Previous in Forum: Magnetic Radiation Sickness   Next in Forum: Biogas from Algae
Close
Close
Close
13 comments
Member

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Southwest Florida
Posts: 9

Sacred Cows in Science

11/14/2008 1:46 AM

The webmaster of <www.gmxxnet.com> apologizes for the furor caused by my email "Magnetic Radiation Sickness" posted in thread 29081 last week. He did not realize that sacred cows of scientific furor extended past alien abductions and UFO invasions into the realm of mind control and magnetic radiation sickness... He has revised several web pages to omit some of this critieria, but he has much information to present before the website goes out of the "construction" mode.

The case of the "cold fusion" fiasco comes to mind. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann stupidly associated their experiemental results with the fusion process, and the scientific furor began. Their scientific reputations, and even their careers, were destroyed by the yelling and sceaming critiques written in the style of guru europium. Her critique braggadocio is only surpassed by her lack of ability to comprehend any phenomena beyond scientific method analysis.... I wish to thank TVP45 and the others for their response to my email.

Gena

Register to Reply
This discussion was "closed" on 11/16/2008 9:45 PM. No new comments are allowed.
Message from admins:
If you want to talk about this pseudoscientific nonsense, find another forum.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: City of Light
Posts: 3943
Good Answers: 182
#1

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/14/2008 7:41 AM

There is no blinder than the one who does not want to see.

I noticed several times that an a priori opinion cannot be influenced by logical arguments. Who believes will always find ways to demonstrate that he (she) is right and all other are on the error side. Do not loose any more time use it better in other directions.

I would suggest to read the comments on the comment I made "where is the critical eye of the engineer?".

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4448
Good Answers: 143
#2

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/14/2008 8:08 AM

The trick is to be able to know which sacred cows have great value and which are only temporary expedients.

For example, conservation of momentum is one of the absolute foundation stones of modern science and engineering; if that's wrong, almost everything else was merely an illusion. So, an attack on that would be greeted with much derision and hooting.

On the other hand, string theory is a "Johnny-come-lately" that looks like it might be useful, but maybe not. If someone shows it wrong, most of us would drop it like a hot potato.

Europium is a pretty smart person. Perhaps, like me, given to a little hyperbole, but worth reading.

__________________
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." Elwood P. Dowd
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Member

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Southwest Florida
Posts: 9
#9
In reply to #2

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/15/2008 10:34 AM

One sacred cow of science has been the "scientific method" of verification. Many scientists live or die by that philosophy, especially if they have two or more PhD's attached to their name. If the test results do not reproduce under identical conditions, then the test results are system artifacts, or worse, and the testing should be discarded. This is a good and essential part of scientific pursuit, and it has carried the scientific community for several generations.

However, the scientific method has little or no value in discovery of new phenomena. Very little discovery has been derived from logical extension of results verified from the scientific method procedures. Perception of test result anomolies have yielded many new discoveries independent of results derived from scientific method endeavors.

Flemings' associates may well have placed "that contaminated petri dish" into cleaning solution since no one at that time placed any value on contaminated cultures. But Fleming had perception and enough insight to realize that a new phenomena had been discovered. Further anaysis and subsequent scientific method verification gave the world penicillin. The same thought goes for the perceptive person who did not throw away the rubber mixture contaminated by a sulfur spill....

These perceptive discoveries were all validated by reproducible test results using scientific method procedure. But what if the phenomena did not reproduce? The perceptive scientist would review his observations, dutifully logged into the company research notebook, and try to understand the anomaly from the vast amount of scientific knowledge available. Then, just before he totally discards the phenomena, he could submit the information to some engineering forum to see if some insight could be gained from the hue and cry generated from the website members. Just kidding, guys, some insight has been gained from our association...

Sacred cows in science are important, but even the scientific method dictates that all sacred cows are subject to critique in light of new physical discoveries... Some, like the conservation of momentum, are well entrenched into our comfort zone, but expansion of system dimensions might reveal anomolies that should be further pursued by the scientific method... Gena

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4448
Good Answers: 143
#12
In reply to #9

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/15/2008 1:33 PM

Your argument is akin to saying that, since Columbus supposedly found the West Indies while looking for India, all sailors should throw away their maps and just go sailing about till they find something.

Your ad hominem attack on PhDs (no, I don't have one) also suggests that you are trying to sell us a bill of goods. That's a common tactic when someone lacks facts.

