throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (03/03/86)
> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) I think some of the points are valid, but I also think many are not. In particular, the statement > Any theory can be proven false by ignoring the supporting evidence. is odd and, it seems to me, misleading. First, theories in science are "proven" false by finding contradicting evidence, not by lack of supporting evidence. Second, no "scientific theory" is ultimately provable in any event... *all* accepted scientific theories are in a state of "not yet disproved". Another major problem is that in the examples given (like UFOs, Parapsychology, Bermuda Triangle, and so on), "science" hasn't rejected the *phenomena*. "Science" has rejected a popular *interpretation* of the phenomena. The distinction is important. [ Note that I'm not claiming that "science" never rejects phenomena wrongly. One of the worst examples is the decision by some French scientific bureaucracy to assume that all reports of stones falling from the sky were hoaxes or mistakes. ] For the most part, "science" doesn't doubt that people see flying objects, get hunches, get lost near Bermuda, and so on and on. What "science" doubts is that these things are caused by LGM, "psychic powers", or whatever-the-latest-fad-about-the-triangle-is. What is needed is for the explaination to explain something (already known or newly discovered) that more traditional explainations do not, while at the same time not contradicting any (or rather, too many) other known things. Most of the subjects Rex lists as currently "taboo" to science have flaws in one or both of these areas. That is, they don't explain the data any better, or they contradict other known data. And from this, I conclude that the *subjects* are not taboo, but the *explainations* from the data *are* (and rightly so, for the most part). > Someone has to search before you can research. I think that the search (and research) is ongoing and healthy. (It could, of course go on more and be more healthy.) What many seem to find unacceptable is an "I don't know" response to any question. To me, it seems much more damaging to say "I *do* know" prematurely. To me, "Fringe science" seems much more guilty of premature ossification than "establishment science". Things are constantly being moved from the "taboo" category to the "well-trusted theory" category. One of the recent moves of this type was "plate tectonics". Originally ridiculed (even though it explained much) because it had no mechanism to "drive" the movement, it became more and more accepted (and is now in the "cannon") when this mechanism was discovered (sea-floor spreading). Thus, I think that one's favorite fringe science can be made acceptable to the "establishment". All one needs to do is find the evidence. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
tino@hou2f.UUCP (A.TINO) (03/04/86)
In <435@ccivax.UUCP> Rex Ballard writes: >Has science become a bastion of ignorance? >Ignorance is best defined as "contempt prior to investigation". Ignorance means "lack of knowledge" not "contempt prior to investigation". The latter is more a definition of dogmatism. >For some reason, it seems that there is a whole realm of "phenomena" which >merits scientific investigation, and is being ignored as "crackpot science". Where is the evidence-- and I mean EVIDENCE, not anecdotal reports appearing in The National Enquirer-- that these so-called phenomena even exist? >There are a whole arenas where "we can't explain it" so "it isn't an >'official' science". Once somebody has done a study, the book is closed, >even though there are no answers. Here we go again! Every time someone makes a ridiculous claim-- that they can bend spoons, that they've been kidnapped by aliens, that they can grow hair via pyramid power, whatever-- why is it up to science to explain it? Doesn't it occur to the wary observer that these claims are a tad suspicious? That they are quite possibly pure hogwash? And whenever a serious observer does take the time to examine these "claims of the paranormal" they usually find either a con artist or nothing at all. But does that shake the faith of the true believer? Of course not. No matter how often these claims are shown to be nonsense, there will always be souls who will insist on believing anyway. The problem isn't that science can't explain these things, but that these things often just don't exist. Much of what is labeled "crackpot science" is based on a gross misunderstanding of "legitimate" science and a willingness to believe in something despite the lack of evidence. Before something can be studied, let's get some hard evidence that there is something worth studying. _______ Al Tino ..!hou2f!tino
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) (03/04/86)
In article <435@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: >Has science become a bastion of ignorance? >Ignorance is best defined as "contempt prior to investigation". I've never seen such a definition of "ignorance" before. It seems backwards to me. It seems to me that your posting is much closer to a demonstration of ignorance, since you claim that several areas of active scientific investigation are "taboos", and seem to believe several common myths without any evidence at all. >Some of sciences "taboos": >UFO's and Alien life. - Blue Book didn't even say they didn't exist! You mean you aren't aware of the well-funded programs to search for extraterrestrial intelligence? What is "Blue Book"? >Parapsychology. The AAAS recognizes parapsychology as a science (some want to reverse this). >Metaphysics. What aspect of metaphysics would you like to have investigated? Aristotle called it "metaphysics" because his previous book was called "physics"; there's little other connection. >Anthropological Anachronisms(Egyptian Science, 2.8 million year old Modern Man) Evidence? >Bermuda Triangle and similar dissappearances. This is no mystery. This area has been one of the most heavily used shipping areas since the 1500's, and has always had lots of pirates. In the old days, they stole gold; now they steal ships for use in the drug trade. It also has some of the worst weather in the world. There was a book that successfully debunked most of the Bermuda Triangle stuff; I forget the title. Naturally it didn't sell well. >A possible "sunken city" in the Triangle. Flat out impossible. Because of the heavy use for shipping the area gets, the undersea terrain has been thoroughly mapped. No city. You've been reading too many "Sub-Mariner" comic books. >The Egyptian "merchants code". You'll have to explain this. >Creationism (any theory that "Higher Intellegence" may have interfered with > the evolutionary process at any time). Now hang on. You can't have 2.8 million year old modern man and creationism too. No one has shown any necessity for such interference at this point; any "higher intelligence" hid his/her/its tracks very well. >But then look at some of the old "taboos": >Natural Child-Birth. This was never a "taboo". It was standard practice before hospitals were available, and at least in the past, one of the leading causes of death in women was childbirth. It was safer for the woman to be in the hospital with extensive medical care available. Now that medicine has advanced, more options are open. >Clinical and Applied Psychology. I wish this were more of a "taboo" than it is. Studies show that as many people are hurt as are helped by therapy. >Manned flight. You have a bit of a point here. But even though some people said it couldn't be done, others kept trying. >Acupuncture. This was unknown in the West, but when it became known, scientists attempted to learn how it worked, not to suppress it as you suggest. The result taught Eastern doctors a few things. >Shaman medicine or Witch Doctors. There has been lots of work on the "placebo effect" as well as serious studies of the medicinal uses of herbs. A lot of the problems are with American patent law, not with "science": you can't patent a natural substance that fights disease, only a synthetic one. So the main problem here is capitalism. >"Anti-matter" (Quantum Physics). This is stupid. No one thought of antimatter until it fell out of a scientist's equation. Scientists proposed quantum theory; other scientists PROPERLY demanded proof that the theory is correct. >4th and 5th Dimension. (The count is 12, last I read) Yes, but these dimensions have nothing at all to do with the dimensions of the pseudo-scientists. They aren't different places where you can go, as in the comic books. >The Earths Solar Orbit. >A round world. Religion, not science, suppressed these advances. The truth on these questions was rediscovered many times, and the equivalent, at the time, of creationists burned the scientists at the stake. > >I suppose the names will change when science "adopts" these orphans, and >then it will be an "acceptable" science. Exactly. Science is self-correcting. Creationists and cranks claim to have all the answers at the start. Some other points: >Bio-feedback is a form of "mind over matter" parapsychology ... Bio-feedback has nothing to do with parapsychology. The brain obviously controls the body, the new discovery is that functions formerly believed to be completely unconscious turn out not to be. >Acupunture led to the discovery of endorphamines. That's endorphins, and this statement is false. >Even creationism has taken the form of genetic engineering and >bio-engineering technology. This is the biggest absurdity in your message. People ignorant of evolution cannot do genetic engineering. Creationists say that each species was created independently. How could someone who believes this try to change one species into another? >Maybe if we called it "plasma field" research instead of "metaphysics", >some serious research would be acceptable. Sorry, there already is such a field and it has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Or do you believe in "auras" too? >Any theory can be proven false by ignoring the supporting evidence. Yes, I see you do a lot of that. -- - Joe Buck <ihnp4!pesnta!epimass!jbuck> This sentence is false.
