Curbing the Spread of Pseudoscience

People aren't getting stupider, it just seems that way because the Internet brings them all to your PC screen.

People believe what they read, or see on TV (or youtube), and the Internet brings the lunatic fringe to the forefront.

Just google "Apollo moon hoax", or "why evolution is wrong" or "perpetual motion" or "planet niburu" or "maple syrup cures hickeys" or whatever, and it's out there.

Here you are demonstrating how people can suffer from the same ignorance of the basic principles behind scientific theory that helps drive psuedo science. Keep in mind that some things you just take as scientific fact actually do not meet the standards for a theory that physical sciences apply, Evolution is an accepted biological sciences theory but it does not meet the same standard the theory of relativity had to meet or many other physical sciences theories. Many people tend to accept the word science to mean that theories are vetted to some minimum level of mathematical proof/logical argument and then not disproven in a multitude of experiments designed to test the theory. This would be consistent with the process for Physics or Chemistry, however, not so for any biological/sociological "sciences". Theories in biological/sociological "sciences" depend much on general acceptance by other deemed qualified in the field, so an accepted theory for them is more of a political endeavor. Thus discourse against the theory of evolution have just as much validity as those for the theory, as none are formed as rational arguments in a unambiguous logical language, e.g. mathematics is one such language but english or french are not. You should never equate the theory of evolution to the level of scientific theory you equate general relativity, quantum mechanics, gravity, etc.. This is like equating a prion and a human being, one isn't quite a life form though it can meet some very broad minimal criteria and to some may appear as such, and the other is an extremely advanced complex well defined life form.

Actually, not necessarily. I did not say anything about a requirement for direct observation. There is no requirement for direct observation, just an actual rational theory provided in a logical unambiguous language, which will allow then for repeatable experiments that may disprove the theory. Many aspects of physics and chemistry do not allow for direct observation, but the theories have rational arguments (general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.). Now a series of DNA test might provide evidence that could be tilized to develop a theory of evolution, but the requirement for a unambiguous rational argument, which by its nature requires the use of a lagical unambiguous language, is what lacks in biological/sociological "sciences". However, bear in mind all DNA demonstrates is that there is some possible relationship between all the living species that have received DNA testing. There are still contradictory studies regarding the occurence of mutations in DNA (rates and causality). Some people conducting studies of evolutionary trees and relationship just use an assumed constant for DNA mutations, though we know that mutation rates actually vary in different species and they also now are suggesting that they differ based on major external stressors. Also, bear in mind that the valid scientific portions of DNA testing are actually the province of chemistry. So the statement is relying on the validity of chemistry to justify some argument that should not depend on the chemistry to prop it up, true scientific experimentation can only disprove theories.

BTW, Astrophysics definitely meets tha criteria for rational arguments, they use math to provide the arguments for their valid theories, so the language used in the argument is unambiguous and logical. In essence what Biological/Sociological "sciences" provide as "theories" only qualify as concepts in physical sciences and have not met the necessary criteria for their arguments to be theories. This lack of a valid rational argument, leaves huge loopholes and ambiguities in their concepts.

I do not see any of your comments about "evolution" to be valid.

The original theory of Charles Darwin, succinctly, is "evolution to the level of new species through variation and natural selection".

That is incontrovertible reality. This theory is necessary, essential, for explaining data from dozens of other branches of hard science. It ties them together in a cohesive whole. There is no room left to scientifically refute this fundamental property of life on Earth.

DNA, genetics, and mutation were unknown in Darwin's lifetime, yet they perfectly explain both variation and the persistence of traits passed on through inheritance.

What you said is just repetition of unscientific attacks made on Evolution by fundamentalist Christians of yesterday and today. They cannot make any valid criticism. Every attempt just shows their ignorance of facts and use of logical fallacies. They speak of Darwinism as if it was a competing faith.

The worst thing about Christian TV programs is their dissemination of invalid, unscientific methods (and lies) to refute a single scientific theory. Evolution. That, in turn, corrupts the minds of youth; making them incapable of critical thinking about many aspects of adult life.

In this sense, Christianity is the greatest source of Pseudoscience in the West.

There is a similar fundamental cause for the downfall of science in the Middle East. This was the ascending influence of a religious Muslim writer. Among other things, he denounced the use of mathematics to provide proofs. His overwhelming popularity and approval of his writing on religious subjects made this opinion on mathematics untouchable.