You say "Very little discovery has been derived from logical extension of results verified from the scientific method", but that's completely wrong. Fleming's discovery may have been serendipitous, but the logical extensions of that discovery, all validated by the scientific method, include tetracycline, gentamicin, streptomycin, cephalexin, erythromycin, amoxicillin, ampicillin, etc, etc, etc.

I think you have a valid point of view and you certainly deserve a chance to present it, but not at the expense of the facts.

__________________
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." Elwood P. Dowd
Register to Reply Score 2 for Off Topic
4
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 83
Good Answers: 11
#13
In reply to #9

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/16/2008 2:36 AM

Gena, the overall impression I get from your posts is that you are a friend of GSC's and "how dare anyone challenge his ideas." It all seems to boil down to your confilict with others' personalities and the fact that they are not willing to accept these ideas on utterly blind and uninformed faith. You want to be accepted here, and you want GSC's ideas to be accepted here and how dare this forum challenge any of this stuff you've set forth. You're ready to discard at the flick of a wrist the foundations of modern science because it, too, refuses to accept on blind faith.

You're wasting your time here. I've certainly wasted mine and I'm leaving this thread.

This is ridiculous.

TV

__________________
"If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will." -- TV
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Anonymous Poster
#3

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/14/2008 10:40 AM

I watched that thread and on reading this one I rather suspect that you, Gena, are the webmaster of gmxxnet.com. Webmasters seldom, if ever, apologize vicariously for the content of their websites. Say hi to GSC.

Register to Reply
Member

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Southwest Florida
Posts: 9
#4
In reply to #3

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/14/2008 12:14 PM

Almost correct... GSC just turned 70 after "decades" of scientifice employment with the big guys like IBM and RCA. He recently deactivated his small magnetic radiation laboratory business and concentrates on expansion of his book, "Pseudoscientist". I am a good friend who feels bad that his analysis went awry.

He has always been at the wrong place at the wrong time... He headed a research project at IBM which analyzed catastrophic failures within semiconductor devices. The problem was solid solubility between silicon and phorphorus which created an "illegal" compound, silicon phosphide, and this compound was supposed to be unstable at room ambient. The case for continuing research on silicon phosphide production was put foward, but IBM said that was not part of their business activity. Several years later, Monsanto built several large plants dedicated to silicon phosphide production.. Gena

Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#5
In reply to #4

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/14/2008 1:40 PM

"Pseudoscientist" is usually a perjorative term. Why is he calling it that?

Register to Reply
Member

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Southwest Florida
Posts: 9
#8
In reply to #5

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/14/2008 9:21 PM

The title, "Pseudoscientist", was chosen because the author was fatiqued from the incredulity and ridicule received from scientific personnel well versed in scientific method verification procedures. He decided to write this autobiography, derived from test results recorded in his bound research notebooks, with possible future publication on the web. Visit the website and send GSC a personal email if you have further interest...

Register to Reply
4
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 83
Good Answers: 11
#6

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/14/2008 2:38 PM

Hello Gena,

Welcome to CR4!

TVP45 makes a good point about "Sacred Cows" (for his gentle-yet-firm post I gave him a well-deserved GA), and it may be of some benefit to you to pay him and others here some heed. I say this with the best intentions.

I've followed Europium's posts for some time now, and TVP45 is correct: Europium is smart. Very smart. He's probably brilliant. His (he's a guy) breadth and depth of scientific and engineering knowledge far surpass anything I ever hope to attain, much less contribute here, and I've learned a lot from him.

Yes, Europium is given to hyperbole as TVP45 points out and, yes, he can be loud and obnoxious on occasion, as you've recently discovered. But as TVP45 also pointed out, but he's worth a read. Best when you catch him in a humorous mood which, seems to be most of the time, fortunately!

One thing Europium doesn't tolerate is so-called "New Age" physics. Not to be confused with The New Physics, which is something else entirely. Nor, apparently, does Europium have much patience for people who extol stupidity, A recent example comes to mind: two fellows from India who claimed that Einstein essentially wallows in a cesspool of "mathematical mumbo-jumbo" and that he just "made it all up." Europium pointed out that much of today's modern technology "depends on Einstein's theories being right," and it does. Case closed.

One thing you need to keep in mind here is that no matter how strongly you believe something to be true, doesn't obligate anyone else here to believe likewise. It works that way here, and works that way in Life. Do you trust complete strangers simply because they insist that you do? Of course not! If you did, you could find yourself in big trouble. Simply because you believe something to be so doesn't automatically make it equally so for others. Your statement is merely that: a statement about what you believe.