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (03/07/86)
Joe: I liked your article. But I had a few quibbles. In article <166@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >>A round world. > >Religion, not science, suppressed these advances. The truth on these >questions was rediscovered many times, and the equivalent, at the time, >of creationists burned the scientists at the stake. A round world was something the *educated* class (even more of a minority then than now, of course) knew about in the middle ages. They learned it where they learned so many other things: from their classical authorities (such as Ptolemy). Remember the cosmography in Dante? >>Even creationism has taken the form of genetic engineering and >>bio-engineering technology. > >This is the biggest absurdity in your message. People ignorant of evolution >cannot do genetic engineering. Creationists say that each species was >created independently. How could someone who believes this try to change >one species into another? Considering all the other absurdities you quote, I wonder at you calling this the worst. As far as I can see, the only reason a person ignorant of evolution would have trouble doing bio-engineering is that they would have long ago flunked out of school, and hence would never have gotten the chance to learn the techniques involved. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "The *evident* character of this defective cognition of which mathematics is proud, and on which it plumes itself before philosophy, rests solely on the poverty of its purpose and the defectiveness of its stuff, and is therefore of a kind that philosophy must spurn." -- G. W. F. Hegel
ingria@mit-prep.ARPA (Bob Ingria) (03/07/86)
> In article <435@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: > >Some of sciences "taboos": > >UFO's and Alien life. - Blue Book didn't even say they didn't exist! > > You mean you aren't aware of the well-funded programs to search for > extraterrestrial intelligence? What is "Blue Book"? This is Project Bluebook, a USAF study of UFO reports. > >Bermuda Triangle and similar dissappearances. > > This is no mystery. This area has been one of the most heavily used shipping > areas since the 1500's, and has always had lots of pirates. In the old days, > they stole gold; now they steal ships for use in the drug trade. It also > has some of the worst weather in the world. There was a book that > successfully debunked most of the Bermuda Triangle stuff; I forget the title. > Naturally it didn't sell well. @i(The Bermuda Triangle Mystery---Solved) by Larry Kusche. He was a librarian who was constantly being asked for books about the Triangle. He decided to actually look at the primary sources of information (Shipping records, Llloyd's of London reports of losses, etc.) He discovered that: (1) some of the cases that were reported didn't have ANY primary backing at all: no reports on Lloyd's, no records of ships of that name, not even a contemporary newspaper account. This was the smallest proportion, but there were still accounts in this category. (2) Some of the cases occurred but (a) there were clear natural causes; and/or (b) they didn't even occur in the Triangle area. Some gems of this kind are a ship that was capsized in the PACIFIC that was reported to have disappeared in the Triangle and a plane that was reported lost in the triangle when it actually crashed on the CANADIAN leg of a flight path that WOULD have gone through the Triangle. There are also cases that are attributed to the Triangle of ships that were lost, in the days before radio, etc. on a route that ended in the Triangle. However, there was no clear indication of where exactly the ship was finally lost, so it could have ``disappeared'' anywhere in along its route. (3) Cases where contemporary reports show bad weather (storms, hurricanes, etc.) that were not reported in popular accounts of the disappearances. There were a few cases where the exact cause of the disappearance could not be determined but these were the least numerous of all the cases and were not the ``biggies'' of the Triangle mythos. Kusche also wrote a book called @i(The Disappearance of Flight 19), which dealt with the loss of the 5 Navy Avenger bombers, presenting the previously available evidence and some new evidence that was the result of his own investigations. -30- Bob
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/08/86)
In article <13400007@uiucdcsp> bsmith@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >To the point at hand. Very few things threaten "scientists" more than >the mention of the worthiness of paranormal phenomena. I usually get >a great deal of enjoyment over watching these people spew forth an >unending stream of obscenities. I believe one's speech is indicative >of both one's class and one's intelligence. Moreover, I believe that >each of us only has what we experience to go on--that and the >experiences of people we trust, that is. It seems clear to me that >many "scientists" are, in fact, dogmatists and, in general, cannot >give any acceptable reasons for their rejection of these phenomena. >When confronted with the incredible volume of evidence concerning >paranormal phenomena, most of these self-styled scientists are forced >to use tactics which any truly intelligent person would find unworthy >and disgusting, to say the least. By the way, I use "paranormal" merely >as a means of distinguishing that category of phenomena from those >phenomena we call "normal." I would say the reaction is DISGUST, solely out of the exaggerated claims of the paranormalists. Your claim that there is an "incredible volume of evidence" in favor of the paranormal is one such. Evidence to scientists consists mostly of either repeatable experiments or conclusions drawn from a world picture based on repeatable experiments. What does it matter to anything that most scientists are dogmatic or are unable to give clear and/or polite reasons for their rejection of the paranormal? I'm SICK of nut cases coming by my office and trying to sell me their theory of cosmic vortices or their proof that ZFC in inconsistent or encryption schemes based on keys recorded forty years in the future. Am I being dogmatic when I get rid of these parasites? They've got "incredible volumes of evidence" to prove their claims. How exactly am I supposed to react when someone tells me he can effect bacteria mutation rate by thinking about it? I am far more interested in my own work, and if the guy's claim turns out to be right, then sure, HE can have the Nobel prize. Until then, I'll tell anyone who tries to convince me of that claim to put up or shut up. No evidence, no audience! (Please reread my description of evidence before replying.) ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) (03/10/86)
In article <12239@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) writes: > In article <13400007@uiucdcsp> bsmith@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > >To the point at hand. Very few things threaten "scientists" more than > >the mention of the worthiness of paranormal phenomena. I usually get > >a great deal of enjoyment over watching these people spew forth an > >unending stream of obscenities. I believe one's speech is indicative > >of both one's class and one's intelligence. Moreover, I believe that > >each of us only has what we experience to go on--that and the > >experiences of people we trust, that is. It seems clear to me that > >many "scientists" are, in fact, dogmatists and, in general, cannot > >give any acceptable reasons for their rejection of these phenomena. > >When confronted with the incredible volume of evidence concerning > >paranormal phenomena, most of these self-styled scientists are forced > >to use tactics which any truly intelligent person would find unworthy > >and disgusting, to say the least. By the way, I use "paranormal" merely > >as a means of distinguishing that category of phenomena from those > >phenomena we call "normal." > > I would say the reaction is DISGUST, solely out of the exaggerated claims > of the paranormalists. Your claim that there is an "incredible volume of > evidence" in favor of the paranormal is one such. Evidence to scientists > consists mostly of either repeatable experiments or conclusions drawn from > a world picture based on repeatable experiments. What does it matter to > anything that most scientists are dogmatic or are unable to give clear > and/or polite reasons for their rejection of the paranormal? I'm SICK of > nut cases coming by my office and trying to sell me their theory of cosmic > vortices or their proof that ZFC in inconsistent or encryption schemes based > on keys recorded forty years in the future. Am I being dogmatic when I > get rid of these parasites? They've got "incredible volumes of evidence" > to prove their claims. How exactly am I supposed to react when someone > tells me he can effect bacteria mutation rate by thinking about it? I > am far more interested in my own work, and if the guy's claim turns out > to be right, then sure, HE can have the Nobel prize. Until then, I'll > tell anyone who tries to convince me of that claim to put up or shut up. > No evidence, no audience! Look, it's mighty clear to me you just don't want to believe. I mean, I have friends who can make their plants grow better by talking to them, but you probably don't want to believe that either. Anything that conflicts with your autocratic Western thinking is the work of a "nut case", right, man? You've been brainwashed by this