange about that...
Don't forget, sometimes these bizare claims do have some grain of truth
to them. Obviously the ability to see things before they happen is
nonesense, but old folk tales about plants having magical healing
properties sometimes turn out to be based in part on truth. No harm in
checking it out.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Don't forget, sometimes these bizare claims do have some grain of truth to
> them. Obviously the ability to see things before they happen is nonesense,
> but old folk tales about plants having magical healing properties
> sometimes turn out to be based in part on truth. No harm in checking it
> out.
You are right here. Even the full moon has genuine magical properties. It's
light grants people the power of sight in the dark of night.
To those living in medieval times who wanted to gather any plants with
healing abilties it was probably not a good idea to do it in broad
daylight - at least if being tortured and subsequently burned on a stake is
not your idea of having a good time. Carrying torches to light the dark is
no good idea, either. A torchbearer sees less good in the dark than if he
doesn't carry any light at all... if you ever tried it, you will know.
People carrying torches in the night make an impressive sight for those
standing in the dark (or those watching movies with a medieval theme), but
they themselves will not be able to see much.
That left only nights with a full or nearly full moon to go searching for
herbs, or to get together in secrecy, or to actually notice anything strange
at night. And I suppose that is the reason all the myths of the mystical
powers of the moon really started: the only chance to properly see anything
in the dark in ancient times was to go out in moonlight.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:4b0eab58$1@news.povray.org...
> > 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. ;-)
> Also if the potential benefits are high enough then even things with a
tiny
> chance of being successful should be studied.
That's a fallacy, at least without quantifying that "tiny" (and it's next to
impossible to quantify tiny in most such contexts since the "hypothesis" is
irrational/non-scientific anyway). There's a tiny chance that my house is
built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of dollars,
which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?
Any of us can come of with thousands of such "tiny" probabilities attached
to outrageous gains, that, if we believe the premise, we should spend time
and effort and money to investigate them all. It's a Pascal's wager type
argument.
Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all practical
purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0. Any single
cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted, and the only reasons for an
intelligent human to bother to do such research is employement and
publishing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> There is a phrase that is somewhat over-used on the Internet which none
> the less seems to fit this perfectly.
>
> Truly Epic Failure.
Did you see this?
http://qcjeph.livejournal.com/110229.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
> news:4b0eab58$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>> 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. ;-)
>
>> Also if the potential benefits are high enough then even things with a
> tiny
>> chance of being successful should be studied.
>
> That's a fallacy, at least without quantifying that "tiny" (and it's next to
> impossible to quantify tiny in most such contexts since the "hypothesis" is
> irrational/non-scientific anyway). There's a tiny chance that my house is
> built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of dollars,
> which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?
Is the probability that there is a diamond mine beneath your house
greater than the ratio of the cost the mine would cost to the probable
return? Lets say there is a one in a million chance there is a diamond
pipe there worth several billions, and a mine would only cost a few
thousand dollars. Suddenly, the objection fades away.
Or lets say the diamond pipe is even rarer, 1 in a billion chance, but
the total cost of a mine is only 1 dollar. Would you do it then?
> Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all practical
> purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0. Any single
> cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted, and the only reasons for an
> intelligent human to bother to do such research is employement and
> publishing.
Academic research often searches for things that there is little chance
of creating directly, because the reward for finding it could be very
valuable. Now we know that these phenomena are bunk, but to get to that
knowledge we had to study it. If someone comes up with something that
just 'feels like it is psychic' but has a physical explaination that may
or may not be reality, then discounting it just because your gut says it
is wrong is just as useless as trusting that it works without any proof.
Proof, by the way, is not deploying a stick with a crystal on the end
into the middle a war zone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/26/09 20:20, somebody wrote:
>> Also if the potential benefits are high enough then even things with a
> tiny
>> chance of being successful should be studied.
>
> That's a fallacy, at least without quantifying that "tiny" (and it's next to
> impossible to quantify tiny in most such contexts since the "hypothesis" is
> irrational/non-scientific anyway). There's a tiny chance that my house is
I fail to see how the hypothesis is irrational and non-scientific. At
least not any more than communicating via radio would have been to some
scientist 500 years ago.
