The insecurity of ignorance

[sac beh]

It is a common criticism that widely accepted theories are convoluted since they are more proven and contain more detail. The detail of information scares people off into believing that there must be a simpler solution. A fringe view is thought to be more obvious/elegant by fringe view holders because the view seems simpler due to lack of evidence and thorough explanation of the theory.

In the end its just a misuse of the terms elegant and convoluted.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

In my view these posts support what I am calling the insecurity of arrogance. Obviously the establishment is cockblocking Plasma Theory. It happens all the time. It looks to me like you guys will never budge because you are overly certain that the scientific process works as it should.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Obviously the establishment is cockblocking Plasma Theory.

lmao at unsubstantiated absurdities.

The scientific process does work as it should, not always quickly, since new theories must be well supported enough to actually appear viable, but almost always eventually. If there is validity to plasma theory, it will be undeniable eventually.


btw, arctic sun started your big bang thread for you. I'm just waiting on specific points to be brought up, so that I don't have to type too much.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

lmao at unsubstantiated absurdities.

I think the statements by scientists in the video substantiate it well. I would like to see you debate any one of them.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I think the statements by scientists in the video substantiate it well. I would like to see you debate any one of them.

Go to the appropriate thread and pick one.

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
Quote:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media (including youtube).

The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.

One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion—a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. (Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to judge the work's validity.)

Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.

Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

I began this list of warning signs to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense. But as I finished the list, I realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

"help help, I'm bein' repressed... come and see the violence inherent in the system... Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you? "

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

I linked to the book first. I've known about this for years. I posted the video for the convenience of others.

By all means, knock yourself out.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_Universe_resources#Peer_reviewed_articles.2C_online_in_full

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Are you not understandin' the "in the appropriate thread" part?

(I started without you, already)

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

"help help, I'm bein' repressed... come and see the violence inherent in the system... Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you? "

It's called denial of tenure. You really like to ridicule, don't you?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

It's called denial of tenure. You really like to ridicule, don't you?

nah... I really like Monty Python.

tenure should be denied to people who teach nonscience. :wink:
reminds me of ben stein's tripe film about ID.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

nah... I really like Monty Python.

tenure should be denied to people who teach nonscience. :wink:

Okay, you are a free human being and can "believe" whatever you like. I choose not to believe anything if I can help it and in doing so allow for all possibilities. I feel my approach is the more scientific. I see yours as hopelessly bound by convention. You might have egg on your face some day, but I won't because I judge less and question more.

 

[GMT]

ok, squabbles taken care of, I'd rather the thread died out than got turned into a playground thread. New examples, statements, topics, points of view welcome, but repeated posts aren't, nor are petty bickering posts. Not blaming anyone just saying lets keep it on target or let it die out, please.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Okay, you are a free human being and can "believe" whatever you like. I choose not to believe anything if I can help it and in doing so allow for all possibilities. I feel my approach is the more scientific. I see yours as hopelessly bound by convention. You might have egg on your face some day, but I won't because I judge less and question more.

i'm only bound by what is.
Your post is directed at a perversion of my position and not my actual position.

I too question everything. but some things are without doubt well established enough to make policy by.
I'm not so naive to question things that are well known, a la "I wonder what will happen if I jump off this building."

No reason to allow for the possibility that I might float there in mid air. It is far too improbable.

You can feel you're more scientific, by refusing to believe what can be plainly seen, and jumping off to find out... but in my mind one is being foolish who is unable to harvest the knowledge that came before. No need to keep re-inventing the wheel, just because you're unwilling to admit 'round things roll'.

If all scientists ever did was question, we'd have never gotten anywhere.
If you do not formulate theories, and only blindly question other's theories while ignoring the body of evidence necessary supporting them, then you're not being scientific at all.

I seriously doubt that you truly 'do not believe anything'.
what keeps you from walking out in traffic or drinking motor oil?

 

[ibjamming]

I think it is funny, that ibjamming imagines that each new piece of the puzzle causes us to throw out the pieces we've got in place.