mathematical scientific mumbo jumbo. It makes me kinda glad I didn't take those subjects in college, so I wouldn't get my minds cluttered with that stuff. My friend Pete who studies this stuff a lot says that mathematics is just an allusion made up by God, that if we used our minds and just believed that one thing could become two things, it could happen! There are people who are keeping that knowledge secret so that they alone can exorcise that great power, brainwashing the rest of us to think otherwise. Of course, they're all wealthy. But you would probably just call them "nut cases" because to admit their right would just blow you away, man! You are being dogmatic, but thats typical of your dogmatic Western thinking. You should get exposed to some real science, the culture of the great Eastern mystics. My friend Pete knows one of them real well, and he has learned a lot from him. Only when you leave your Western mind behind and let your Eastern mind attach itself to the truths of Eastern wisdom will you have any understanding of the knowledge you are ignoring because of your closed brain system. (Pete says this is sort of like left brain right brain kind of stuff, but it depends which way you're facing at the time.) > (Please reread my description of evidence before replying.) It's mighty clear to me that your Western definition of evidence is to limited to be worth anything. I mean, you would reject ESP, telephonesis, the Bremuda Triangle, ancient astronauts, and UFO's, and I KNOW they exist, because my aunt saw one! I have witnessed all of these things at least second hand, and probably so have you, but your dogmatic Western mind won't let you admit that. Peace, CJ
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/11/86)
[] Really good satire is a rare jewel. My favorite line in Mr. Riordan`s contribution is one I will treasure for the rest of my life. In article <358@unirot.UUCP>, cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: > > My friend Pete who studies this stuff a lot says that mathematics is > just an allusion made up by God,... ^^^^^^^^ How true! -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) (03/12/86)
> >Clinical and Applied Psychology. > > I wish this were more of a "taboo" than it is. Studies show that as many > people are hurt as are helped by therapy. I don't what study you're talking about, but I have heard that most (70% or more) of people who have attended therapy/councilling found it beneficial. Therapy is much maligned by people who have no personal experience with it -- in fact, by otherwise rational and intelligent people. Perhaps you should keep an open mind about topics in which you are less qualified than others to pass judgment -- even personal judgment. I've been involved in therapy and found it to be very helpful. -- Ray Lubinsky University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ...!cbosgd!uvacs!rwl or ...!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl
cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) (03/12/86)
In article <494@utastro.UUCP>, ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes: > Really good satire is a rare jewel. My favorite line in Mr. Riordan`s > contribution is one I will treasure for the rest of my life. > In article <358@unirot.UUCP>, cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: > > > > My friend Pete who studies this stuff a lot says that mathematics is > > just an allusion made up by God,... > ^^^^^^^^ > How true! Listen, man, I don't know what gave you the idea that what I wrote was satirical. People who believe in this Western science stuff like mathematics are deluding themselves. They think they can learn the truth by studying scientific processes of learning and understanding, when the only real truth comes from following your inner beliefs to the point of realization at the apex of your minds. I know that sounds alot like the words from a song by Iron Butterfly, but, hey, those guys had great insight into the meaning of life- remember In-a-God-a-da-Veda? (Of course they'll never match the insight of the Dead) The truth is what you believe it to be. My friend Pete, the one who's serious about studying the mystical sciences, told me about this book called The Tower of Physics or something like that. This guy wrote that while we each have our experiences we're in our own special cosmic subspace where our energies flow and where many worlds merge to form one hole. It's like a shrubbery where we all represent invidual leaves, which all fall down on the same ground. And all our prospectives are equally valid. God is the glue that bonds our separate realities together to form the ultimate reality, like the guy in the commercial hanging from the girdle by his helmet. We can tap the energies within us to transform our beliefs into reality, like with ESP, or UFOS, or anything else you want to believe. People like that guy Weiner who called anybody who believed in ESP a nut case are really nut cases themselves. They refuse to participate in the ultimate reality that we are all making through our belief energies, and their negative belief energy hurts the rest of us by interfering with the realization of our beliefs. I'm sure any good ESP researcher can document the reasons for this better than I can. By the way, Pete's still studying Zen investing in night school as part of his independent mystical studies program. He hasn't made any money yet, but his instructor says that's the way it's supposed to work as a learning experience. He brings in all the money he has to invest and the instructor takes it away and smacks his face with a wooden board! I still can't make heads or tails of that cosmic stuff unless I've had a tab of acid or a good hit from the bong. Speaking of which, while you guys are de-luding yourselves with your dogmatic Western science, I think I'll be re-luding myself, if you know what I mean. Pete and my other friend Bobby are coming over to watch the tape of the Dead's New Year's show on my new VCR, and the only way I can cope with both the incredible deepness of the Dead and the heavy trips Pete lays on me is to get my brain a little loosened up to free my Eastern mind from the bonds of my Western mind's dogmatic thinking. Heavy stuff, man. Peace, CJ
colonel@ellie.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (03/12/86)
[Line Eaten by Giant Program!] > Where is the evidence-- and I mean EVIDENCE, not anecdotal reports > appearing in The National Enquirer-- that these so-called phenomena > even exist? I think you are being too lenient towards the Enquirer, considering how the Enquirer is edited. If the Enquirer prints that grass is green, it's a lie! In fact, everything in the Enquirer is a lie, even if it's true. The Enquirer's business is to entertain, and not at all to inform. (The "legitimate" newspapers manage to accomodate both functions, albeit unequally.) It's a wry commentary on the nature of literacy that _most_ of the reading done in the world is for entertainment. "How do you keep a moron in suspense?" "I don't know, how?" "I'll tell you tomorrow, in our NEXT thrilling episode." -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: csdsicher@sunyabva
kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) (03/12/86)
In article <358@unirot.UUCP>, responding to an article by Matthew P. Wiener, unirot!cjr (Charles Riordan) writes: >Look, it's mighty clear to me you just don't want to believe. I mean, I >have friends who can make their plants grow better by talking to them, >but you probably don't want to believe that either.... Eventually it became obvious that this posting was a joke, but it took me a while. (Naive? No, I've just seen too many "serious" postings of this general nature; I tend to assume for as long as possible that any posting with no smiley attached is for real.) Seriously, though, what's known about "talking to plants"? When I first heard about this it was debunked as a CO2 effect (after all, when you talk to the plants, you breathe on them), but I seem to remember the original reports claimed a negative effect from "talking nasty" to plants. Then I saw some TV special (about on a par with "Search for Ancient Astronauts", I think) that described an experiment with the plants in glass boxes to eliminate the CO2 effect. The "talked-to" plants were clearly doing much better. Of course, I don't consider "having seen it on TV" to be valid reason for believing the results. It would seem to be fairly simple to design a good experiment here. Partition the plants into three sets: Talk-Nice, Talk-Nasty, Control. (For completeness, perhaps Think-Nice and Think-Nasty as well.) Each plant is randomly assigned to a set, and all are given equal care by a person (or device) who is ignorant of the particular partitioning. Get a bunch of really nice people to volunteer to encourage the plants in the first set to grow. Get a bunch of really rotten folks (you may need to draft them) to cuss out the plants in the second set. ("Why you filthy disgusting plant, you're wasting my time, I've got to sit here like an idiot talking to you as part of this ridiculous voodoo experiment when I could be doing some _real_ science and making rats die.") Eventually you stop, have the plants measured by someone who is ignorant of the partition, then open the envelope and make some correlations. In spite of the strange wording, the above is a serious suggestion. C'mon folks, apply the scientific method to a "pseudo-science" and see what happens. Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint.