> built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of dollars,
> which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?
You've set up a strawman.
> Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all practical
> purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0. Any single
Would that have been obvious to you 150 years ago?
You're suggesting that some decades ago, when numerous people continued
to make claims, at times with witnesses, that it wasn't worthy of
investigation?
> cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted, and the only reasons for an
> intelligent human to bother to do such research is employement and
> publishing.
It seems you're merely redefining "intelligent" to be someone who
doesn't "fall for x", where x is to your choosing.
--
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person
who doesn't get it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b0f5e60$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
> > news:4b0eab58$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >>> 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. ;-)
> >
> >> Also if the potential benefits are high enough then even things with a
> > tiny
> >> chance of being successful should be studied.
> >
> > That's a fallacy, at least without quantifying that "tiny" (and it's
next to
> > impossible to quantify tiny in most such contexts since the "hypothesis"
is
> > irrational/non-scientific anyway). There's a tiny chance that my house
is
> > built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of
dollars,
> > which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?
> Is the probability that there is a diamond mine beneath your house
> greater than the ratio of the cost the mine would cost to the probable
> return? Lets say there is a one in a million chance there is a diamond
> pipe there worth several billions, and a mine would only cost a few
> thousand dollars. Suddenly, the objection fades away.
Proof of the pudding is in the eating. Unless *you* start digging under your
house, my objection stands.
Plus there are two additional issues. One is the law of diminishing returns
(or the utility function, whatever economists like to call it). Second, and
more important, is that we have limited resources (especially time/life
span). A one in googolplex probability of something, even if the potential
return is googolplex ^ googolplex dollars and the cost is one dollar, is not
worth attempting, and for all intents and purposes, that probability is
zero.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/26/2009 11:54 AM, TC wrote:
> ROTFL! I had completely forgotten about this one!
>
> But there is a difference between CMOT's dragon detector and this gadget
> (for want of a better word): The dragon detector, while being completely
> useless, will actually to the job. And it is much more reasonably priced.
So, the bomb detector is effective if you look up and find you don't
have hands?
--
Michael Horvath
mik### [at] gmailcom
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b0f6445$1@news.povray.org...
> On 11/26/09 20:20, somebody wrote:
> >> Also if the potential benefits are high enough then even things with a
> > tiny
> >> chance of being successful should be studied.
> > That's a fallacy, at least without quantifying that "tiny" (and it's
next to
> > impossible to quantify tiny in most such contexts since the "hypothesis"
is
> > irrational/non-scientific anyway). There's a tiny chance that my house
is
> I fail to see how the hypothesis is irrational and non-scientific. At
> least not any more than communicating via radio would have been to some
> scientist 500 years ago.
Just because one (*) thing that was beyond reason 500 years ago turned out
to be true, anything that is beyond reason today has nonzero probability of
being true one day. Right.
(*) OK, I am sure you can list hundereds of such projections. But that would
still be a finite set. On the other hand, nonsensical projections is
practically an unbounded (infinite) set. As a result "they laughed at
Newton, they laughed at Einstein..." doesn't work. There are millions of
"Bozo the Clowns" for each Newton or Einstein.
> > built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of
dollars,
> > which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?
> You've set up a strawman.
How so?
> > Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all
practical
> > purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0. Any single
> Would that have been obvious to you 150 years ago?
I was not alive 150 years ago. And even if I were, it wouldn't be relevant
to what we are talking about today or a couple of decades ago. In fact, I
might have been extremely stupid and gullible just last year, but that
itself doesn't detract what I am saying right now, or excuse others,
especially those in positions of power and influence, to act gullibly or
stupidly.
> You're suggesting that some decades ago, when numerous people continued
> to make claims, at times with witnesses, that it wasn't worthy of
> investigation?
No. I don't even think that the number of people making claims has declined
appreciably, or at all. It might have even increased. Number of outlandish
claims in general, definitely has increased dramatically - just check your
junk mail folder. Numbers mean absolutely nothing in this context,
especially if certain motives are easily visible behind those numbers.
> > cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted, and the only reasons for
an
> > intelligent human to bother to do such research is employement and
> > publishing.
> It seems you're merely redefining "intelligent" to be someone who
> doesn't "fall for x", where x is to your choosing.
Could be. Or maybe you are jumping to conclusions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Also if the potential benefits are high enough then even things with a
>> tiny chance of being successful should be studied.
>
> That's a fallacy, at least without quantifying that "tiny" (and it's next to
> impossible to quantify tiny in most such contexts since the "hypothesis" is
> irrational/non-scientific anyway). There's a tiny chance that my house is
> built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of dollars,
> which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?
Cost/benefit analysis.
Also, diamonds don't turn up my chance. They turn up according to
well-understood rules.
> Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all practical
> purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0.
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.
It was once considered "obvious" that if a person's heart stops beating,
they're dead. The idea that you could make the heart start beating again
and bring them back to life was absurd. (And probably qualifies you as a
practitioner of necromancy, by the way.)
Scientists once thought it "obvious" that all life on Earth derives its
energy from the Sun. There was a probability somewhere between 0 and 0
of finding life in places where the Sun's energy cannot reach... And
then they found the volcanic vents at the bottom of the sea, swarming
with life feeding off of highly toxic chemicals, and the scientists had
to go away and rethink their entire idea of ecosystems.
It was once "obvious" that entire continents cannot move around. How
silly! What could possibly move an entire continent? Oh, and then they
discovered plate tectonics.
If you want to stick to what is "obvious", you're not going to get very far.
> Any single
> cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted,
False.
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.
> and the only reasons for an
> intelligent human to bother to do such research is employement and
> publishing.
Well, I'm sure there are cynical people who do research into absurd
things just to make a living (e.g., the guy who proved that a duck's
quack does in fact echo, or that guy who's still trying to prove that
the MMR vaccine somehow causes autism), but most people are just trying
to be thorough.
Any claim, no matter how stupid it sounds, could turn out to have some
kind of truth to it. Ideas about psychic phenomina have existed for
millennia; it's not unreasonable to suspect some truth to it.
(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 *best way* to determine whether something is crazy or not is not to
stand there and say "that's crazy", but to actually go out and do actual
research and *prove* the answer one way or the other. THIS IS HOW
SCIENCE WORKS!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> > It reminds me of Terry Pratchett's "dragon detector" that CMOT Dibbler was
> > selling in "Guards! Guards!" - a piece of wood about as long as your hand.
> >
> > You knew it had detected the dragon when it had burned completely through.
> >
> > Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.
>
> But there is a difference between CMOT's dragon detector and this gadget
> (for want of a better word): The dragon detector, while being completely
> useless, will actually to the job.
Although there is always the possibility of false positives if the user gets too
close to fires, ovens, lightning etc.
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But there is a difference between CMOT's dragon detector and this gadget
>> (for want of a better word): The dragon detector, while being completely
>> useless, will actually to the job.
>
> Although there is always the possibility of false positives if the user gets too
> close to fires, ovens, lightning etc.
>
> :)
A lot of my clothes have labels which contain helpful instructions like
"keep away from fire". That's good advice to anyone, but I'm not sure
why it's written on the label of my jumper... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Proof of the pudding is in the eating. Unless *you* start digging under your
> house, my objection stands.
>
My apartment complex managers would be very upset if I did that.
Besides, the chance that there is a diamond pipe here is very slim, call
it one in a billion. Since a mine would cost me more than a million, and
the return would be less than 10^15 dollars, there is no reason for me
to do so. Should the price of diamonds sky rocket, that might change.
> Plus there are two additional issues. One is the law of diminishing returns
> (or the utility function, whatever economists like to call it). Second, and
> more important, is that we have limited resources (especially time/life
> span). A one in googolplex probability of something, even if the potential
> return is googolplex ^ googolplex dollars and the cost is one dollar, is not
> worth attempting, and for all intents and purposes, that probability is
> zero.
>
>
To you, maybe that is the case. To me, if I have a 1 in a googolplex
chance of getting g^g returned, I would be spending at least 100 bucks.
