 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 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:
> 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 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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"?
That if this ability does exist, it's far too rare and/or unreliable to
be useful for military purposes, which was the point of the study.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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 military weren't studying the entire zoo of paranormal claims, they
studied one specific aspect: the claim that certain people can see
events distant in space and possibly time. This one is quite easy to
verify one way or the other. They tried; the statistics were
unimpressive; they gave up and shut down the project. Seems like a
non-WTF to me.
> Its been tested and retested ***over and over*** thousands of times,
It has *now*. Not sure about back when this study was done...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b1240c8$1@news.povray.org...
> 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?
No, but that's a posteriori. Anyone may make a claim without good reason or
evidence, and I can justifiably laugh at him (for making a claim without
supporting reasoning or data). That's present time. That same person, in the
next 10 years, may actually work very hard to prove his claim, and let's say
it turns out to be correct (whether it was dumb luck or unexplainable genius
behind him making such a claim 10 years before he had any evidence, matters
not). But that won't change the fact that at the time he made the claim, he
did not know enough to make it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> 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,
Well, we know that *now*. 50 years ago, before someone studied it
scientifically, it wasn't quite so obvious.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