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (03/12/86)
In article <166@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <435@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: >>Has science become a bastion of ignorance? >>Ignorance is best defined as "contempt prior to investigation". > >I've never seen such a definition of "ignorance" before. It seems backwards AA big book page 570: There is a principle which is a bar against all information which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -Herbert Spencer >to me. It seems to me that your posting is much closer to a demonstration >of ignorance, since you claim that several areas of active scientific >investigation are "taboos", and seem to believe several common myths without >any evidence at all. > >>Some of sciences "taboos": >>UFO's and Alien life. - Blue Book didn't even say they didn't exist! > >You mean you aren't aware of the well-funded programs to search for >extraterrestrial intelligence? What is "Blue Book"? Project Blue Book, a team of six or so investigators determined Among other things, that UFO's did not represent a threat to national security and could not provide new technology. Loosely interpreted, this could almost be read - "they exist but they are just watching". For some reason, the findings have been interpreted - "there are no 'flying saucers'". > >>Parapsychology. > >The AAAS recognizes parapsychology as a science (some want to reverse this). The "some who want to reverse this" is the group I've been reading about on this list. I'd like to see what people have discovered. > >>Metaphysics. > >What aspect of metaphysics would you like to have investigated? Aristotle >called it "metaphysics" because his previous book was called "physics"; >there's little other connection. Just about anything that appears to contradict current physical laws. Obviously, there may be a few laws we haven't discovered yet. > >>Anthropological Anachronisms(Egyptian Science, 2.8 million year old Modern Man) > >Evidence? I'm referring to "Leaky's Man" found in Africa. Three skeletons of what appeared to be "Modern Man" were found and were dated to be 2.8 million years old. Appearantly either there were a few "modern men" or something through the dating off. Which? If the dating was off, why? > >>Bermuda Triangle and similar dissappearances. > >This is no mystery. This area has been one of the most heavily used shipping >areas since the 1500's, and has always had lots of pirates. In the old days, >they stole gold; now they steal ships for use in the drug trade. It also >has some of the worst weather in the world. There was a book that >successfully debunked most of the Bermuda Triangle stuff; I forget the title. >Naturally it didn't sell well. > >>A possible "sunken city" in the Triangle. > >Flat out impossible. Because of the heavy use for shipping the area gets, >the undersea terrain has been thoroughly mapped. No city. There are a few "hills" with perpendicular edges down there. Some appear to be almost like pyramids, but they are very deep. I would welcome any explanations for such shapes? >>The Egyptian "merchants code". > >You'll have to explain this. In the "Valley of the Kings" clay tablets containing cuniform tablets seem to describe orders for building materials, and procedures for building the pyramids which seem to contradict the "stones on rollers" theory. Floatation is described, and water floatation was possible in the valley, but it is also described in an area where there is little water. >>Creationism (any theory that "Higher Intellegence" may have interfered with >> the evolutionary process at any time). > >Now hang on. You can't have 2.8 million year old modern man and creationism >too. No one has shown any necessity for such interference at this point; >any "higher intelligence" hid his/her/its tracks very well. Egyptian mythology and technology seem to start around the same time shortly after the "fall of Isis and Osirus". They are described as "Gods" but may have been people. Other parallels in near the beginning of other city building societies are quite common. >>But then look at some of the old "taboos": >>Natural Child-Birth. > >This was never a "taboo". It was standard practice before hospitals were >available, and at least in the past, one of the leading causes of death in >women was childbirth. It was safer for the woman to be in the hospital with >extensive medical care available. Now that medicine has advanced, more >options are open. Dr. Bradley (Brady?) almost lost his liscence when he first stopped putting his patients to sleep. Seems doctors considired this uneccessary pain, and a violation of the hippocratic oath. This from one of his lectures. >>Clinical and Applied Psychology. >I wish this were more of a "taboo" than it is. Studies show that as many >people are hurt as are helped by therapy. Why? Is it possible that there is something we haven't yet discovered? Perhaps parapsychology studies could provide some answers. >>Acupuncture. > >This was unknown in the West, but when it became known, scientists attempted >to learn how it worked, not to suppress it as you suggest. The result taught >Eastern doctors a few things. When acupuncture was first introduced, western scientist had to be convinced that it wasn't a hoax. Many modern doctors still consider it quackery. When I burned my hands on flaming grease, the pain was so intense that I went to the emergency room at the hospital. The doctor tried to give me codine but as an ex addict I wasn't too wild about it. I suggested acupuncture or a local, and he told me that wasn't "real medicine". Eventually, the pain was so bad that I had no choice but to take the pill, and go through withdrawals for the next two days. >>Shaman medicine or Witch Doctors. > > you can't patent a natural substance that >fights disease, only a synthetic one. So the main problem here is capitalism. That is the problem with most of these "taboos". It's ok to study it, but you're not likely to get funding. If you discover something that is "public domain" and competes with a patented product, well funded but ignorant scientists will discredit the work and the research. >>"Anti-matter" (Quantum Physics). > >>4th and 5th Dimension. (The count is 12, last I read) > >Yes, but these dimensions have nothing at all to do with the dimensions >of the pseudo-scientists. They aren't different places where you can go, True, but who said they had to be? >>I suppose the names will change when science "adopts" these orphans, and >>then it will be an "acceptable" science. > >Exactly. Science is self-correcting. Creationists and cranks claim to >have all the answers at the start. > >Some other points: >>Bio-feedback is a form of "mind over matter" parapsychology ... >Bio-feedback has nothing to do with parapsychology. The brain obviously >controls the body, the new discovery is that functions formerly believed >to be completely unconscious turn out not to be. True, but the ability to lower the electrical output to the EEG/Biofeedback monitor involves a change in consciousness. This "different conciousness is a technique used by fire walkers and yogi's in india. I still don't know why fire walkers don't burn their feet. Any explanations? >>Acupunture led to the discovery of endorphamines. >That's endorphins, and this statement is false. You're right, acupunture is a way to cause endorphins to be released more quickly. Endorphins were known before, but how to get enough to the right spot before the patient went into shock was still a big question. >>Even creationism has taken the form of genetic engineering and >>bio-engineering technology. > >This is the biggest absurdity in your message. People ignorant of evolution >cannot do genetic engineering. Creationists say that each species was >created independently. How could someone who believes this try to change >one species into another? We now know how to produce amino acids, DNA, and most of the protiens required to create living organisms, how long will it be before we "build something from scratch"? At least now we know it does not HAVE to take several billion years. >>Maybe if we called it "plasma field" research instead of "metaphysics", >>some serious research would be acceptable. > >Sorry, there already is such a field and it has nothing to do with what >you're talking about. Or do you believe in "auras" too? Ok, find a different name. Ancient Egyptians were fond of large quantities of "static" electricity, developing multifarad capacitors and such. According to the "Book of the Dead" they used this technology in some very peculiar ways. Moses used the "Arch of the Covenent" as an intercomm for his "God". What do you call a box containing a multi mega-columb charge? (besides dangerous :-)) What is it good for (besides a pretty static electricity display)? Static electricity isn't really static, it's a field of charged particles. How can this field be manipulated? I remember a science teacher demonstrating an "atom smasher" in class, looked like a static electricity generator to me :-) (I don't know anything about atom smashers, just that he said it was one) Could these charges (and natural charges) be efficiently converted into a more useful form of energy? >>Any theory can be proven false by ignoring the supporting evidence. > >Yes, I see you do a lot of that. > Actually, I am looking for new evidence, that's why the flammable subject line. Get those who know something mad enough, and they will prove you wrong, giving you more information than they really wanted to give in the first place :-) Actually, anybody who knows about good scientific research in any of these fields is welcome to send mail, but they seem to get flamed when they post findings to net.sci. There was an interesting scientific explanation of meditiation/religion posted in net.religion, nothing revolutionary, but interesting. Worth a look anyway. Mostly using concious effort to give the neo-cortex control over the limbic system.
jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles) (03/13/86)
In article <362@unirot.UUCP> cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: >Speaking of which, while you guys are de-luding yourselves with your >dogmatic Western science, I think I'll be re-luding myself, if you know >what I mean. Pete and my other friend Bobby are coming over to watch >the tape of the Dead's New Year's show on my new VCR, and the only way >I can cope with both the incredible deepness of the Dead and the heavy >trips Pete lays on me is to get my brain a little loosened up to free >my Eastern mind from the bonds of my Western mind's dogmatic thinking. >Heavy stuff, man. I wonder if friend Pete could have built a VCR with all his 'in depth' knowledge of the 'truth'. Certainly no eastern religeon that I'm aware of would have been able to understand the real world well enough to contruct computer networks, and I wouldn't be stuck listening to all these groundless claims. Hmm...maybe you're right after all, if science hadn't been so successful, I wouldn't have to hear from you. J. Giles Los Alamos
olsen@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen) (03/13/86)
In article <358@unirot.UUCP>, cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: > [Discusses scientists' rejection of claims of the paranormal.] > ...Look, it's mighty clear to me you just don't want to believe... You're absolutely right: I don't want to believe. I won't believe until you beat me over the head with repeatable experiments. All revolutionary scientific ideas are initially subject to 'contempt prior to investigation'. This approach has served science well for centuries. If you want scientists to accept your ideas, you must steel yourself to withstand their contempt, and doggedly pursue your researches until you produce repeatable results. This is the lot of the scientific pioneer. -- Jim Olsen ARPA:olsen@ll-xn UUCP:{decvax,lll-crg,seismo}!ll-xn!olsen
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/14/86)
>> [Discusses scientists' rejection of claims of the paranormal.] >> ...Look, it's mighty clear to me you just don't want to believe... > >You're absolutely right: I don't want to believe. I won't believe until >you beat me over the head with repeatable experiments. All revolutionary >scientific ideas are initially subject to 'contempt prior to investigation'. > >This approach has served science well for centuries. If you want >scientists to accept your ideas, you must steel yourself to withstand >their contempt, and doggedly pursue your researches until you produce >repeatable results. This is the lot of the scientific pioneer. There is one small point that seems to be ignored sometimes. That is, in order for something to be treated scientifically, it has to be subject to repeatable experiments. But that doesn't mean that there are not things that cannot be treated scientifically. Suppose that certain things happen which just cannot be controlled well enough to be subject to repeatable experiments. I personally have experienced several totally non-standard events in my own life that do not fit into a conventional world view. I don't know how to explain them. I don't expect you to believe me. But imagine you are in my shoes. Imagine you *KNOW* these things have happened (I don't expect you to believe that I *KNOW* as there are all kinds of ways people have tried to explain these things away when I mention them. Just try to imagine that you *KNOW* something that you cannot prove or explain to people who haven't had the experience. Also I would appreciate not being called an idiot.) What (assuming you allow me the above) am I supposed to think? I can't accept conventional theories as complete, yet I can't fit my experiences in a scientifically repeatable framework.