Minutely small chances still have a non-zero chance of occuring. Lets
say that, over some time, 100 googolplex people played this chance game
once each. Chances are that 100 people would have gotten that massive
return.
Now, I can't get WolframAlpha to solve the birthday paradox for that
large of a number, but the formula should be
((10^(10^100))!)/(((10^(10^100))^n)(((10^(10^100))-n)!))
or prettier
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((10^(10^100))!)/(((10^(10^100))^n)(((10^(10^100))-n)!))%3D0.50
Now, if what you really mean is that there is a one in a googolplex
chance that the chance of winning is non-zero, that would be a different
story.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b0fc0f4@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> To you, maybe that is the case. To me, if I have a 1 in a googolplex
> chance of getting g^g returned, I would be spending at least 100 bucks.
> Minutely small chances still have a non-zero chance of occuring. Lets
> say that, over some time, 100 googolplex people played this chance game
> once each. Chances are that 100 people would have gotten that massive
> return.
Ah but I am not 100 googolplex people. Nor can I play the game 100
googolplex times. Neither, for that matter, can whole of humanity even if we
dedicate every second to the job, even if jackpot is infinite. This is where
naive application of calculating returns fails: We don't have unlimited
time/tries for games with vanishingly small probabilities to make playable,
no matter what the payout. See St Petersburg paradox.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/27/09 00:47, somebody wrote:
>> I fail to see how the hypothesis is irrational and non-scientific. At
>> least not any more than communicating via radio would have been to some
>> scientist 500 years ago.
>
> Just because one (*) thing that was beyond reason 500 years ago turned out
> to be true, anything that is beyond reason today has nonzero probability of
> being true one day. Right.
Strawman. You're suggesting that I suggested that anything under this
sun is worthy of investigating.
> Newton, they laughed at Einstein..." doesn't work. There are millions of
> "Bozo the Clowns" for each Newton or Einstein.
The statement is irrelevant, unless you have a criterion for
differentiating future Bozos from future Einsteins.
>>> built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of
> dollars,
>>> which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?
>
>> 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.
See comment at end of message.
>> Would that have been obvious to you 150 years ago?
>
> I was not alive 150 years ago. And even if I were, it wouldn't be relevant
> to what we are talking about today or a couple of decades ago. In fact, I
> might have been extremely stupid and gullible just last year, but that
> itself doesn't detract what I am saying right now, or excuse others,
> especially those in positions of power and influence, to act gullibly or
> stupidly.
>
>> You're suggesting that some decades ago, when numerous people continued
>> to make claims, at times with witnesses, that it wasn't worthy of
>> investigation?
>
> No. I don't even think that the number of people making claims has declined
> appreciably, or at all. It might have even increased. Number of outlandish
> claims in general, definitely has increased dramatically - just check your
> junk mail folder. Numbers mean absolutely nothing in this context,
> especially if certain motives are easily visible behind those numbers.
>
>>> cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted, and the only reasons for
> an
>>> intelligent human to bother to do such research is employement and
>>> publishing.
>
>> It seems you're merely redefining "intelligent" to be someone who
>> doesn't "fall for x", where x is to your choosing.
>
> Could be. Or maybe you are jumping to conclusions.
In all of your messages on the topic, you've not given a *single*
reason why such research was ridiculous, beyond "outrageous", and
"intelligent" people should know better. Which is just a sophisticated
way of saying "because I said so".
I _could_ expand further on my points, but since you don't seem to be
willing to elaborate, I certainly won't. Come back when you actually
want to have a discussion that's not supported by your feelings.
--
Q: What do you call a half-dozen Indians with Asian flu?
A: Six sick Sikhs (sic).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
> news:4b0fc0f4@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>
>> To you, maybe that is the case. To me, if I have a 1 in a googolplex
>> chance of getting g^g returned, I would be spending at least 100 bucks.
>> Minutely small chances still have a non-zero chance of occuring. Lets
>> say that, over some time, 100 googolplex people played this chance game
>> once each. Chances are that 100 people would have gotten that massive
>> return.