Gena, you are a complete stranger here. Worse, unless you post a picture of yourself (not advisable for reasons of privacy), you don't even have a face. Like all of us here, we are really nothing more than a collection of pixels on each others' computer monitors. That's all we are. We don't know you from Adam's house cat, nor you us. To suddenly walk into this forum with a bunch of talk about 'fluxion generators' and 'magnetic transmitters' doesn't buy you an ounce of credibility, as Europium pointed out.

If you believe that this forum will take, on faith, anything and everything you propose here -- especially anything regarding a new or unfamiliar science or technology -- you're kidding yourself. For one thing, a forum like that isn't worth visiting, much less posting to. Its members will have no facility in critical thinking and therefore no ability to evaluate in any meaningful way what you are setting forth before them. You might gain friends there, but I guarantee that you will learn nothing from them.

You might want to cut Europium some slack. One thing I know about him is that even though he can an obnoxious skeptic, once he's convinced of the veracity of something, of how it works and exactly on what principles it is based, he's convinced for life and makes a great ally. Convincing him is the hard part, and if there's the slightest hint of BS in the air, he'll find it out, trust me. Best to be straightforward with him as he is with us. You'll never find a more loyal friend -- but first you have to earn his respect. It's only fair.

'Nuf said.

Kindest regards,

TV

__________________
"If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will." -- TV
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Member

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Southwest Florida
Posts: 9
#10
In reply to #6

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/15/2008 12:11 PM

Thank you for the civility of this email. I have monitored the CR4 webite for over a year, and I am impressed with humor and honesty expressed among the memers. Not so impressed with the diatribe allocated to a new member trying to find a way to communicate with the other members...

GSC has up to 30 years left to organize his notebooks and derive their contents into a working manuscript. Unfortunately he is not in any hurry, retirement does that to a person, and I referenced a website to you guys that is less than 10 percent completed. Future submissions will provide scientific details about each keyword mentioned on the website index page. The hue and cry for "evidence" will not be met until patent disclosures are processed, and dissemination of patent content is essential to protect patent rights.

However, in the spirit of the comaraderie usually express on this website, I present the following technical information:

1. The rumor that magnetic radiation will react with the electromagnetic fields around operating electronic circuits is not true. The idea that this interaction will disable the electronic function during field operation can not be true. Actually, a big purple finger materializes out of nowhere, and pushes the power button into the off mode...

2. The rumor that magnetic radiation penetrates the dermal and epithelial tissue layers and further reacts with cortical control can not be true. Actually the test subject suddenly dances around wildly singing out , "I think I can. I think I can." while tearing his hair out.

3. The thought that military surveillance may occur if magnetic radiation interferes with ELF military communications is just plain dumb. Actually, the military will not take action until the interferance hurts the communication process, and then the perpetrator just disappears and all records of his existance are erased from computer memory.

4. The rumor that magnetic radiation will transform cubic inorganic material into layered hexagonal stacked crystals has to be made up by the researcher. Actually the researcher spilled a drop of Mountain Dew into the test chamber during his caffeine high.

The list could go on, but enough is enough... Gena

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4513
Good Answers: 88
#11
In reply to #10

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/15/2008 1:25 PM

What is "magnetic radiation" and how do you measure it? What are fluxions? That is, what do you think they are?

Just curious.

Register to Reply
2
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: "Dancing over the abyss."
Posts: 4884
Good Answers: 243
#7

Re: Sacred Cows in Science

11/14/2008 8:52 PM

It wasn't scientific furor, Nothing that had been posted was science.

The furor was over posting "rectal bleeding" and "helicopter speculations" as evidence of some kind of well, we still don't get it. Dimensions of a cardboard box that summons helicopters . perhaps. sometimes.

'Pseudo' seems to be a good description.

Welcome to Cr4

milo

__________________
People say between two opposed opinions the truth lies in the middle. Not at all! Between them lies the problem, what is unseeable,eternally active life, contemplated in repose. Goethe
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Register to Reply 13 comments
This discussion was "closed" on 11/16/2008 9:45 PM. No new comments are allowed.
Message from admins:
If you want to talk about this pseudoscientific nonsense, find another forum.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Anonymous Poster (2); Gena (4); Milo (1); nick name (1); TheVoices (2); TVP45 (2); user-deleted-13 (1)

Previous in Forum: Magnetic Radiation Sickness   Next in Forum: Biogas from Algae

Advertisement