I said it CAN...can can can...are you deaf? It CAN cause some old pieces to be thrown out.

I will, but it has no bearing on the article I just posted.




Edit... I watched the video... full of cherry picked misinterpreted information and improbable conclusions.
Thanks for the link though, their spin was interesting. I can see how easy it would be for it to convince people without a decent background in the subject.



Surely you don't blindly believe Youtube vids... Dig Deeper.
It is easy to educate yourself in this modern where world we live.

Really? you have exclusive access to the RAW data? Really?

I think the most relevant aspect of it in this thread is how the scientific establishment treats people who offer elegant alternatives to convoluted and tightly held theories.

Yup...

In my view these posts support what I am calling the insecurity of arrogance. Obviously the establishment is cockblocking Plasma Theory. It happens all the time. It looks to me like you guys will never budge because you are overly certain that the scientific process works as it should.

EXACTLY what they accuse me of...

"help help, I'm bein' repressed... come and see the violence inherent in the system... Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you? "

Hmmm...didn't I say that about people in another thread and you roasted me for it? The hypocrisy never ceases...

It's called denial of tenure. You really like to ridicule, don't you?

Yup...it's what he does...that and paste links to stuff. I don't think I've heard an original thought yet. He's the poster boy for the threads title!

Okay, you are a free human being and can "believe" whatever you like. I choose not to believe anything if I can help it and in doing so allow for all possibilities. I feel my approach is the more scientific. I see yours as hopelessly bound by convention. You might have egg on your face some day, but I won't because I judge less and question more.

Bingo! EVERY day brings new discoveries. New ways of looking at things... I believe they call it dogma?

i'm only bound by what is.
Your post is directed at a perversion of my position and not my actual position.

I too question everything. but some things are without doubt well established enough to make policy by.
I'm not so naive to question things that are well known, a la "I wonder what will happen if I jump off this building."

You can feel you're more scientific, by refusing to believe what can be plainly seen, and jumping off to find out... but in my mind one is being foolish who is unable to harvest the knowledge that came before. No need to keep re-inventing the wheel, just because you're unwilling to admit 'round things roll'.


I seriously doubt that you truly 'do not believe anything'.
what keeps you from walking out in traffic or drinking motor oil?

You're so LITERAL...obviously he meant "THEORIES". To quote Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon". You get funnier every day! I love it!

Oh, I forgot...you wanted an example of a new discovery throwing out an old one... Classical and modern physics. You couldn't send a spacecraft without taking into account relativistic effects. So, Newton FAILS in the modern world and Einstein wins...for now. Someday, we'll probably have to replace that...I don't know...for FASTER than light travel.

Science is ALWAYS moving, always improving. To take a snapshot NOW and say ALL the laws will be valid in the future is absurd...and anyone believing it to be true is absurd...that's why we can't talk!

You're actually the opposite of the thread title...you're the "arrogance of ignorance". You're a "religion of science" member. But you're smart...give it a few years...20-30-40...then you'll see the deception.

 

[HempKat]

You answered your own question...every decade or so...ESTABLISHED theories change. So why "believe" something that will be obsolete in 10 years?

That wasn't a question I was asking. To answer yours though, the why is because not all theories will be obsolete in 10 years. The theory of gravity as describe by Newton dates back to the 1600's, it wasn't until Einstein came along in 1915 with General Relativity that Newton's theory was modified. Even then it was just modified or enhanced by Einstein and not completely disproven. See if you were around in Newton's day and said, "I'm not going to believe him because his theory will be obsolete in 10 years" you would go around all your life seeming like an idiot to everyone else since Newton's theory is still in play over 300 years later.

THANK YOU!! Yes, usually I'm all fucked up when I'm replying...it makes it hard to get my point across. It would be easier in person.

No problem, most of us are, do you think normal straight people spend so much time debating such trivial topics?

You can't blindly trust what ANYONE says to you! ESPECIALLY...the "officials"...their agenda isn't to be truthful...it's to get/do what they want.