>
> Ah but I am not 100 googolplex people. Nor can I play the game 100
> googolplex times. Neither, for that matter, can whole of humanity even if we
> dedicate every second to the job, even if jackpot is infinite. This is where
> naive application of calculating returns fails: We don't have unlimited
> time/tries for games with vanishingly small probabilities to make playable,
> no matter what the payout. See St Petersburg paradox.
>
>
Wait, first you set up the hypothetical lottery and, when I propose that
it would be profitable to the people playing, you then argue that the
setup you provided was flawed because no one would ever offer it? You
set up the straw man, I demonstrate that it still doesn't apply, and my
argument is invalid because I argued with the straw man? You picked the
big numbers, I proved that it would be worth the investment. If you want
to argue that small probabilities have no chance of providing valuable
returns, pick numbers that don't reinforce the point you are arguing again.
Besides, once you pick numbers over a googol I assumed you had to be
talking purely hypothetical. We don't have the coin to represent a
googol in any currency, much less a googolplex.
Look, the St Petersburg paradox does not say that the value gained by
the player is too low for the effort the put into it. It doesn't argue
that there is no price that makes it worth playing, quite the opposite.
Any price set for the St Petersburg lottery is a good bet for the
player, if they have the time to play it out. Then you have the value of
time to figure out, some people value it as priceless, while others
place an infinite value on every second. That infinite value does
provide for a nice solution to the St Petersburg problem, though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (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...)
>
It is nonsense. The people claiming that it isn't are either making up
the research (this isn't uncommon), or ignoring the fact that such
chemical changes can happen even if you a) do it bloody wrong, or b)
without actually puncturing the skin. Hell, I would be willing to even
bet that you could use something that claimed to "beam" magnetic waves
at the key points, make it entirely out of plastic, with no working
parts, and people would still have "chemical changes". If anything, one
has to ask, "Why is it that these claims of chemical changes show up
only *after* people have begun discrediting the prior claims?" You get
the same thing with Chiropractic treatment. The whole **entire** thing
it based on claims of a) misalignments that no medical technique or
machine, including the best MRIs, etc. and other methods we have,
can/have/ever detect, but which the practitioners claim they can "feel",
b) the idea that **all** disease, this means everything from, on one
extreme end *Ebola*, to, on the other end, mild headaches, is the result
of "spinal misalignments", not, you know.. actual diseases of problems.
*True* practitioners actually believe this, which is why you have dead
people, including children, showing up, no and then, on the news, who
went to get their kid treated for non-existent problems, and/or the
common cold. It *is* effective, when it applies itself to the *same* set
of skills that Osteopathy does, which involves the lower back, and
*real* misalignments. Just one problem.. You don't find very many
Osteopaths any more, because a) all the Chiropractors have taken over
their business, and b) the results are usually not any better, and can
be worse, than "other" therapies for the condition. Acupuncture is just
a form of Chiropractic treatment, with needles, and a **far** smaller
chance of it killing you if they screw up.
Why are people still allowed to practice? Because it has been, and still
is, the first and most prominent "accepted" alternative medicine
practice in the country, and **is not**, nor ever has been, covered
under the same rules as the rest of the medical community, including,
ironically, the Osteopaths, who went out of business as a result.
Oh, and you can find "changes" in chiropractic patients too. Its called
"temporary or permanent nerve damage, resulting in numbness.", if you
are lucky. Not so lucky.. you end up with a nicked artery during neck
manipulation, which is virtually impossible to do *safely* every single
time, and 24 hours later end up on a slab in someone's morgue.
All things being equal, accupuncture/pressure, and the host of other
"Feng Shui for the body" methods out there, which like Feng Shui, no two
practitioners can bloody agree on, if they are using a different
"technique", and which seem to work just as well, even when making shit
up about which points do what, is the one I would prefer, if I had to
take it, since I would at least be 99.9999% sure I would live through
the experience. Ironically, if I had **real** non-imaginary, lower back
problems, I would have to pick the other set of loonies, and walk in
with a steel collar, to keep them from doing more than just accidentally
paralyzing me.