Within his generation, higher mathematics in the Muslim world was suppressed, stubborn scientists were executed, and the Middle East soon lost it's supremacy in innovation. The technology of battery stacks and metal refining through electrolysis was lost for centuries, as the "Art" had to be kept highly secretive. (Not as a trade secret, but to avoid condemnation.)

It remains crippled to this day, still downplaying the importance of the material world and affirming the pursuit of spiritual goals. Out of all the millions of Muslims, there has been only one Nobel prize winner.

. . . there has been only one Nobel Prize winner in science. This was not in an endeavor that required higher mathematics.

Wow, could it possibly be any more confusing and goofy? I wasn't aware I could "off" myself this way.

Thanks for pointing that out and the heads up Blink and LJ!

(referencing "off topic" posting, for the rest of you)

Very well put. I think Bob Dylan said:

Just remember when you're out there trying to heal the sick

That at first you must always forgive them.

The internet is full of wonderful and useful information, but it is also full of nonsense. Sadly our schools and our mass media don't prepare our citizens very well to sort through the piles of stuff and separate trash from treasure. We should be grateful that when in doubt, some people still have enough common sense to ask a professional.

It has always amazed me how many people will take information from a third, fourth, or fifth hand account from some half wit as the absolute scientific truth but yet when talking with a real person who actually does work with something they will quickly point out to that person that they are who is wrong and stupid.

I have driven three pickups now with propane as the primary fuel for well over 100K miles and all three where conversions I did myself too. At least 4 or 5 times a year I meet someone who tells me that I had better watch out when my fuel tank gets low and the propane pressure drops off or I will burn my valves out and ruin the engine. Why? Because they heard from a friend who knew a guy who had a neighbor that they think had that happen to him. Thats why it must be true. Where as my several hundred tanks of fuel having gone flat on me over the years is all just dumb luck that nothing has happened to my engines so far. (Dont get me started on the power and fuel mileage myths I deal with every time someone sees that tank in my pickup.)

I could probably come up with several dozen other examples of where the guy on the street seems quite confident that even though he doesn't work with something and never has worked with something he is very sure he is the expert where as the guy who does it all day long for years on end is the dummy who should know better than to be doing what he does for a living.

Sorry Nat but I find it hard to work up any enthusiasm when dealing with deliberately stupid people. They don't know, they don't know that they don't know and they're usually proud of their ignorance.

If they were half smart they'd have already done some research and educated themselves. Instead they waste their time creating conspiracy theories and elaborate excuses (hello to the Tesla crowd).

So when people ask dumb questions and are trying to learn I try to help, but when people want help building a (say) a perpetual motion gizmo I just walk away.

Interesting comments by all. My older sister, I'm 59 but we'll not discuss her age, told me a while back that she was loosing patience much more quickly now than earlier in her life. When I asked her why she told me that she had seen all of the stupid that she could handle in her life. I am thinking that might be a better statement when thought about in depth than it first appears to be on the surface. I will now call attention to the signature line of the post by ffej from Geelong, Australia. The Simpsons aren't the only problem. I am afraid, call me stupid if you want to, that there are too many shows on television now that deals with supernatural events as a normal way of life. It seems that at least half of the shows are dealing with witches, werewolfs and some sort of socerery. I am beginning to wonder if people are accepting the easy way of explaining things, "a wizard did it." versus actually doing some research. I just don't have any other explanation for why these shows are so numerous. Is it just pure and simple escapeism; or, is it some sore of reflection of actual beliefs, or lack of beliefs.

Vagabond, sounds like we think alike. I don't think there's anything wrong with escapism (I read science fiction myself), but I think many people can't recognise what is and isn't real.

I suspect that most writers are firmly in the "humanities" camp. They couldn't understand science or maths at school and didn't see the need to force themselves to learn it. Even when they do put science or maths in the storyline it's usually full of stupid errors.

It always surprises me when an adult confesses they don't understand some common bit of science, they almost sound proud. Me, I'd be deeply ashamed.

By the way the Simpson's quote is meant to be ironic.

