Pseudo Science

[austintorn@aol.com]

Pseudo Science

This purpose of this thread is to look at some inevitable human biases, dissembling them if possible so that we can truly see how the world works rather than the way we would like it to be.

It may cause some science friction where the known meets the unknown, for the lure of transcendental realities is great; however, this lure subverts the power of intelligence, enabling the acceptance of unproved and unfounded myth systems simply because they touch something in us that is sacred and important—such as life and immortality (who wouldn’t want that!).

Astrology, once a big hit, is pretty much history now, but for some that take their horrorscopes seriously instead as just some idle fun. Beside, the astrological signs have long since moved ahead by a whole month.

Numerology, too, seems to be fading but for the unlucky 13 and now chapter 11 bankruptcy. Hasta la vista, too, to tarot cards and palm reading. Same with the age of the Earth and that the Earth is round; however, the 4000 year old Earth certainly looks flat to me!

The list of pseudo sciences is long. Various and sundry claims, many of them 'coincidentally' invisible, are still about in huge numbers in almost every conceivable way, just waiting to be disproved or to reference how they were.

We are not so concerned with persuading those total believers in all things superstitious or paranormal, for it is not likely that they will ever change, for reasons we may go into, but with those who might be in the middle of the road category.

Also, some subjects, such as the afterlife or not, may have already been covered in some popular threads, but certain topics always return and perhaps some new light could yet be shed on them.

For the ideas that can be proved, we will celebrate accordingly. Those that cannot be proved, especially ones with no facts, will have to be set aside, also with some celebration. Those which can be disproved or for which no facts are possible will have to be thrown quite far away and on into the dump.

One can usually tell a bias when one says outright that something is true or that it is so rather than saying that it seems to be or that it is a theory. For example, reincarnation is a theory. Evolution is already fact, as seen via the strata fossils and in 40,000 generations of bacteria evolving in the lab. Natural selection as a means whereby evolution takes place is a theory, although a good one that has withstood 150 years of inquiry.

Any ideas about what may be fake ideas that still may flourish, in however small or large populations?

[Graybeard]

Pseudo Science

This purpose of this thread is to look at some inevitable human biases, dissembling them if possible so that we can truly see how the world works rather than the way we would like it to be.

I wouldn't say categorically that anyone is free of superstition or 'inevitable human bias'. I think it is a survival reaction written deep within our code by our ancestors.

The fact is, whenever we suffer trauma, it is nearly always followed by shock. A rational being, free of all superstition, able to explain everything, every event to himself/herself in the light of Science and the laws of Physics .... shouldn't really suffer shock ???

I am aware that many will claim that shock is a physical reaction and therefore it cannot be avoided by the use of mental faculties such as cogitation or analysis . To those who accept science and natural selection as explanations for reality, this cuts no ice as we view everything as a biological/physical reaction regardless.

So it seems to me that we all would display, given a set of circumstances, inevitable human biases.

Fear of the unknown is written at a level below our ability to control, otherwise we would take too long to react to danger. I think this 'trait' is why we eternally try to explain our surroundings to ourselves. Why we insist that we are 'aware' or 'conscious', to continually try to still that small voice inside us "Be careful, ghosts may be in there". We try reassure ourselves constantly.

We're all scaredy cats in the dark ...... lol.

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

I hear some noises on your porch, Graybeard. Either the ants are having an uprising or there might be something spooky going on out there.

Human nature says that it's better to be alert and check it out, nothing much being lost if it isn't so.

It could be King Hamlet's ghost, however.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Universal Acid

As a boy in chemistry class, I wondered, as did others, about the following scenario that is often daydreamt of:

Two compounds were mixed, which, unfortunately, produced the ultimate acid. Nothing could contain it. It quickly ate though the container, the floor of the laboratory, and then even all the way through the earth, eventually sloshing some poor sap in China.

This, too, is what may happen to us, through education, as our chemical-bio-electric nature is revealed to us, being some kind of giant shock wave, after which we can never be the same again.

The biochemical mush that is us, when fully realized, leaves us stunned and astounded. We grasp for what we once thought we were before, what we wished we were, but it eludes us in the new light of the learning of the natural sciences. The universal acid of such knowledge eats through all superstitions, folk tales, and myths. Nothing can contain it.

We may come to even regret our learnings of this condition, for it dissolves our container, leaving us floundering in the lurch. It happened to me, too, beginning in fifth grade, in Catholic school.

But, wait, it’s not so bad, for what we are is still what we are, and we still have feelings, personality, and more adventures of learning that await. The light of education ever shines brightly, wherever it may lead. Many dark alleys remain to be explored, given our new insight into the human condition. Then, too, we know that the state of being is not same as the state and it is therein that we live from day to day.