There is a lot of quack BS considered *accepted* in medicine,
unfortunately, and plenty of people willing to believe almost anything
claimed by its proponents, even *after* seeing the evidence. But then,
why should medicine be any different than politics, religion, history,
or anything else where you see the same?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
>>
>> Goes to tell how much influence the so-called "psychics" have had in
>> the
>> world. Some scammers really do.
>
> Looks to me like the government seriously looked into it, concluded it
> was nonesense, and dropped it. Nothing strange about that...
>
One would wish that they didn't have to "keep" looking into it though.
The same stupid BS being sold in these articles.. was an item "rejected"
after being shown how they didn't work, by the ATF, for the purposes of
looking for drugs in the US. I am serious, some similar half wits in our
own law enforcement agencies *thought* it made sense, and might work,
and where convinced by initial demonstrations. The difference? Over here
they brought in experts on debunking such BS to double check, *before*
spending millions of the stupid things, and even then, it wasn't someone
else that brought them in, not the people who original sought the
original "demonstration", from the con artists selling them.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b101e6d$1@news.povray.org...
> Wait, first you set up the hypothetical lottery and, when I propose that
> it would be profitable to the people playing, you then argue that the
> setup you provided was flawed because no one would ever offer it?
No, I'm saying no one in his right mind should *play* it.
I know *offering* is sometimes proposed as a solution to the St Petersburg
paradox, but that's a red herring and not the correct "solution".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b0feda0$1@news.povray.org...
> On 11/27/09 00:47, somebody wrote:
> >> I fail to see how the hypothesis is irrational and non-scientific. At
> >> least not any more than communicating via radio would have been to some
> >> scientist 500 years ago.
> > Just because one (*) thing that was beyond reason 500 years ago turned
out
> > to be true, anything that is beyond reason today has nonzero probability
of
> > being true one day. Right.
> Strawman. You're suggesting that I suggested that anything under this
> sun is worthy of investigating.
Then riddle me this: How do we determine what's worthy of investigating?
> > Newton, they laughed at Einstein..." doesn't work. There are millions of
> > "Bozo the Clowns" for each Newton or Einstein.
> The statement is irrelevant, unless you have a criterion for
> differentiating future Bozos from future Einsteins.
Exactly. Lacking evidence one way or the other, odds are, the person making
extraordinary predictions is a Bozo.
In other words, odds are, all paranormal claims are nonsense. To even
*begin* investigating, there has to be some extraordinary supporting
evidence.
> >>> built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of
> > dollars,
> >>> which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?
> >> 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?
> See comment at end of message.
> > Could be. Or maybe you are jumping to conclusions.
>
> In all of your messages on the topic, you've not given a *single*
> reason why such research was ridiculous, beyond "outrageous", and
> "intelligent" people should know better. Which is just a sophisticated
> way of saying "because I said so".
>
> I _could_ expand further on my points, but since you don't seem to be
> willing to elaborate, I certainly won't. Come back when you actually
> want to have a discussion that's not supported by your feelings.
My argument (not feeling) is, there is a finite set of confirmed truths at
any finite time, but potentially uncountably many falsehoods. Unless there's
good evidence *before* we start, we cannot simply waste time investigating
anything and everything. The onus is on who deem paranormal investigation is
worthy to show that the paranormal claim in question is somehow different
than all these falsehoods.
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b0fa022$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?
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 *best way* to determine whether something is crazy or not is not to
> stand there and say "that's crazy", but to actually go out and do actual
> research and *prove* the answer one way or the other. THIS IS HOW
> SCIENCE WORKS!
Paranormal is by definition outside the scope of science. You cannot prove
"the answer the other way".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/27/09 17:18, somebody wrote:
>>> Newton, they laughed at Einstein..." doesn't work. There are millions of
>>> "Bozo the Clowns" for each Newton or Einstein.
>
>> The statement is irrelevant, unless you have a criterion for
>> differentiating future Bozos from future Einsteins.
>
> Exactly. Lacking evidence one way or the other, odds are, the person making
> extraordinary predictions is a Bozo.
Except that evidence wasn't lacking.
> In other words, odds are, all paranormal claims are nonsense.
Again, it seems you're merely defining "nonsense" to your tastes.