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (03/14/86)
In article <469@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: >I remember a science teacher demonstrating an "atom smasher" in class, >looked like a static electricity generator to me :-) (I don't know >anything about atom smashers, just that he said it was one) Could >these charges (and natural charges) be efficiently converted into >a more useful form of energy? Your teacher's "atom smasher" was a Van de Graaf static electricity generator. Biggest reason I can think of that one catalogue calls them "atom smasher"s is to sell them to high school science teachers. Possibly, they do generate enough V to smash an atom or two? BTW, in the line before, it should have been "Arc" of the Covenant. Besides not being quite an intercom (one 'm'), what makes one think that it was a box containing mega-coulombs? -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) (03/14/86)
In article <386@lanl.ARPA>, jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles) writes: > In article <362@unirot.UUCP> cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: > >Speaking of which, while you guys are de-luding yourselves with your > >dogmatic Western science, I think I'll be re-luding myself, if you know > >what I mean. Pete and my other friend Bobby are coming over to watch > >the tape of the Dead's New Year's show on my new VCR, and the only way > >I can cope with both the incredible deepness of the Dead and the heavy > >trips Pete lays on me is to get my brain a little loosened up to free > >my Eastern mind from the bonds of my Western mind's dogmatic thinking. > >Heavy stuff, man. > > I wonder if friend Pete could have built a VCR with all his 'in depth' > knowledge of the 'truth'. Certainly no eastern religeon that I'm aware of > would have been able to understand the real world well enough to contruct > computer networks, and I wouldn't be stuck listening to all these > groundless claims. Hmm...maybe you're right after all, if science hadn't > been so successful, I wouldn't have to hear from you. > > J. Giles > Los Alamos And to think, I thought you were such a great musical talent and stuff. I have most of your albums, I think. Obviously, man, you are one of the deluded bunch. You and your Western dogmatic friends can keep busy building computer networks, that BREAK and fall apart because deep down, when you get to the core level, you find that you really have no knowledge at all about what goes on in the universe. Just because you can make a car doesn't mean you know the real meaning of existence of cars. While you and your Western buddies are building computer networks, out of stuff who's existence you don't know the meaning and purpose of, the rest of us will be communicating without your physical hardware, through brainwave transmission. The great Eastern mystics didn't NEED to build computer networks and cellular telephones out of inhuman plastic and metal. They communicated with their minds. We can do it too, if we learn to free ourselves from the shackels of our Western mind, to allow our Eastern mind to run free. You just don't want to believe that. I guess when Peter Wolf left your band, it just blew your mind, man. Bummer. Too bad, I really liked the way you played guitar. Have you ever jammed with Jerry? Hey, man, I've seen you play with wireless guitar systems! What do you think makes those work? No wires, dude, just the spirit of your mind controling the vibrations of your guitar and transmitting cosmic messages to your amplifier. At least that's how Pete explained it to me.
cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) (03/14/86)
In article <284@ll-xn.ARPA>, olsen@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen) writes: > In article <358@unirot.UUCP>, cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: > > ...Look, it's mighty clear to me you just don't want to believe... > > You're absolutely right: I don't want to believe. I won't believe until > you beat me over the head with repeatable experiments. All revolutionary > scientific ideas are initially subject to 'contempt prior to investigation'. > > This approach has served science well for centuries. If you want > scientists to accept your ideas, you must steel yourself to withstand > their contempt, and doggedly pursue your researches until you produce > repeatable results. This is the lot of the scientific pioneer. Hey, man, I'm not about to beat you over the head with anything. I'm a pacifist. But your so damned right that this approach serves SCIENCE! It doesn't serve knowledge and truth. Just because we can't produce "independently verifable" results based on our cosmic experiences, just because there's no "proof" that would satisfy a Western dogmatic scientist, you just dicount what we say without acknowledgeing it at all. Is that a reasonable thing to do? I mean, the evidence is all around you. I'll bet you don't believe in God either. Like it says in the Bible, "Thou fool!!!" What is it that you scientists want? Objectivity? What's wrong with subjectivity? Can't you just accept what I say as true? Don't you want me to accept what you say as true? Do you believe anybody when they say things to you? Or do you treat everything anyone says to you like those very very rare exceptions who do lie? (Politicians, salesman, heathen religous fanatics, huxters, con men, doctors, philosophers, criminals, people covering up for themselves or others, ect.) You've got to learn to have faith in the truth of what people are saying. It's the only truth we really have, unless you're willing to sit around waiting for "independent verifability" and objectivity before accepting some of the obvious truths of this world. I don't think that's worth it, man. Just accept what people tell you, and you'll find you've grown into a better more rewarding person. Peace, CJ
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/15/86)
In article <256@uvacs.UUCP> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes: >> >Clinical and Applied Psychology. >> >> I wish this were more of a "taboo" than it is. Studies show that as many >> people are hurt as are helped by therapy. > >I don't what study you're talking about, but I have heard that most (70% or >more) of people who have attended therapy/councilling found it beneficial. >Therapy is much maligned by people who have no personal experience with it >-- in fact, by otherwise rational and intelligent people. Heard from where? Psychiatrists themselves? I've read several indictments of psychiatry, no numbers, listing case after case where misdiagnosis of physical diseases with weird symptoms were dismissed as "hysteria", while the actual disease was allowed to linger untreated. See I Cooper's _The Victim is Always the Same_ and O Sacks' _Awakenings_ for some examples. Or consider the case of Charles Darwin, for example, who became chronically invalid in his mid thirties, and was diagnosed as hypochondriac, much to Darwin's distress. Fifty years later he would have diagnosed as neurotic instead. (Indeed he has been so diagnosed by psychohistorians.) But the true cause seems to have been that he suffered Chagas' disease, picked up one night in Argentina, when he was bitten by a huge blood-sucker of a bug now known to carry the disease. See Sir G de Beer's biography of Darwin for more details. And how many more cases are unknown because the victim was not famous? >Perhaps you should keep an open mind about topics in which you are less >qualified than others to pass judgment -- even personal judgment. I've been >involved in therapy and found it to be very helpful. Well good for you. To be fair, I agree that clinical psychology in general does more good than harm like medicine in general, but psychology suffers from having one all too convenient and sometimes dangerous diagnosis: it's the patient's own fault, etc. But to be counter fair, I think the original complaint is against Freudianism, Jungianism, etc, which are really big time pseudoscience, charging $50/hour for so much "expert" happy talk. So don't be so quick to slam certain assertions as closed-mindedness. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (03/15/86)
Conventional theories are *not* complete. (If they were, there would be no need for scientific research and theoretical studies.) Claims of paranormal events are elusive to capture in repeatable experiments. The events in question seem to have a stochastic nature to them. Now stochastic processes are among the most difficult to observe and analyze. It takes a mind of the caliber of Norbert Wiener to construct a theory of Brownian motion, that odd and unexplained kinesis seen in a cup of really hot tea. So while paranormal (i.e. wierd and previously unexplained) events *do* occur, it takes a superscientist to tease an explanation out of nature. (She does not give up her secrets easily.) So, dear reader, I leave it to you? Are so-called paranormal events illusions that never really happened, or are they manifestations of a subtle and pervasive stochastic process which no one has yet elucidated? Can you think of a way to find out? In the meantime, care to join me in a cup of really hot tea? --Barry Kort ...ihnp4!hounx!kort
cjr@unirot.UUCP (03/17/86)
> There is one small point that seems to be ignored sometimes. That > is, in order for something to be treated scientifically, it has to > be subject to repeatable experiments. > > But that doesn't mean that there are not things that cannot be > treated scientifically. Suppose that certain things happen > which just cannot be controlled well enough to be subject to > repeatable experiments. I personally have experienced several > totally non-standard events in my own life that do not fit > into a conventional world view. > > I don't know how to explain them. I don't expect you to believe > me. But imagine you are in my shoes. Imagine you *KNOW* these > things have happened (I don't expect you to believe that I > *KNOW* as there are all kinds of ways people have tried to > explain these things away when I mention them. Just try to > imagine that you *KNOW* something that you cannot prove or > explain to people who haven't had the experience. Also I would > appreciate not being called an idiot.) Right on, man. I know just what it's like to be in your shoes. People have called me an ignoramus and worse. I have seen the face of God and I have spoken to Him, and I have learned vital secrets of the universe through these communions. I also know that the things I have experienced are real, but I am mocked merely because I cannot prove them to the satisfaction of dogmatic Western scientific minds. I have also heard these people trying to explain these experiences away. They say things like "it was an illusion" or "you believed what you wanted to believe" or "you didn't analyze it objectively enough" or "you must have been on drugs" (I get that one a lot!) What a load of crap! It sure sounds to me like they're just throwing the covers over experiences like ours because they don't want to hear them. I can't take any of their explanations seriously. Can you? I don't think your belief in your experiences being real is any sillier than mine. Peace, CJ -- Peace, CJ (Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr)