Part of the problem is that common reasoning is not the basis of education, for many social groups. In this era we are all exposed to a diversity of beliefs and habits of thought of other cultures. Not every cultural group embraces reasoning or science at this stage, and we are exposed to ambiguities at an early age, as to how to formulate our beliefs. Most people start with believing "what you're told", not instructed to arrive at a fact by reasoning.

I've also learned from personal experience, that it is much harder to learn something correctly, if you have previously been inculcated with a 'wrong' version or learned it "muddled". There's a "complete incomprehension" stage where you have to deal with the previous wrong knowledge, before you can move on. And it takes time to assimilate new vocabulary and to lose the wrong use of terms.

There is a cultural conflict between the right and freedom to hold religious or other beliefs of your choice, and the necessity and responsibility to be rational and to respect the rights of others. There is ambiguity and there are double standards, and somehow we have to find a way to accomodate differences and show tolerance until there is cultural maturity for the human race as a whole.

Personally I'm in favour of drawing the line at the point where unprovable "beliefs" infringe upon the rights and well-being of others. "A wizard did it" is a joke on the Simpsons, but there are fundamentalists both muslim and christian who seriously believe in 'witches' and are willing to punish them for imaginary crimes - see Saudi death sentence for Fawza Falih.

"She had seen all of the stupid that she could handle in her life."

This made me laugh, can I quote that?

" 'I'm no goood at math' and it is usually said with a touch of pride."

To which I'd reply "Then please keep your hands away from the controls"

Ed Weldon

Perhaps the recent popularity of Zombie films can suggests a metaphor for the pseudoscience crowd. See if this works.

A group of gibbering idiots (who don't realise they're already dead) follow the path of the nimble footed normal people. Although they get hammered down they just keep getting up. They don't seem to want to build or create but rather to drag everything down to their level. They're easily beaten (but there are so many of them).

The heroes can blow their heads off (the metaphor breaks down here).

well......I guess some understand everything and know nothing while others know everything and understand nothing.........or maybe it's the other way.......I dunno

_{Maybe an approach to critical thinking............nah......that's just plain silly}

Don't look at me! I'm one of them.

Tesla is a hero of mine, along with Zecharia Sitchin, godfather of the Nibiru crowd.

I only survive here because I am old enough to have gotten a few extra leaves off the education tree... and I collect books, to which I attribute both my solid knowlege, and my scary knowledge!

Chris

ffej wrote: "Don't get me wrong, Tesla was a certified genius. It's his looney followers I'm sick of."

Your statement is almost word for word, exactly what Gandhi is quoted as having said about Christ and Christians!

L.J.

Shedding some reality on the notion truth is relative wouldn't hurt anything but some folks feeling whom encourage such social disruption ideologies.

Who was said Americans are having a brain recession

It gets quite frustrating. Just yesterday I had posted a reply to a technical query on another forum after spending about an hour giving links and doing some calculations. Today the recipient sends me a message thanking me for the reply, but that he was too lazy to read it through the argument and study the cited references. One should be grateful that the chap responded atleast.

Younger people seem to want instant encapsulated answers.

I liked this blog, many of the comments I could have easily made myself....

What was the name of that Jim Carey film "Dumb and Dumber"? (or something sililar!!)

If I could give this Blog a GA I would have done.....

You CAN rate the thread. Use the button at the top right corner.

If you are the OP on a thread, you will see the Star rating in your list of threads and blogs

Chris

Actually, you can do this. Toward the upper right of each discussion is a button that allows you to rate the whole thread.

I'm afraid I'll piss people off with this contribution, so I rely on the emotional insensitivity renowned among us scientific types.

If we weren't so arrogant about our own intellectual superiority, this problem of inadequate critical thinking among our fellow humans wouldn't bother us as much. I consider myself among the intellectual elite, but have encountered plenty enough "duh!" episodes in my own thinking that I hesitate to criticize the ignorant. Fortunately, the times this has cost me any loss of cash or stature are few. Even if one is educated thoroughly on the practice of critical thinking, it's impossible to know enough about everything, or to have the time to adequately analyze everything, to not stumble into some blind spots.

(On the other hand, don't get me started on the shysters who peddle myths for their own personal gain: examples are tobacco industry, insurance companies, basically anyone who is trying to block changes that benefit the many at their expense, usually by the use of cheap propaganda ploys. The herd could well be culled of them.)

New sig coming soon:

Ignorance is no sin. Willful ignorance is unforgiveable.