How said anything about trusting anyone blindly? To trust blindly is to be naive as children or to act the fool if you're an adult. Trusting blindly is what pedophile teachers and priests count on. You would be equally naive and foolish to automatically distrust all teachers or priests because of just a few. Let us not also forget the sage advise of the politician Ronald Reagan "Trust but verify" that's how life should be. I guess you can't listen to that though since he was a politician and therefore can automatically be distrusted?

Nice... I'm not sure we're CAPABLE of "perfect objectivity". Especially towards ourselves.

Humans are incapable of true perfection of any kind. That being said we can come close but only if we try. If we tell ourselves we're not capable before we try then we're less likely to be successful when we do try.

It's not that I don't "trust" it...because what we know works...for now. I just "know" that it's not the END of the story...

No you don't, you suspect it's not the end of the story but you don't know it. Then again nobody has said "This is the answer and that's the end of the story" so to say you know this isn't the end of the story is meaningless and irrelevent.

ALL science is bought and paid for by someone wanting the study done. Our scientists USED to be rich educated guys with family money who could do their own research. Now ALL research is paid for by "grants"...How do you get a grant? You kiss ass and report what the people paying you want to hear. We don't do "pure" science any more.

Really? And your proof of this is where? Not all science and research is bought and paid for. Not all scientists were rich educated guys. Einstein started off poor and was never what people would call rich. Towards his end he was well off but only because of all his published
works. Nor was he all that educated as he was too far advanced for most schools to hold any meaning for him. Much of his educational titles were granted to him honorarily. Yes some research is bought and paid for and the scientists in those areas are in it for the money. There are still many however that are in Scientific research just for the knowledge and perhaps one day to be credited with a particular scientific theory.

MOST media and MOST politicians...so yes, let's throw it ALL out and start fresh.

Well all humans are flawed in one way or another so why not just throw the whole race out and start over? Or to put it another way on the chance you're religious, "Let he who be without sin, cast the first stone".

That's what I've been saying!!! We don't REALLY know anything because the "truth" keep changing. you have to keep looking for the answers...but I'm not so sure we'll ever get them.

Nobody said, "Oh we have all the answers now so you can stop looking" Some truths change but not all and most truths when they do change, the old understanding isn't completely thrown out but rather is modified or enhanced by the new information.

As for Hawking...all I know is what I'm shown. If you say he's "aware", so be it. I'll "believe" you...until I see different...I'm not so convinced.

Most people don't even follow Hawkins so what would be the point to make him a mouthpiece? I'm sure to that when he comes up with something new or substantial it goes thru the typical review process and imagine what a feather it would be in a scientists cap if he could somehow disprove what many believe to be the smartest man in the world.

He must have quite the brain then. To keep all those thoughts organized when he can't make notes...it seems impossible to keep it ALL straight in his head. That's why I question. Complicated ideas usually require the ability to "storyboard"...like they do making movies and writing books.

Just because something seems impossible to you doesn't mean it's impossible to everyone. Some people are blessed with photographic memory and can read a whole book and be able to quote pages verbatim when asked later, what a particular page said. You got to understand that when one becomes deprived of certain things they tend to compensate by developing something else to extraordinary levels. To me the ability to read braille seems impossible how could one possibly make sense of all those bumps? I have eyesight though so I have no real need to be able to translate those bumps.

 

[GMT]

Next insult posted on this thread, and I'LL have it closed! I've asked for it to be kept civil, we're all enjoying the fact that there are others on it that hold different views, its what makes an interesting discussion possible. Everyone agreeing makes for a dull thread. But if we can't argue without insulting, then we don't deserve the opportunity to put our side accross. I argue with mods at times about the way this site is moderated, but now I'm seriously thinking this thread needs to be shut down. I hate to let those who have wanted this from the start, win. But what option do I have? Its been a good thread, and lots of input from lots of members, but now its getting old fast. Calling people names is for the playground, not for this thread. And repeatedly arguing the same points is pointless unless you have something new to add. So far, everyone in the thread has demonstrated that even if they start off the wrong way, they are capable of being reasonable. Therefore when anyone is not reasonable, they show that they dont want to be. If you dont want to be reasonable, why post in a thread that is about people being unreasonable, unless you want to justify the threads existence? Which is ironic as its the best way to get it shut down. I am serious. As the thread starter, I can ask for it to be locked. And I will if it doesn't take a turn for the better.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

ibjamming, you say it can happen, but you have no evidence of it ever happening. What would be more accurate is if you said that you imagine that it could possibly maybe happen.

