The Sick State of Todays Science

[#juan]

19 June 2004
Cassini's Homecoming

>>Cassini closes in on the beautiful ringed planet — Saturn.
Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

”Nothing so evokes gasps of delight as Saturn's ring. The reason I think, is a collision of the expected and the improbable. A ringed sphere is the archetypal planet of our childhood, familiar from a thousand comic strips, coloring books, classroom poster boards, stickers, rubber stamps, birthday cards — you name it. So, when we see Saturn, there is a kind of instant recognition, like meeting a relative one knows only from the family photo album. But there is also the shock of reality, a sense of 'Oh my God, it actually exists!” – Chet Raymo.

From the NY Times of June 15, 2004:
"The Saturn system represents an unsurpassed laboratory, where we can look for answers to many

continued @ http://tinyurl.com/bx52es

While I am a relative neophyte as far a real science is concerned, It seems to me the "Electric Universe" is chalk full of holes.

The following is one paragraph:

It is now clear that petroglyphs are an enduring record of the frightening collapse of a former cosmos. It has taken 10,000 years for us to be able to see in laboratory plasma discharge experiments what our forebears saw in awesome cosmic proportions in the sky. We can now understand why the first civilizations were obsessed with the capricious and warring planetary gods, who fought with thunderbolts, when today we can hardly identify those planets in the sky. With a real perspective of chaos in the solar system in prehistoric times we can see why the astronomer-priests of old were so powerful in their societies. They knew planets had had a dramatic impact on humanity and the Earth. And Saturn was remembered as the most prominent. The solar system as we see it today is less than 10,000 years old!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...you are a faith healing priest to your core.

Your usual fallback position: the ad hominem fallacy. At least you're consistent. :roll:

Even if I showed you the calculations you would disagree ...

Yes, I probably would (unless you got them right), but that's really irrelevant; you said you'd do it. This is just bluster to hide the fact that you don't know how.

You've been jumping up and down and waving your hands for months about Velikovsky, the electric universe, and various conspiracy theories. Many times you've been given evidence directly in a post or given links to evidence and analyses that are fatal to your claims, you just wave them away or ignore them, and when you see that your back's to the wall you resort to flippancy, bluster, denial, and personal attack. Every time.

 

[Cannuck]

You should see the girls in the Chemistry department here. Holy molly. Seriously.

I know, I watch a show the other night with this smokin' hot scientist...

I think it was a documentary or something.

 

[Scott Free]

I knew you got your science out of comic books! Lmao...

 

[darkbeaver]

[FONT=verdana, palatino, bookman old style]The Pathology of Organized Skepticism[/FONT] [FONT=verdana, palatino, bookman old style][FONT=verdana, palatino, bookman old style]by Guy Lyon Playfair[/FONT][/FONT]



L. David Leiter of Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, has no problems with what he sees as ordinary or individual skepticism. Writing in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Spring 2002) he describes this as "a useful and important human trait, the ability to recognise that any claim or theory, no matter how well established or authoritatively propounded, may turn out to be wrong." It is also "an important scientific tool especially when it is liberally applied to one's own work" and it "acts to refine and improve scientific enquiry".
Organised skepticism, or what the late Marcello Truzzi called pseudoskepticism, is another matter, as Leiter found when he infiltrated a group in his area called the "Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking" or PhACT. He never became a member "since in no way can I support [its] goals, both formal and de facto" and cheerfully admits to having attended its lectures, subscribed to its newsletter and got to know some of its members personally "for a somewhat covert reason", which was that "they fascinate me as a subject of study, both as individuals and as an organisation".
He found some of them not only to be ignorant about the subjects they were claiming to debunk,but to have something of a phobia about even reading anything containing views opposed to theirs, as if afraid of contamination. He had the feeling that they had joined PhACT "much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous" in search of "comfort, consolation and support among their own kind".
Then, after getting to know some of the members quite well, he made an interesting discovery: "Each one who has disclosed personal details of their formative years... has had an unfortunate experience with a faith-based philosophy, most often a conventional major religion." (His emphasis). Often this had been imposed on them by family or community so forcefully that they could not wait to break free and "throw off this philosophy with a vengeance". Thus, Leiter says, "they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science." However, "they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess - a closed mind".
Organised skeptics, he concludes, are "scientifically inclined but psychologically scarred". They have "a strong inclination towards ridicule and ad hominem criticism of those with differing viewpoints". They have "an obvious and well-known bias towards disbelief" which makes them "far more comfortable on the trailing edge of science than on the leading edge". Members of the Society for Scientific Exploration, in contrast, tend to be determined scientific explorers despite all the well-known risks involved".
Leiter was courageous enough to give his (then) fellow phactoids a talk entitled "Skeptical about Skeptics", the reception of which led him to conclude that "As the old adage states: They can dish it out but they can't take it".