Pseudoscience and conspiracy theories go together. In general, there seems to be a great lack of critical thinking skills. After all, it is much easier to turn on the TV and listen to Oprah tell you what to think than it is to actually think through an issue. I don't think that it is a general dumbing-down of the population, but rather that I am more aware of it. Let's face it, public "knowledge" has always depended on word of mouth transmission. And that word of mouth has always been tainted by shading to benefit the transmitter. The difference is that the transmitters can now reach a broader audience via electronic media.

What to do about it? Good question.

My approach is to present facts. They can believe or not believe.

Or maybe I simply decide to shade those facts for my benefit...........

Emptying the pockets of the ignorant (not stupid) public has been part of a world wide culture since money was invented. However..........

.........my revulsion is aimed at the alternative health care witch doctors. Case in point is an established network of 'seer healers' throughout NA. It targets mostly women with breast cancer but not exclusively so. I suspect it begins at the clinic level where the original medical info comes from. It then progresses into an unsolicited phone call where the caller has had an " intuitive awareness " of the patients pain....and offers an alternative solution. Here begins a journey into a certain and painfull death.

I have had a glimpse of this network and it is very well organized....and as the hook sinks in deeper and deeper so does the price tag. Everything from the purchase of purple anti-cancer uv lamps ($20k) to clandestine meetings with specific healers ($100k) to actual laboratory analysis (in Mexico). It is insidious....and the police can do nothing about it!

We lost a dear friend. Close to the end of her life the actual cancerous node, about the size of an apple, was expelled from her breast and sent to Mexico for analysis. The analysis was a good one....the cancer did not have a root!!!

One day I hope to discover who in our local medical services is engaged in this corruption.

We could solve this whole problem if we could just find out who "THEY" are. When ever I hear a comment that starts with "Well you know they say ........" it is usually followed with nonsense,

Introspection will not get you many votes (except this one)

Don't forget we are here to bitch!

I found the following on STL Engineer's profile. (MIA?)

Upon graduation from Engineering School I wrote my family:

"For yeerz a go I coont evin spel Innjenear. Now i are won!"

that just cracks me up.

Chris

Wow some really interesting comments.

I've always told my kids, in regards to progress and learning, that stubbornness and pride-fullness are two of the most awful of human characteristics or traits. (I realize there are many other negative characteristics that come into play) Once your mind shuts down and defences go up, you've stopped learning. Progress stops on many levels and problems usually begin.

I agree with you.. and there is a balance between the conservative critical thinking and Enthusiasm..... and it is enthusiasm and interest that drives people to learn more and popularize scientific knowledge.

and another small point.... this is an engineering discussion site.. not so much a science discussion site. I realize they are interconnected but... One does not have to feel the need to correct all scientific misperceptions that others have... The focus should be more on how-to than why.

Chris

RCE -- You and I are on the same wavelength except that for the purpose of brevity in reply#33 I inadvertently picked one of your "hot buttons" to push.

Pseudosciences are usually like a cone of logic that derives from a single or small number of basic "truths" at the apex. To me critical thinking requires the discovery and destruction of that apex. The principle motivation for that act is skepticism. When I used the term "big picture" what I meant was the volume outside the boundaries of the cone.

So in the case of the now discredited Dr. Andrew Wakefield (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-fumento5-2010feb05,0,3589719.story) Britain's General Medical Council forced their esteemed medical journal, Lancet, to retract his paper. This demolition of the apex, to use my analogy, came about because of the ability of critical thinkers to look outside the box, if you'd like to see the underpinnings of the "facts" that Wakefield presented.

Skepticism over any scientific "truth" is necessarily tempered by what we see that supports that truth. If we see a large body or supporting evidence then we naturally tone down our skepticism. But we must be ready to examine the big picture, as I called it, and be equally ready and able to sort that data which lies on a firm scientific foundation from that which lies on "just so" axioms or some statement traceable to a popular deity. And we have a social responsibility to make sure our overt actions and pronouncements are rigorously correct if we risk the destruction of entities that have proven social value. (e.g. the widespread practice of vaccination against infectious disease.)

Ed Weldon

However, this goes to why psuedo sciences seek to be peerceived as sciences. The concept of scientific truth. Truths and facts can not be argued against or disproven. There are no scientific truths, only theories, or to use an older terminology "Laws". In essence a scientific process only leads to unambiguous precise rational theories, that seem to accurately represent the mechanics of some system, and have not to date been disproven by reproduceable scientific experiments meant to test the theories.