Yes, there is more raw data that the public does have access to, than any one individual could even begin to process.

Trying to spin science as a religion is ineffective and pointless.
You can't find once ever anywhere where i've said or implied science was either complete or unchanging, and I can find dozens of instances of my saying exactly the opposite.

 

[ibjamming]

ibjamming, you say it can happen, but you have no evidence of it ever happening. What would be more accurate is if you said that you imagine that it could possibly maybe happen.

Yes, there is more raw data that the public does have access to, than any one individual could even begin to process.

Trying to spin science as a religion is ineffective and pointless.
You can't find once ever anywhere where i've said or implied science was either complete or unchanging, and I can find dozens of instances of my saying exactly the opposite.

Well then WHAT have we been arguing about?

I'm saying science is "incomplete" that you can't take it all literally or think that "we know it all"... Throughout history we "knew" lots of things and they proved false.

You keep harping that there are FIXED laws and they'll NEVER change...did you not? There are things we "absolutely know". And I disagree.

DO we have a disagreement?

That's why I was laughing...you seem to be changing your position.

 

[GMT]

the was once a scientific doctrine that stated that atoms were the building blocks of everything. That it wasnt possible to get smaller than the atom. Now we generally accept that that scientific truth was innacurate. It doesnt however throw everything that was previously known out of the window, it just opens a new door to explore. It was wrong, but what we knew before we still knew, we just knew more. So it does happen, it just doesn't invalidate everything up to that point. ok can we please move on. science doesn't know everything, but it is a usefull tool in discriminating between fact and fiction.

There are things though that we cant use science to determine, we can only use reason to reach a level of probability. What is most probable, may not be true, however when we act without reasoned probability, we act without reason. This is really the topic of this thread. Perhaps some areas may be alternative medicines, such as faith healing, or perhaps gambling on horse races, or belief in alien vissitors. If there are thoughts on topics of this nature, or how we come to form opinions and how we react to those who dissagree with us, or perhaps why an arguement breaks out on an internet chat site when 2 people can't agree even on what they are aruing about, without creating a new aruement, lets move onto that. But please, even when others dissagree, lets stay civil about our differences, and lets not get into circular arguements again.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Well then WHAT have we been arguing about?

I'm saying science is "incomplete" that you can't take it all literally or think that "we know it all"... Throughout history we "knew" lots of things and they proved false.

You keep harping that there are FIXED laws and they'll NEVER change...did you not? There are things we "absolutely know". And I disagree.

DO we have a disagreement?

That's why I was laughing...you seem to be changing your position.

If you can find one time where I've ever stated anything which implies in any manner anything different that I just stated, I'll eat my hat.


You KNOW I never ever said science knows everything.

I do still say science knows some things.
If science did not know for sure specific properties of the behavior of the electrons in some elements, You could not possibly be typing posts on a computer.

Computers, and cars, and televisions, and many other things exist because science knows some things. "knowing absolutely" is a red herring and irrelevant. There are plenty of things we know enough about to warrant acting on said knowledge.



You keep saying that science knew lots of things that were proved false. This is an untrue statement, and you cannot back it up. Some scientists may have had their hypothesis disproved, but this is vastly different than implying that some fundamental theory has been rendered moot.

We do not disagree on the statement "science is incomplete and ever growing"

We do not disagree on the statement "science knows nothing absolutely"

We do apparently disagree on the statement "science knows enough about many things, to behave as though those specific things are truth." I find it to be true, and you act as if it is absurd.