Are they for real?
Oct 16th 2011, 8:02 pm
#31
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,807
Oct 16th 2011, 9:04 pm
#33
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Are they for real?
For those who don't know the answer....
Oct 16th 2011, 11:04 pm
#35
Demi-God
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Far North Queensland
Posts: 2,812
Re: Are they for real?
I think the lack of understanding is extraordinarily important.
What is demonstrated is a complete lack of knowledge of how the world works, and this leads to the widespread belief in all sorts of whacky notions - homeopathy, UFOs, dowsing, tarot readings, astrology, crystals, telepathy, pyramids, hands-on healing, religions...
What is demonstrated is a complete lack of knowledge of how the world works, and this leads to the widespread belief in all sorts of whacky notions - homeopathy, UFOs, dowsing, tarot readings, astrology, crystals, telepathy, pyramids, hands-on healing, religions...
Wouldn't want you to leave out the biggest pseudoscience scam of recent years, Old Thing. It certainly hasn't been shown to be "real" under any properly controlled experimental conditions except those punched into a computer model. And you are very right, a scientifically uneducated public are completely at the mercy of this sort of scam.
Oct 16th 2011, 11:38 pm
#36
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,600
Re: Are they for real?
Oct 16th 2011, 11:41 pm
#37
has lost The Game
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Chippendale, Sydney
Posts: 8,735
Re: Are they for real?
But they never really landed on the moon did they. I was all filmed on a set out in the desert somewhere, but one or two of the 'astronauts' tried to escape to tell the media the real story. I think they were recaptured and killed. I think Jimmy Carter was the President at the time, or it might've been that Nixon chap.
Erm, wasn't that a movie?
S
Oct 16th 2011, 11:44 pm
#38
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,600
Re: Are they for real?
I think the lack of understanding is extraordinarily important.
What is demonstrated is a complete lack of knowledge of how the world works, and this leads to the widespread belief in all sorts of whacky notions - homeopathy, UFOs, dowsing, tarot readings, astrology, crystals, telepathy, pyramids, hands-on healing, religions - you name it. Not one of them has ever been demonstrated to be "real" under properly controlled experimental conditions - only shown to be mistaken, random or more often fraudulent.
You only have to look at the yards and yards of books dealing with the whacky in the booksellers to see how the irrational has taken hold.
These floozies almost certainly have and use smartphones: their iphones didn't appear magically because some longhaired guru stuffed together a few bits of wire and a crystal and declared it would enable you to talk to someone the other side of the planet. They were the result of years of finding out how nature works, developing electronics, metallurgy, plastics and all the rest.
If we've sunk so low in the intelligence stakes that maths is seen to be all relative, that two plus two makes five if you really believe it does, then pretty soon the price of lettuce in Coles won't matter - because no-one will know how to make the equipment and infrastructure that gets it there.
What is demonstrated is a complete lack of knowledge of how the world works, and this leads to the widespread belief in all sorts of whacky notions - homeopathy, UFOs, dowsing, tarot readings, astrology, crystals, telepathy, pyramids, hands-on healing, religions - you name it. Not one of them has ever been demonstrated to be "real" under properly controlled experimental conditions - only shown to be mistaken, random or more often fraudulent.
You only have to look at the yards and yards of books dealing with the whacky in the booksellers to see how the irrational has taken hold.
These floozies almost certainly have and use smartphones: their iphones didn't appear magically because some longhaired guru stuffed together a few bits of wire and a crystal and declared it would enable you to talk to someone the other side of the planet. They were the result of years of finding out how nature works, developing electronics, metallurgy, plastics and all the rest.
If we've sunk so low in the intelligence stakes that maths is seen to be all relative, that two plus two makes five if you really believe it does, then pretty soon the price of lettuce in Coles won't matter - because no-one will know how to make the equipment and infrastructure that gets it there.
Oct 17th 2011, 3:03 am
#40
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: Are they for real?
Oct 17th 2011, 3:18 am
#41
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,526
Re: Are they for real?
I think the lack of understanding is extraordinarily important.
What is demonstrated is a complete lack of knowledge of how the world works, and this leads to the widespread belief in all sorts of whacky notions - homeopathy, UFOs, dowsing, tarot readings, astrology, crystals, telepathy, pyramids, hands-on healing, religions - you name it. Not one of them has ever been demonstrated to be "real" under properly controlled experimental conditions - only shown to be mistaken, random or more often fraudulent.