Truths or facts are not defined through science. This is important, because there is also a sector of the societies that believe anything if they can infer it is somehow a "scientific" truth or fact, and use such arguments to shut down skepticism, which true science employs to substantiate the plausibility of theories. Pure science actually must be devoid of any social or moral context, as this is ambiguous highly variable over very short periods of time, and easily corrupting of any accurate representation of the mechanics of a system. Science that employs moral or social context for its time may be thus invalidate just 20 years later, due to changes in moralities and social structures. Consider just a 20 year period in the US between 1955 and 1975, what was morally and socially accepted practice in 1955 might be cause for outrage in 1975. a "scientific" theory that has a shelf life of just as long as the current social standards, moral standards, or political administration are in office, really is not a scientific theory. Science addresses how things work, what is the process, not should we or shouldn't we. Applications of science can provide estimates of the risks/costs and the benefits, but not which choice is the best choice. Such decisions require more than just science as there are always moral and social implications to all human actions, and while they are valid social considerations, they are not valid scientific considerations.

That's a manifesto! GA.

Chris

Well I certainly hope I didn't insinuate that only the youth are part of or the larger part of the problem, if so I apologize. I wanted to bring home the importance of educating our youth with the appropriate materials and information while keeping whacked theories out of it. More important getting them to understand the methodology behind all this science and engineering and why the advancements have taken place. As you've pointed out having bad teachers or misinformed/old school whatever, is definitely adding to the problem. They should at least have a clue. I meet with some tech and science teachers here on a regular basis to discuss exactly these problems. At least we all seem to be on the same page. Kind of a checks and balance if you will.

As to the calendar, wth! I see what you mean. Eegh!

Well I certainly hope I didn't insinuate that only the youth are part of or the larger part of the problem, if so I apologize.

No, I took it as you intended. My rant was pretty free form, based generally on my dissatisfaction with pseudo-science and anti-science. I'm glad you took the initiative to start the thread. The length of my post indicates that 1. I need a good editor, and 2. this is stuff I care about.

"The length of my post indicates that...."

I'm inclined to create a "Top 10 reasons" list for this one

Chris

4) the requirement of accepting faith over reason - i.e. dogma over theory.

In what way may theory equate to reason?

I think he means... that such things as 'the Bible is the first, last, and absolute word of God, so there is no need to think... ever.

Chris

"I think he means..."

yea, that's what I meant...4) "Don't think."

One of the many ironies of indoctrination into many of the Christian faiths is parents encouragement of children to believe in Santa Claus. Eventually, parents admit that Santa Claus is a myth, as if to suggest to their kids that much of the rest is myth also (and of course it is, in the sociological/anthropological sense of the word.) If a kid reaches age 8 and still believes in Santa Claus, he or she is likely to be seen as gullible or dim-witted.

This is probably not good training to make people believe in the even more implausible happenings in the great religious books. Yet many people will cling to the myths as if they are historical fact, ignoring all the clear evidence, and divorcing themselves from their ability to reason.

I suppose it is easier to have someone tell you what to think than it is to actually think.

Of course in the anthropological/sociological sense myths are developed on some basis or kernel of truth, and are modified to fit the understanding and perceptions of the people the myths pass down through. Myths after all are just a shortening of the word mythologies and tend to be followed by many on faith that they represent the truth that they do not have the time or capability to discover themselves, versus any rational argument, thus a logical proof, that they are representative of reality. Thus there are a few, if not many, myths cloaked under the guise of the word "science". Medicine, biology, sociology, anthropology, paleontology, etc. are great for story telling and mythologies that later get revised to suit the changes in the peer group make up/

RCE wrote: "Of course in the anthropological/sociological sense myths are developed on some basis or kernel of truth, and are modified to fit the understanding and perceptions of the people the myths pass down through."

Really? What kernel of truth was there to suggest that throwing a live virgin into a volcano would insure crops that Spring? Or bring rain?

That statement suggests an irrational procedural regimentation with a rational purpose. That's a contradiction in terms. Besides, I've no memory of having ever heard Joseph Campbell say or write such as that, He was the world's leading authority on mythology. Perhaps I missed it?