[racecar]

Hey Austin, your post reached me at 4:44. Meaning of 444 ~ A powerhouse of angels are available to assist you or try to get your attention. 4 means balance. Creating strong foundations for the future.

You got my attention .

What would the world be like without pi?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Thanks, racecar, for all help is needed and appreciated, whether natural or supernatural.

Without pi and ice cream there would be less thin air and more thin people who would not survive the coming famine of 2012.


444 (555 is all used up)

[austintorn@aol.com]

Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things

(Michael Shermer)


1-3 are
Problems in Scientific Thinking

(4-25 being of pseudoscience
or logical problems in thinking
or psychological problems in thinking)

[austintorn@aol.com]

1. Theory Influences Observations

About the human quest to understand the physical world, physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg concluded, "What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." In quantum mechanics, this notion has been formalized as the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum action: "a probability function does not prescribe a certain event but describes a continuum of possible events until a measurement interferes with the isolation of the system and a single event is actualized" (in Weaver 1987, p. 412). The Copenhagen interpretation eliminates the one-to-one correlation between theory and reality. The theory in part constructs the reality. Reality exists independent of the observer, of course, but our perceptions of reality are influenced by the theories framing our examination of it. Thus, philosophers call science theory laden.

That theory shapes perceptions of reality is true not only for quantum physics but also for all observations of the world. When Columbus arrived in the New World, he had a theory that he was in Asia and proceeded to perceive the New World as such. Cinnamon was a valuable Asian spice, and the first New World shrub that smelled like cinnamon was declared to be it. When he encountered the aromatic gumbo-limbo tree of the West Indies, Columbus concluded it was an Asian species similar to the mastic tree of the Mediterranean. A New World nut was matched with Marco Polo's description of a coconut. Columbus's surgeon even declared, based on some Caribbean roots his men uncovered, that he had found Chinese rhubarb. A theory of Asia produced observations of Asia, even though Columbus was half a world away. Such is the power of theory.

[austintorn@aol.com]

2. The Observer Changes the Observed

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler "Even to observe so minuscule an object as an electron, [a physicist] must shatter the glass. He must reach in. He must install his chosen measuring equipment.… Moreover, the measurement changes the state of the electron. The universe will never afterward be the same" (in Weaver 1987, p. 427). In other words, the act of studying an event can change it. Social scientists often encounter this phenomenon. Anthropologists know that when they study a tribe, the behavior of the members may be altered by the fact they are being observed by an outsider. Subjects in a psychology experiment may alter their behavior if they know what experimental hypotheses are being tested. This is why psychologists use blind and double-blind controls. Lack of such controls is often found in tests of paranormal powers and is one of the classic ways that thinking goes wrong in the pseudosciences. Science tries to minimize and acknowledge the effects of the observation on the behavior of the observed; pseudoscience does not.

[austintorn@aol.com]

3. Equipment Constructs Results

The equipment used in an experiment often determines the results. The size of our telescopes, for example, has shaped and reshaped our theories about the size of the universe. In the twentieth century, Edwin Hubble's 60- and 100-inch telescopes on Mt. Wilson in southern California for the first time provided enough seeing power for astronomers to distinguish individual stars in other galaxies, thus proving that those fuzzy objects called nebulas that we thought were in our own galaxy were actually separate galaxies. In the nineteenth century, craniometry defined intelligence as brain size and instruments were designed that measured it as such; today intelligence is defined by facility with certain developmental tasks and is measured by another instrument, the IQ test. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington illustrated the problem with this clever analogy:

Let us suppose that an ichthyologist is exploring the life of the ocean. He casts a net into the water and brings up a fishy assortment. Surveying his catch, he proceeds in the usual manner of a scientist to systematize what it reveals. He arrives at two generalizations:

(1) No sea-creature is less than two inches long.
(2) All sea-creatures have gills.

In applying this analogy, the catch stands for the body of knowledge which constitutes physical science, and the net for the sensory and intellectual equipment which we use in obtaining it. The casting of the net corresponds to observations.

An onlooker may object that the first generalization is wrong. "There are plenty of sea-creatures under two inches long, only your net is not adapted to catch them." The ichthyologist dismisses this objection contemptuously. "Anything uncatchable by my net is ipso facto outside the scope of ichthyological knowledge, and is not part of the kingdom of fishes which has been defined as the theme of ichthyological knowledge. In short, what my net can't catch isn't fish." (1958, p. 16)

Likewise, what my telescope can't see isn't there, and what my test can't measure isn't intelligence. Obviously, galaxies and intelligence exist, but how we measure and understand them is highly influenced by our equipment.