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (03/17/86)
In article <386@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: >In article <362@unirot.UUCP> cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: >>Speaking of which, while you guys are de-luding yourselves with your >>dogmatic Western science, I think I'll be re-luding myself, if you know >>what I mean. Pete and my other friend Bobby are coming over to watch >>the tape of the Dead's New Year's show on my new VCR, and the only way >>I can cope with both the incredible deepness of the Dead and the heavy >>trips Pete lays on me is to get my brain a little loosened up to free >>my Eastern mind from the bonds of my Western mind's dogmatic thinking. >>Heavy stuff, man. > >I wonder if friend Pete could have built a VCR with all his 'in depth' >knowledge of the 'truth'. Certainly no eastern religeon that I'm aware of >would have been able to understand the real world well enough to contruct >computer networks, and I wouldn't be stuck listening to all these >groundless claims. Hmm...maybe you're right after all, if science hadn't >been so successful, I wouldn't have to hear from you. > >J. Giles >Los Alamos I don't understand it all myself Jimmy, but my friend Matt has been telling me about the importance of letting free my Western Mind. Wow! Heavy vibes from this dude. He's like from the East himself, and tells me that the Eastern Mind runs around loose there like the neihbor's dog, and makes all kinda messes like New York. Boy what a mess that place is. Bad trip. Worse than drugs. Ever take one of ther subways to Piscat--Pissthat--anyway? Ugh. The Western Mind is different, man. Like, gag me with a cofunctor, I think it's like how we naturally think -- just let your Natural Western Mind run free and its like math and science, man. Before you know out, you can buy a house on the moon. And there will be trilllyuns of trilllyunaires all over the solar system. I know this is true, my friend Matt showed it to me on net.space. Boy, those guys have grate Western Minds! And what about the greatest President since Warren Galadriel Harding? Oh I see you are from Los Alamos. Does that mean you get to play with nucleear bombs? Wow. My friend Matt won't even let me play with matches. Do you get to star wars too? Just like inthe movie. Light sabers are really kean-o neat. My favorite scene in the movie is when Darth Vader and Oh-be-one were fiting. It was sad when he died. But they brought his spirit back at the end. I thought that was good. Then there is the Never Mind, the Re Mind, and even the Under Mind. My Eastern Mind aint ready for it all just yet! Gotta split, NOVAs on. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "Last week in a dream I gave a fellow my shirt buttons to differentiate and the fellow ran away with them." -- Engels
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (03/18/86)
In article <695@hounx.UUCP>, kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes: > Conventional theories are *not* complete. (If they were, there would > be no need for scientific research and theoretical studies.) There are at least two possible meanings of *complete*. One is, formally deriving all truths in the intended interpretation. Here, the language is adequately expressive, and the deductive power of the theory is being questioned. Another is, whether the theory adequately expresses the intended interpretation. Which sense, (or maybe another) did you intend? Karl Popper and others have pointed out that attempts should be made to falsify theories, and that a good theory is one which resists falsification. Even (or especially) with a *complete* theory (in either sense), attempts should be made to falsify predictions, on this view. This is a reason for continued research which is independent of the *complete*ness or otherwise of the theories. Peter Ladkin
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/18/86)
In article <388@unirot.UUCP>, cjr@unirot.UUCP writes: > Right on, man. I know just what it's like to be in your shoes. People > have called me an ignoramus and worse. I have seen the face of God > and I have spoken to Him, and I have learned vital secrets of the > universe through these communions. I also know that the things I > have experienced are real, but I am mocked merely because I cannot prove > them to the satisfaction of dogmatic Western scientific minds. Not quite true. In the first place, it is you who seem to expend a great deal of energy trying to convince others that "western dogmatism and science" is utterly wrong. You are not mocked because you cannot prove your claims. Christians can't prove theirs either. You are mocked because you are hostile, negative, irritating and immature. You are mocked because you are immenently mock-able. > I have > also heard these people trying to explain these experiences away. > They say things like "it was an illusion" or "you believed what you > wanted to believe" or "you didn't analyze it objectively enough" or > "you must have been on drugs" (I get that one a lot!) What a load of > crap! It sure sounds to me like they're just throwing the covers over > experiences like ours because they don't want to hear them. I can't take > any of their explanations seriously. Can you? > Of course, given your level of hostility and immaturity, we should just automatically assume that you are correct, and that you are telling the truth, right? People *NEVER* lie, or mis-inform. People never make mistakes. People never misinterpret various events. Naturally, **YOU** are the repository for *TRUTH*. For myself, I don't know whether the "mystical" things to which you refer are or are not real. I am willing to accept that they are possible, as I also have had certain experiences that I can only typify as "para-normal" in terms of contemporary science. But until I see rational, consistent and intellectually sound evidence, I refuse to accept such things from you, or anyone else, on blind faith. You have offered no explanation or evidence which is compelling enough to ignore the "rational" explanations of which you complain so bitterly. > I don't think your belief in your experiences being real is any sillier > than mine. Nor do I. Your belief is not silly. Your behaviour toward others, and toward the beliefs of others, *IS* silly. > Peace, > CJ -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (03/18/86)
In article <369@unirot.UUCP> cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: > >It doesn't serve knowledge and truth. Just because we can't produce >"independently verifable" results based on our cosmic experiences, just >because there's no "proof" that would satisfy a Western dogmatic scientist, >you just discount what we say without acknowledgeing it at all. Is that a >reasonable thing to do? I mean, the evidence is all around you. I'll bet >you don't believe in God either. Like it says in the Bible, "Thou fool!!!" Or, the more correct *scientific* response is to remain skeptical rather than to discount it totally. In particular, scientists try to seperate appearences from reality and explanations from data. Just because you experienced something unusual does not make your *explanation* of that event congruent with reality. > >What is it that you scientists want? Objectivity? No, we want to understand how the Universe operates and experience has shown us that subjective experience can be *very* misleading in that area. The ideal of objectivety is just a means to avoid certain common types of mistakes. >What's wrong with >subjectivity? Can't you just accept what I say as true? Don't you want me >to accept what you say as true? Do you believe anybody when they say things >to you? That depends on what you want. If you want to understand reality then subjectivity simply doesn't work. If you want to relate to people and enjoy life then subjectivity is fine and good. >Or do you treat everything anyone says to you like those very very >rare exceptions who do lie? > You've got to learn to have faith in the truth of >what people are saying. You seem to be using "truth" in two different meanings here. I usually accept what people say as true, *as far as their experience goes*, but just because you *believe* something to be factual does not make it really so. A person may be "telling the truth" and still be mistaken. So, yes I do have faith in what people say, I just don't necessarily agree with them as to the *significance* of what they are saying. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (03/19/86)
Peter Ladkin (Hi Peter) writes, >In article <695@hounx.UUCP>, kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes: >> Conventional theories are *not* complete. (If they were, there would >> be no need for scientific research and theoretical studies.) [KORT] >There are at least two possible meanings of *complete*. >One is, formally deriving all truths in the intended interpretation. >Here, the language is adequately expressive, and the deductive >power of the theory is being questioned. >Another is, whether the theory adequately expresses the >intended interpretation. >Which sense, (or maybe another) did you intend? > >Karl Popper and others have pointed out that attempts >should be made to falsify theories, and that a good theory >is one which resists falsification. Even (or especially) >with a *complete* theory (in either sense), attempts >should be made to falsify predictions, on this view. >This is a reason for continued research which is independent >of the *complete*ness or otherwise of the theories. > >Peter Ladkin > I was actually thinking of both meanings. I had in mind the Goedelian notion of incompleteness as well as the awareness that physicists are building an unending progression of ever more unified theories, from Newtonian Mechanics to Special Relativity to General Relativity to Unified Field Theories toward the current goal of a Grand Unified Theory. It is interesting to note the see-saw leap frogging between the development of new branches of mathematics, and their application to theoretical physics. (Perhaps Matthew Wiener could help me illustrate this hand-in-hand evolution. It is not an accident that Newton invented the Calculus. It was a necessary tool of thought for his elucidation of the laws of motion.) I am troubled by Popper's suggestion for a paradigm of attempting to falsify theories. In my view every theory is an approximation to the subtleties of nature. The goal is to evolve the theories to ever larger scope and to ever finer resolution of subtle detail. I prefer the method of Socrates to the method of Popper for stimulating the evolution of knowledge. (I prefer it, because it is both more effective and more civilized.) However, I accept the reality that others will prefer the more aggressive approach. It's a regrettable fact of life that humans cannot easily escape their more primitive traits of human nature. Barry Kort ...ihnp4!hounx!kort Excelsior: 1. Onward and Upward. 2. Little Bits of Shredded Paper Left Over from Definition 1.