"Myths after all are just a shortening of the word mythologies and tend to be followed by many on faith that they represent the truth that they do not have the time or capability to discover themselves. . . . "

I've met many people who fit into that description. They epitomize the consequences of ignoring Socrates: "The Unexamined life is not worth living" and their lives look it.

They'd sooner shake an angry fist at the world because they are "Alone and afraid in a world I never made". To which I say:

"Really? Why didn't you?!"

The irony is that those you describe, "living" as they do, are already dead; the walking dead. They are simply waiting for their body to catch up!

Those you speak of are not willing to die for their principles simply because they have none; they are are spiritual robots, Stepford Wives, stimulus response machines at the level of morality.

Perhaps now you better appreciate why Socrates chose suicide over such an existence!

L.J.

To answer your question, if you look back far enough you may realize that at one point the original sacrifice was made under the pretense of satisfying a diety on the initial basis that the crops had not been productive the previous season, or productive enough to support the existing population as it were, and over population made the distribution of resources unuable to support the entire population. The decision makers came to some concept that equate to fewer mouths to feed means more food for others under the guise of a divine vision. Additionally, selection of sacrifices originally may have had some other political purposes and sociological purposes in the smaller tribal environments of the stone age. Over time, when population pressures grew, the people perceived the shortage of food as a sign that the gods needed to be appeased. Cathage did something similar with sacrificing babies when they were under pressures the society increased the sacrifices, which turned out in the end to be contradictory to their needs because the sacrifice probably was originally meant as a means of controlling population demands on resources, but they extended it to address all pressures including adverse warfare. The choice of female virgins seems obvious in the context of ancient societies, where girls were not viewed as useful. Virgn typically meant young girls who were not bearing or caring for children, and were not useful for heavy labors and warfare in those times. so in essence they made the decision to sacrifice the perceived weakest or least useful part of the societies in those times so that the others may live better (of course originally probably so the others might even survive another harvest). Over time, naturally as people tend to extrapolate, they come to believe things improve by sacrifice to the gods, and driven by greed, they begin to sacrifice for things other than meer survival, son they equate any needs they have to the gods and a relevent sacrifice. It is the evolution of a myth. The story of the Donner Party, even though there is documentation, has mythical components in our modern society if you ask people about it you may be surprised at how exagerated the story has become relative to the documentation from the period. there is nothing contradictory, it is simply taking something that at one time may have had some validity and exagerating it over time and extrapolating the basic misunderstanding of the simple people through time, and maybe add in a few peoples personal biases along the way. At one time a king or shaman decided to sacrifice what he perceived to be the least valuable member of their society in order to safeguard the rest and in order to explain it to the others maybe claims divine knowledge (just easier that way), and over time it becomes a virgin sacrifice to the gods for anything. His decision at that time might have been relatively rational, but through the interaction of many other humans over time it evolved.

Modern anthropoligist use myths as a way technique, realizing underlying the myth, much like the myth of Troy, there is some kernel of truth the myth was built on. The great flood may actaully have occurred, if you consider what the entire world to a person 10,000 years ago may have consisted of, and how that story may have evolved through societies. Now they are finding some evidence in support of the great flood being possibly the flooding of the Black Sea Basin, which if you lived way down in the basin at that time you might have considered that a great flood that destroyed your world. Now exagerate that story for 10,000 years, add a few peoples biases for personal or political gains in along the way, etc. and you get Noah. Something must have happened at sometime on which people kept telling the story as a warning for others. Just the stories in the Bible (I use it as it is a consistent publication through the centuries) keeps changing, sometimes due to minor things like misunderstandings of the language it is being translated from (aramaic to greek to latin to whatever). However, it is likely there is something in the past that the stories were based on, even if it would now be vastly exagerated and appear dissimilar. However, this methodology of investigating stories to search out truth within the stories to create a new and revised story that seems more plausible story, unsupported by a rational argument, for a given peer group given the evidence limited collected and sociopolitical climate of the time, doesn't qualify as science in so many ways.

Thanks for making up my mind

well said.

killers should be forced to spend some time delivering babies... to realize life is incredible.

ga

Chris

Hmm, I guess that would be one way top control world population growth, though some of them ones might try to eat those babies too, which would probably be frowned on. Of course if more people were more hands on in child birth, I am sure family sizes would be much smaller.