Y
What is demonstrated is a complete lack of knowledge of how the world works, and this leads to the widespread belief in all sorts of whacky notions - homeopathy, UFOs, dowsing, tarot readings, astrology, crystals, telepathy, pyramids, hands-on healing, religions - you name it. Not one of them has ever been demonstrated to be "real" under properly controlled experimental conditions - only shown to be mistaken, random or more often fraudulent.
Y
Light Wave or Particle ?
Vacuum Empty or full of unknown matter ?
Gravity.... where/what is it and why did it exist before the big bang... if there was indeed a big bang ?
Oct 17th 2011, 3:41 am
#42
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Are they for real?
Problem I have with all of this is you can link today's supposedly advanced science especially in relation to understanding the Universe in with the other whacky notions. Our understanding of the Universe is still at the whacky stage.
Light Wave or Particle ?
Vacuum Empty or full of unknown matter ?
Gravity.... where/what is it and why did it exist before the big bang... if there was indeed a big bang ?
Light Wave or Particle ?
Vacuum Empty or full of unknown matter ?
Gravity.... where/what is it and why did it exist before the big bang... if there was indeed a big bang ?
The Universe should have more in it than we can see... so lets invent something we can't see to make up the difference and call it dark matter. Now all the theories fit nicely... right up until the point where those theories start to unravel as they seem to be doing right now.
Oct 17th 2011, 4:09 am
#43
Demi-God
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Far North Queensland
Posts: 2,812
Re: Are they for real?
'Dark Matter' is a cracking example of that....
The Universe should have more in it than we can see... so lets invent something we can't see to make up the difference and call it dark matter. Now all the theories fit nicely... right up until the point where those theories start to unravel as they seem to be doing right now.
The Universe should have more in it than we can see... so lets invent something we can't see to make up the difference and call it dark matter. Now all the theories fit nicely... right up until the point where those theories start to unravel as they seem to be doing right now.
On the other hand, if God didn't make the world in seven days, then the whole Bible is as much closely printed toilet paper.
Oct 17th 2011, 4:11 am
#44
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,600
Re: Are they for real?
'Dark Matter' is a cracking example of that....
The Universe should have more in it than we can see... so lets invent something we can't see to make up the difference and call it dark matter. Now all the theories fit nicely... right up until the point where those theories start to unravel as they seem to be doing right now.
The Universe should have more in it than we can see... so lets invent something we can't see to make up the difference and call it dark matter. Now all the theories fit nicely... right up until the point where those theories start to unravel as they seem to be doing right now.
Oct 17th 2011, 4:31 am
#45
has lost The Game
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Chippendale, Sydney
Posts: 8,735
Re: Are they for real?
'Dark Matter' is a cracking example of that....
The Universe should have more in it than we can see... so lets invent something we can't see to make up the difference and call it dark matter. Now all the theories fit nicely... right up until the point where those theories start to unravel as they seem to be doing right now.
The Universe should have more in it than we can see... so lets invent something we can't see to make up the difference and call it dark matter. Now all the theories fit nicely... right up until the point where those theories start to unravel as they seem to be doing right now.
Science is full of stuff like that - things that don't quite fit into our current understanding, so we have to put a 'placeholder' theory in position until we do understand exactly what is going on.
Dark matter is a great example of that - the mass of objects within the universe is something that can only really be estimated by examining the effects that they have on the gravity around them. With dark matter, astronomers can see that there is something having some sort of gravitational effect on the universe around it, but at this distance can't see exactly what it is. So they suggest the theory of dark matter. The race now is to refine that theory, and find out what is exactly causing the effects they are seeing.
The beauty of scientific theory is that scientists will always strive to better their knowledge and understanding of something, and in many cases, this means throwing out what they originally thought was fact. If the new evidence teaches away from what is already known, then there's good chance that what was already known was wrong. A layman's example of this would be the earth being flat and it later being discovered to be spherical. A more advanced example being the plum pudding model of the atom: Just over 100 years ago, scientist thought that atoms were a mass of positive charge with negative charge dotted over it randomly, like a plum pudding. This was disproved by Rutherford in 1909, and his alpha particle scattering experiment, which created the foundation to our current theories of the atom.
This is the key difference between science and belief. Science works on the basis of evidence, and can be considered to be a constantly changing flux of evidence and theories. Belief on the other hand relies on dogmatic acceptance of what is being told, and doesn't accept any questioning of that teaching. It also conveniently obviates the need to seek any evidence for its support because you have to accept it 'on faith' or be cast out as a denier.
S