http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/index.htm
The Skeptical Observer

 

[Niflmir]

[FONT=verdana, palatino, bookman old style]The Pathology of Organized Skepticism[/FONT] [FONT=verdana, palatino, bookman old style][FONT=verdana, palatino, bookman old style]by Guy Lyon Playfair[/FONT][/FONT]



L. David Leiter of Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, has no problems with what he sees as ordinary or individual skepticism. Writing in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Spring 2002) he describes this as "a useful and important human trait, the ability to recognise that any claim or theory, no matter how well established or authoritatively propounded, may turn out to be wrong." It is also "an important scientific tool especially when it is liberally applied to one's own work" and it "acts to refine and improve scientific enquiry".
Organised skepticism, or what the late Marcello Truzzi called pseudoskepticism, is another matter, as Leiter found when he infiltrated a group in his area called the "Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking" or PhACT. He never became a member "since in no way can I support [its] goals, both formal and de facto" and cheerfully admits to having attended its lectures, subscribed to its newsletter and got to know some of its members personally "for a somewhat covert reason", which was that "they fascinate me as a subject of study, both as individuals and as an organisation".
He found some of them not only to be ignorant about the subjects they were claiming to debunk,but to have something of a phobia about even reading anything containing views opposed to theirs, as if afraid of contamination. He had the feeling that they had joined PhACT "much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous" in search of "comfort, consolation and support among their own kind".
Then, after getting to know some of the members quite well, he made an interesting discovery: "Each one who has disclosed personal details of their formative years... has had an unfortunate experience with a faith-based philosophy, most often a conventional major religion." (His emphasis). Often this had been imposed on them by family or community so forcefully that they could not wait to break free and "throw off this philosophy with a vengeance". Thus, Leiter says, "they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science." However, "they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess - a closed mind".
Organised skeptics, he concludes, are "scientifically inclined but psychologically scarred". They have "a strong inclination towards ridicule and ad hominem criticism of those with differing viewpoints". They have "an obvious and well-known bias towards disbelief" which makes them "far more comfortable on the trailing edge of science than on the leading edge". Members of the Society for Scientific Exploration, in contrast, tend to be determined scientific explorers despite all the well-known risks involved".
Leiter was courageous enough to give his (then) fellow phactoids a talk entitled "Skeptical about Skeptics", the reception of which led him to conclude that "As the old adage states: They can dish it out but they can't take it".




The Skeptical Observer

Is that, like, an admissal of an unfortunate experience with a faith based religion?

 

[darkbeaver]

Friday, February 27, 2009

The NASA Coverup



"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish." — Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865

It seems that, in April/May 1985, there was an experiment performed by the United States Microgravity Laboratory aboard Spacelab 3 via the space shuttle Challenger (Mission STS 51-B) that NASA and the scientific establishment don't want you to know about: Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell.

The geophysical fluid flow cell (GFFC) experiment simulates a wide variety of thermal convection phenomena in spherical geometry. By applying an electric field across a spherical capacitor filled with a dielectric liquid, a body force analogous to gravity is generated around the fluid. The force acts as a buoyant force in that its magnitude is proportional to the local temperature of the fluid and in the radial direction perpendicular to the spherical surface. In this manner, cooler fluid sinks toward the surface of the inner sphere while warmer fluid rises toward the outer sphere. The value of this artificial gravity is proportional to the square of the voltage applied across the sphere and can thus be imposed as desired. With practical voltages, its magnitude is only a fraction of earth's and so requires a microgravity environment to be significant. The advantage of using this apparatus is that it simulates atmospheric flows around stars and planets, i.e. the "artificial gravity" is directed toward the center of the sphere much like a self-gravitating body.

The GFFC experiment flew on Spacelab 3 in April/May and operated for more than 100 hours during the mission. The experiment verified that dielectric forces can be used to properly simulate a spherical gravitational field to drive thermal convection.​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... NASA and the scientific establishment don't want you to know about...

Would you like to explain then why that link goes to an unrestricted NASA web site? That's not a good way to keep a secret.

 

[Tyr]

Would you like to explain then why that link goes to an unrestricted NASA web site? That's not a good way to keep a secret.

In DarkBeavers mind.....

He just thinks that there layers and layers of conspiracy and the link actually goes to a "black hole .... except you can't see it without the top secret, underground, ultra special glasses that only he has

 

[darkbeaver]

In DarkBeavers mind.....

He just thinks that there layers and layers of conspiracy and the link actually goes to a "black hole .... except you can't see it without the top secret, underground, ultra special glasses that only he has

Hayukayukayukha please stop my sides are splitting you are just too funny. You should have a license for that leathal weapon? The thread will go on and on and on for months and years and aeons. Yukayukayuka coughcoughwheezecoughsarrrrrrrghspitttt.

 

[barney]

I was just listening to the CBC and they featured Rupert Sheldrake talking about the monotheistic structure of today's science.