> To even
> *begin* investigating, there has to be some extraordinary supporting
> evidence.
Nope. To *confirm* it you need extraordinary evidence. To *begin*
investigating it you need very little.
>>>>> built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of
>>> dollars,
>>>>> which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?
>
>>>> 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.
The only way your analogy is valid is if suddenly some researchers
decided to suddenly do research on psychokinetic activity without even
knowing that some people claim it exists.
> My argument (not feeling) is, there is a finite set of confirmed truths at
> any finite time, but potentially uncountably many falsehoods. Unless there's
> good evidence *before* we start, we cannot simply waste time investigating
> anything and everything. The onus is on who deem paranormal investigation is
Except no one suggested studying "anything and everything".
> worthy to show that the paranormal claim in question is somehow different
> than all these falsehoods.
Actually, no - unless you clarify what you mean by "all these
falsehoods" - keeping in mind that a number of these had not been
determined to be falsehoods.
> 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.
--
Q: What do you call a half-dozen Indians with Asian flu?
A: Six sick Sikhs (sic).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There are many strange things in life. Some can be attributed to chance -
but all?
Many truths, things that are completely clear and self-evident, are
overthrown in time. Because some known fools, wastrels and heretics did do
some thinking and, later, some experiments.
Once it was known as true that the earth is a disc. Jerusalem was the center
of the earth, the sun and the planets were proven to revolve around the
earth. Look into the old theories of epicycles and hypocycles which were
used to explain the movements of the planets scientifically. Today we know
better.
Or let's look at more recent scientific turnarounds: just ten years ago it
was known to everybody in the medical sciences that the one sure treatment
for stomach ulcers was to cut them out. Only fools could believe that a
bacterium could survive the hydrochloric acid found in our stomachs.
Self-evident fact. Only a complete imbecile, an idiot and a charlatan would
believe otherwise. Research in this area was, of course, a complete waste of
resources, better to throw the money down the drain.
And along came the discovery of Helicobacter Pylori. Today we all know
better - the surgeons were the bloody fools, in the truest sense of the
word. Instead of cutting people open and mutilating them we now take a
combination of two antibiotics and, given a bit time, we are cured.
Who am I to know what is really possible and what not?
Nothing can be faster than the speed of light? Proven fact!
Well - sorry folks, but the statement above is actually false, as any
physicist knows. There are things like group-velocities and
phase-velocities: the group velocity can exceed c, no problem. So currently
the accepted lore is "no signal can be transmitted at speeds faster than
light". But who knows what the next fool will discover?
There may be things like dark matter and dark energy. Astrophysicists know
that either currently accepted theories are very false (which is highly
improbable but certainly not impossible) or that more than half of the
universe is made of an energy and a form of matter which nobody has every
seen or detected but whose existence can be inferred from experimental
results - if current scientifical theories are valid.
Finally there is the unknowable. What was before the big bang? How did the
universe come to exist? And where does it exist in? If fluctuations of
vacuum energy really did cause our universe to be, why was there a vacuum in
the first place and where was it in? If "branes" did collide, where did they
collide in and how did they come to be into existence, and how came the
place they did collide in come into existence? I doubt we will ever know the
answer to those questions.
But to matters at hand: yes, I do believe that most psychics are frauds. But
I cannot prove that all are. And maybe some are not... I do not know. I
never met the genuine article.
However: today we can detect brainwaves. We can communicate on an extremely
basic level by thought alone (e.g. simple yes-no answers) - granted, we need
a lot of equipment, but it works. And given enough time and research, who
knows what we will eventually discover and what will be proven fact in a few
centuries time?
I find the idea of telepathy or other psychic phenomena much more probable
than the idea of the existence of an abstract "god - being" in general and
the validity of any existing religion in particular. However, billions of
people think otherwise...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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. ;-)
Point taken... I've often wondered just how many $ or comecon roubles went
into that before they scientifically decided "nawww..."
The idea of course being that there very likely isn't a more effective
device for making money disappear like a military research organization or
project! If it is for some pipe-dream project or something a lay person
could have told you was utter drivel beforehand, so much the better.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