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/19/86)
In article <358@unirot.UUCP> cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: >In article <12239@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) writes: >> In article <13400007@uiucdcsp> bsmith@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >> >To the point at hand. Very few things threaten "scientists" more than >> >the mention of the worthiness of paranormal phenomena. I usually get >> >a great deal of enjoyment over watching these people spew forth an >> >> I would say the reaction is DISGUST, solely out of the exaggerated claims >> of the paranormalists. Your claim that there is an "incredible volume of >> evidence" in favor of the paranormal is one such. Evidence to scientists >> consists mostly of either repeatable experiments or conclusions drawn from >> a world picture based on repeatable experiments. What does it matter to > >Look, it's mighty clear to me you just don't want to believe. I mean, I >have friends who can make their plants grow better by talking to them, >but you probably don't want to believe that either. Anything that >conflicts with your autocratic Western thinking is the work of a "nut >case", right, man? You've been brainwashed by this mathematical >scientific mumbo jumbo. It makes me kinda glad I didn't take those subjects >in college, so I wouldn't get my minds cluttered with that stuff. > >You are being dogmatic, but thats typical of your dogmatic Western thinking. >You should get exposed to some real science, the culture of the great >Eastern mystics. My friend Pete knows one of them real well, and he has >learned a lot from him. Only when you leave your Western mind behind and >let your Eastern mind attach itself to the truths of Eastern wisdom will >you have any understanding of the knowledge you are ignoring because of >your closed brain system. (Pete says this is sort of like left brain >right brain kind of stuff, but it depends which way you're facing at the >time.) > >> (Please reread my description of evidence before replying.) > >It's mighty clear to me that your Western definition of evidence is to >limited to be worth anything. I mean, you would reject ESP, telephonesis, >the Bremuda Triangle, ancient astronauts, and UFO's, and I KNOW they exist, >because my aunt saw one! I have witnessed all of these things at least >second hand, and probably so have you, but your dogmatic Western mind won't >let you admit that. > >Peace, > CJ This last posting is so ridiculous that I suspect it of being satire, but the lack of smiley faces and the poor spelling may indeed indicate that he was serious. Western science does indeed admit it when it's wrong, and is constantly incorporating new ideas -IF THEY'RE PROVEN. As a matter of fact, the very nature of the scientific community guarantees the incorporation of new ideas. You seem to view scientists as a monolithic conspiracy of people trying desperately to suppress the truth. In fact, scientists *compete* with one another, and if any of them discover new facts, you can be assured that they will gladly publish them. If the new facts challenge the old ideas, the supporter of the new ideas will be argued against and possibly even ridiculed - but facts are facts, and if they're PROVABLE, they will ultimately triumph and the majority of scientists will change their ideas. If they're not provable, they are not given much creedence. That is the way it *should* be. One more thing - you say: >I mean, you would reject ESP, telephonesis, >the Bremuda Triangle, ancient astronauts, and UFO's, and I KNOW they exist, >because my aunt saw one! I have witnessed all of these things at least >second hand, and probably so have you, but your dogmatic Western mind won't >let you admit that. Witnessed these thing second hand? Give me a break. Read my signature - it applies to you. -- --MKR "The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency." - Albert Einstein
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/20/86)
In article <883@ellie.UUCP> colonel@ellie.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: > ... In fact, everything in the Enquirer is a lie, even if it's true. Excellent! This has relevance to the discussion (fortunately not gatewayed into net.sci) about the meaning of truth.
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/20/86)
In article <1065@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <469@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: >>>>A possible "sunken city" in the Triangle. >>> >>>Flat out impossible. Because of the heavy use for shipping the area gets, >>>the undersea terrain has been thoroughly mapped. No city. >> >>There are a few "hills" with perpendicular edges down there. Some appear >>to be almost like pyramids, but they are very deep. I would welcome >>any explanations for such shapes? > > Perpendicular edged plateaus are in fact found in many areas >of the ocean. What mkes the ones in the Bermuda Triangle any different >from all the others? Or are you saying there are many underwater >cities all over the Earth? I have been following this underwater story for many years. The facts seem to be that a freighter dumped several tons of cement beams overboard back in the 50's and that is what has been photographed. A building contractor refused to pay for them so the captain decided not to deliver. [For those of you who follow the Edgar Cayce saga this is the only known case where I have found dishonesty in the A.R.E. hierarchy. They themselves found this out in the sixties during an investigation they supported, but they never have let the cat out of the bag. Edgar Cayce predicted in trance that evidence of the Atlantian culture would surface SE of the U.S. and they like to treat this as confirmation of one of his prophesies.] -- Dave Trissel {siesmo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/22/86)
> In article <388@unirot.UUCP>, cjr@unirot.UUCP writes: > > Right on, man. I know just what it's like to be in your shoes. People > > have called me an ignoramus and worse. I have seen the face of God > > and I have spoken to Him, and I have learned vital secrets of the > > universe through these communions. I also know that the things I > > have experienced are real, but I am mocked merely because I cannot prove > > them to the satisfaction of dogmatic Western scientific minds. > > Not quite true. In the first place, it is you who seem to expend a > great deal of energy trying to convince others that "western dogmatism > and science" is utterly wrong. You are not mocked because you cannot > prove your claims. Christians can't prove theirs either. You are mocked > because you are hostile, negative, irritating and immature. You are mocked > because you are immenently mock-able. > > > Peace, > > CJ > > tom keller Is it true that leftists have no sense of humor? Tom, he was making a joke! It says a lot about what a humorless dull person you are that you didn't catch how effective a satire of "mystic-brain damaged" this was.
pallas@Navajo.ARPA (Joseph Pallas) (03/22/86)
>>I mean, you would reject ESP, telephonesis, > > Witnessed these thing second hand? Give me a break. Actually, just about everyone on the net has probably experienced telephonesis first hand. joe (415) 723-9429
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/23/86)
Hey, don't pick on CJ, who is helping to show that there are fools on both sides of the argument.