He also talks about a lot of interesting stuff he's researched like the possibility that people don't just feel like they're being watched, they may actually know it (a predator/prey instinct)--that explains how women seem to know I'm ogling their hotness when they're not looking. ;-)

Here's the link:

CBC Radio | Ideas | Features | How To Think About Science

Google him. There's quite a lot of links.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Google him. There's quite a lot of links.

Yes. Like this one and all the others like it. Sheldrake's abandoned science in favour of magic and metaphysics, and has shot himself in the foot almost as many times as Sylvia Browne. Nobody can replicate his results, nobody but him sees what he claims to see in his data, and he's well known for methodological sloppiness. I don't believe his opinions on the nature of science are worth taking seriously, he's forgotten what it is.

 

[L Gilbert]

No doubt. There probably are nearly half a dozen in Canada. The money is not that great (about the same as a schoolteacher)

rofl Not only do motivations for scientists vary, salaries vary, too. You seem to have a idealistic view of scientists and that they are all pure of heart, noble in deed, and completely altruistic. Funny.

 

[L Gilbert]

You should see the girls in the Chemistry department here. Holy molly. Seriously.

hehehe Is that an invitation? I am married, you know. lol
Seriously, I am not surprised. Even in my old profession there was the occasional hottie.

 

[L Gilbert]

In DarkBeavers mind.....

He just thinks that there layers and layers of conspiracy and the link actually goes to a "black hole .... except you can't see it without the top secret, underground, ultra special glasses that only he has

rofl

 

[darkbeaver]

I was just listening to the CBC and they featured Rupert Sheldrake talking about the monotheistic structure of today's science.

He also talks about a lot of interesting stuff he's researched like the possibility that people don't just feel like they're being watched, they may actually know it (a predator/prey instinct)--that explains how women seem to know I'm ogling their hotness when they're not looking. ;-)

Here's the link:

CBC Radio | Ideas | Features | How To Think About Science

Google him. There's quite a lot of links.

Thanks for the link. There is a lot to discuss about the politics of science.

 

[barney]

Yes. Like this one and all the others like it. Sheldrake's abandoned science in favour of magic and metaphysics, and has shot himself in the foot almost as many times as Sylvia Browne. Nobody can replicate his results, nobody but him sees what he claims to see in his data, and he's well known for methodological sloppiness. I don't believe his opinions on the nature of science are worth taking seriously, he's forgotten what it is.

I really didn't know anything about this until I heard Sheldrake on the show. I quickly skimmed around for info on his work and have found little evidence that would justify its condemnation to pseudoscience and "magic." The best argument against Sheldrake's work would seem to be that it is unfalsifiable, but much of the criticism apparently depends on how one views the data. These are not grounds for outright dismissal of the theory.

There was a time when the idea of magnetoception was viewed as magical BS, yet today it is an accepted fact that most if not all organisms have this ability to a greater or lesser degree.

Ideas of morphic resonance fields and the like are based on the idea that the spaces between matter that we take for granted are dependent on other, as yet unmeasurable underlying mechanics. This enters into the area of quantum biology, which is a respected field but still in its infant stages.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I quickly skimmed around for info on his work...

You'll need to a little more than quickly skimming around, because...

Ideas of morphic resonance fields and the like are based on the idea that the spaces between matter that we take for granted are dependent on other, as yet unmeasurable underlying mechanics.

...that's nowhere close to how Sheldrake describes morphic resonance and morphogenic fields. He puts it in terms of telepathic connections and a species' collective memory. Nobody's been able to duplicate his results. Try this: Staring Effect and Rupert Sheldrake (Skeptical Inquirer September 2000)

 

[barney]

Ok I admit I skipped over the whole telepathy thing (i.e. went more for what is happening in the background so to speak--which I believe is ultimately at the heart of theories like this).

In Sheldrake's defence, I don't think he actually uses the term, 'telepathy' to describe his theory.

I'm just suggesting that given what others (pro and con alike) have said about the theory and his experiments, it's unclear what exactly his results are saying but that doesn't necessarily mean he's full of it.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

In Sheldrake's defence, I don't think he actually uses the term, 'telepathy' to describe his theory.

You may well be right, his first book about it came out some time in the early 1980s. It's been a very long time since I read it and I know I shouldn't trust my memory on such details without checking, but however he put it, that seemed to me to be the gist of it. Damn, one more thing I have to go back and read again... :lol:

..it's unclear what exactly his results are saying but that doesn't necessarily mean he's full of it.

I agree, but I also think the fact that his results are unclear and others have been unable to produce results that support his claims strongly suggest that he's missed something pretty basic. His methodology for the staring experiments, for instance (the only bits of his work I've followed recently), was extremely sloppy and open to multiple challenges; somebody with his scientific credentials really should have known better.