jim@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Balter) (03/24/86)
In article <636@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Is it true that leftists have no sense of humor? Tom, he was making >a joke! It says a lot about what a humorless dull person you are that >you didn't catch how effective a satire of "mystic-brain damaged" this >was. Look, Cramer, this sort of irrational ideological ad hominem categorization is popular in net.politics, but it has no place in these groups. With a few exceptions, discussions in net.philosophy are strikingly free of issues of personality. I doubt that you will find your approach welcomed by anyone here, regardless of their political views. As for the articles in question, I'm with Matt and Rich (but do you suppose our politics are the same?) in sitting back and chuckling over those who have been taking them dead seriously, especially those who can't trust their own instincts without a big SMILEY sign to verify it. The situation reminds me somewhat of one of Gulliver's travels where the people required attendants, called "flappers", to "flap" them on the ears when it was time to listen and eventually to flap them on the mouths when they had something to say. My real concern is that those who did not notice any humorous intent will not learn from their mistake. Rather than rationalizing away the mistake because there was no smiley or because you've seen "similar" stuff from people who you are sure were serious or because you were tired or whatever, you might want think a moment longer or read something over one more time before responding, to be sure you understand what was intended and that your arguments are really coherent and rational and address real flaws in the material to which you are responding, rather than just being emotionally driven responses to something with which you already disagree. At the same time that Mr. Riordan's articles make fun of Eastern or Western mystics or any religious position that claims that personal visions or experiences are "true", they raise some very serious philosophical questions about truth and the nature and validity of scientific method, questions not addressed by the angry retorts he has received from those who took him "seriously". I must compliment Mr. Riordan on the cleverness with which he mocks those from both extremes. I generally try to ignore Michael Ellis's vituperative articles that class anyone who disagrees with him together as "robot buddies" or other phrases similar to Ted Holden's "yuppie scientists", but if only *I* could have thought of a way to call him a "cool dud" and have people accept is a "misspelling"! Yo ho ho ha ha hee hee hee my god my gut's gonna bust!! -- -- Jim Balter ({sdcrdcf!ism780c,ima}!jim)
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (03/27/86)
>>It's mighty clear to me that your Western definition of evidence is to >>limited to be worth anything. > Western science does indeed admit it when it's wrong, and is constantly >incorporating new ideas -IF THEY'RE PROVEN. Yes, but the argument is that the method by which they accept something as 'proven' is faulty. I dunno, works well for me but I'm always open to something useful. Isn't this going round and round in circles? The statements you are objecting to are purposely disregarding the scientific method as being of insufficient power to delve into whatever secrets the writer was interested in. Fine, gets us to the moon but as far as dealing with each other and ourselves, well, science seems to offer almost nil, thus the perceived vacuum and the attempts to fill such. And, as much as I love it, I have to admit that science denies that which it cannot explain (not always, not even often, but when it does, annoyingly so.) I don't think this argument is going to get anyone anywhere, science is a nature religion rejecting intuitions of humans in favor of reproducible experiment with fairly strict rules of methodology (not that they won't start with an intuition, they just won't end with one.) The sort of opposite argument seen here is a 'human' religion accepting intuitions over the need for reproducibility or proof, the fact that we can conceive of it must mean it has some element of truth, if it can't be proven then the system which sought to prove it must be wrong. No argument is likely to resolve these two views, they are dealing in entirely different worlds. -Barry Shein, Boston University
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/28/86)
In article <316@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: >No argument is likely to resolve these two views, they are dealing >in entirely different worlds. Barry, you seem to have a poor understanding of the scientific world view. It has nothing to say about ethics or religion or humanism in general, but it can help clarify what ethics etc. talk about, and prevent such from making egregrious claims. The fact that some scientists have the same poor understanding you do is no reason to foist it on all scientists. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/28/86)
In article <12734@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes: >In article <316@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: >>No argument is likely to resolve these two views, they are dealing >>in entirely different worlds. > >Barry, you seem to have a poor understanding of the scientific world view. I've been meaning to ask Matthew his opinion of the notion of "world view". Maybe some other readers can also contribute. Some issues are: the relation between world view and reality, can one transcend a world view, can one shift between world views, how can world views be manipulated by power seeking politicians, and greedy capitalists, and so on. -Tom tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu
cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) (03/28/86)
In article <316@bu-cs.UUCP>, bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > >>It's mighty clear to me that your Western definition of evidence is to > >>limited to be worth anything. > > > Western science does indeed admit it when it's wrong, and is constantly > >incorporating new ideas -IF THEY'RE PROVEN. > > Yes, but the argument is that the method by which they accept > something as 'proven' is faulty. I dunno, works well for me but I'm > always open to something useful. Isn't this going round and round in > circles? The statements you are objecting to are purposely > disregarding the scientific method as being of insufficient power to > delve into whatever secrets the writer was interested in. Fine, gets > us to the moon but as far as dealing with each other and ourselves, > well, science seems to offer almost nil, thus the perceived vacuum > and the attempts to fill such. And, as much as I love it, I have to > admit that science denies that which it cannot explain (not always, > not even often, but when it does, annoyingly so.) > > I don't think this argument is going to get anyone anywhere, science > is a nature religion rejecting intuitions of humans in favor of > reproducible experiment with fairly strict rules of methodology > (not that they won't start with an intuition, they just won't end > with one.) This is so true, man. These strict rules of methodology serve only to prolifitrate the dogmatic Western scineitific thinking. Science denies what it cannot explain. When someone comes up with a perfectly good explanation for something, like the existence of God, or the ability of the human minds to use telephonetic powers to predict past events, or the existence of a soul that lives on after we die, stupid science has to come along and complain that there isn't any evidence any of these things happen, and it just upchucks it away like it was all some garbage. Bummer! This is why we need to shout down these dogmatic scientists as much as possible, so that their ridculous ideas need not be heard, and I applawed people like Micheal Ellis who do this so well. > The sort of opposite argument seen here is a 'human' > religion accepting intuitions over the need for reproducibility or > proof, the fact that we can conceive of it must mean it has some > element of truth, if it can't be proven then the system which sought > to prove it must be wrong. Right on! What you are talking about is the use of the Eastern mind, accpeting intuitons and subjective deeply felt personal feelings over stupid sicneitific reproducability or proof, because we know deep inside our like, minds that we are right. > No argument is likely to resolve these two views, they are dealing > in entirely different worlds. You are so right, man! It reminds me of the current argument about wether or not the moon exists or not when your not looking at it. I mean, like, someone else may be looking at it, and it may exist in their comic subspace, but does that means it really exists for you when your not lookin at it? It's sort of like that deep saying. If a tree falls in the forest and it doesn't make a sound, was there anyone there to hear it? You can't answer questions like that using stupid scineitific standards, because events like that aren't reproducable at the drop of a tree. I mean, this is a special kind of event that only happens when your just in the right frame of minds, after having really heavy chemical experiences that aren't easily dupelicated. Yet scientists will discard our experiencal data just because we failed to live up to THEIR standards! They are really uncool dudes. -- Peace, CJ (Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr) (Public Access Un*x - The Soup Kitchen)
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (03/30/86)
>Barry, you seem to have a poor understanding of the scientific world view. >It has nothing to say about ethics or religion or humanism in general, but >it can help clarify what ethics etc. talk about, and prevent such from >making egregrious claims. The fact that some scientists have the same >poor understanding you do is no reason to foist it on all scientists. > >ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Except when it does...(psychology, psychiatry, sociology, when science becomes a religion [I believe it qualifies as a religion, perhaps one of the few useful ones, but a religion just the same], when it decides *what* is worth researching and hence funding, what is worth publishing etc etc.) I think the distinction here is that you speak of how you -wish- science would behave, while perhaps I am speaking about how it -does- behave. This often causes these sharp disagreements. (also, don't you think you worded this a tad contentiously? Perhaps contempt prior to investigation? :-) -Barry Shein, Boston University
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (03/30/86)
[in reply to something I said I think, I was quoted anyhow...] >...stupid science has >to come along and complain that there isn't any evidence any of these >things happen, and it just upchucks it away like it was all some garbage. >Bummer! > CJ (Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr) etc etc, although it's apparent this is total satire it seems that your satire belies a total misunderstanding of what I said (more likely you are flailing against some other person, using me conveniently as an excuse to grab the soapbox?) I'll keep it real simple this time. We should in general only ACT on scientific evidence (where it applies), but we should be careful to leave other thoughts open to discussion. More importantly, my point really was that these two groups arguing are using entirely disjoint sets of axioms thus making discussion somewhat futile. (certainly not that I think AT&T is prescient or whatever you were saying.) Ok? thanks. I'm a human too which may come as a surprise to you. -Barry Shein, Boston University If it wasn't satire then I am sorry, real sorry.
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (04/01/86)
In article <331@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: >>Barry, you seem to have a poor understanding of the scientific world view. >>It has nothing to say about ethics or religion or humanism in general, but >>it can help clarify what ethics etc. talk about, and prevent such from >>making egregrious claims. The fact that some scientists have the same >>poor understanding you do is no reason to foist it on all scientists. > >Except when it does...(psychology, psychiatry, sociology, when science >becomes a religion [I believe it qualifies as a religion, perhaps one >of the few useful ones, but a religion just the same], when it decides >*what* is worth researching and hence funding, what is worth publishing >etc etc.) Ah! Now we're getting to where we disagree. The examples you list are not really sciences yet in my book. They do good work and bad work, just like the hard sciences, but some of their bad work has a tendency to get political backing at the wrong time. Considering the earlier discussion had been mostly about the contempt hard science offers against the claims offered for the paranormal, I think my misunderstanding of your views was natural. But now I no longer know what your views are. >I think the distinction here is that you speak of how you -wish- >science would behave, while perhaps I am speaking about how it -does- >behave. This often causes these sharp disagreements. Regarding the hard sciences, I think I'm speaking for how they do behave. > (also, don't you >think you worded this a tad contentiously? Perhaps contempt prior to >investigation? :-) Yes, I was definitely contentious. Contempt? Perhaps. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720