It's not hard to write long works on infinite and eternal topics. GA.

Chris

Beautifully said LJ and Blink. I agree with all that you have said. It seems to me, and apparently others, that some of this falls into inherent common sense. But looking around this world that is so not the case. Glad to see some adhere to the same philosophies. It is on topic as your statements gives some philosophical and psychological basis to pseudoscience. Many others have made some fantastic comments on this subject matter as well. Rather eye opening for sure.

My two boys (17 & 20) have asked many question in reading this thread. We've had some good and rather heart warming/opening discussions over all this. Just in that alone, this thread has been worth if for me! Thanks for you input, I hope it's stimulated other thoughts and conversations outside CR4.

Thsi post and the post mentioned within should make it exceedingly clear why psuedoscience gaisn so much in our societies. A page and a half philosophical rant that is way off topic against religion, religion is philosophical doctrine, the two are not mutually exclusive however, as philosophy and science answer things differently. this types of philosophy, versus pure logic, is highly interpretive and by its nature can not be disproven through experimentation. the many different types of philosphies are just types of religions to the followers of those philosophies. Science is purely a search for the mechanics of some system through a consistent process which is based on the development of a rational theory, expressed in a logical unambiguous language, to explain some observations, that must then be tested through experimentations designed at its root to disprove (as you can never experimentally prove a theory). Science is a mechanism for finding the truth. Science contradicts the concept of common sense which depends on people assuming and extrapolating things based on some kind of knowledge retiained through someone previous experiences conveyed through others. Common sense is not tested comprehensively, and frequently leads to a variety of problems. I observed a good example of a more scientific approach in conflict with common sense in this movie on HBO the other night about an autistic who gets a MS in animal husbandry or something, and proceeds to become an expert on cattle. If you watch she has no common sense and this affords her the opportunity to conduct unbiased observations and study the mechanics of the systems employed by the cattle industry in order to develop theories that would improve performance. At one point she designs a cattle dipping process based on her observations and theories that should reduce mortalities, and first thing the cowboy foreman does when he arrives is use his well established common sense about how such a system should work efficiently and modifies her design behind her back, and kills a bunch of cattle. Admittedly hear theories were not properly expressed to meet a criteria of a scientific theory, but she did approach the process of unbiased observation better than the people who had the experience and common sense.

Common sense is really just something learned through limited exposure/observations (or experience) and hearsay from others who can not explain the mechanics of why something occurs the way it does just that they have observed it occurring in this manner in the past (given their own limited experience, hearsay and observations). Consider it is common sense not for a child not to grab a hot pan, once they have been told or have been burned (or nearly burned), but no one ever explains the mechanism to getting burned by hot objects to the child, as it is likely to complicated for the adults to understand, they just know it happens, through exposure. Common sense is what make magic seem real to people, because something appears to violate their experience or hearsay knowledge there fore it must be somehow outside the realm of reality as they understand it and magical. Common sense really is just a set of rules to follow without any real explanation of the mechanics. Science attempts to explain the mechanics in an attempt to predict the possible outcomes. Common sense says if you do that this will occur, and we know this because it has occurred in a somewhat similar situation in the past to that person or someone else, it is Casuary. If you really wanted to teach your children you would explain to the difference, because common sense requeres acceptance of the rules it sets forth, and science investigates those rules to find the mechanism and determine the validity. A flat earth is common sense, science has to expalin to us why it is invalid or a falicy.

A flat earth is common sense, science has to expalin to us why it is invalid or a falicy.

A most valid introspection and one with much merit I dare say. Science on it's own cannot have come into existance without the 'belief' systems of the past. It is the observations and experience of our ancestors, their attempt, rightly or mistakenly, to come to understand those things that their lives were centred around. This caused certain individuals to explore further and to begin to evolve the nature of understanding...or as some would put it: critical thinking.

Perhaps then it is our own nature which has today become complacent with the advent of immediate gratification through technology and forgotten parenting skills.

I believe this explains the students dead pan faces Laughing Jaguar mentions. Something has definately been lost amongst many of the youth of today.

Temple Grandin, she has several books out too! great story.

Yes Temple Grandin, she is a professor at colorado State, I believe. Her autism allowed her to be observant and detail oriented, and it also allowed her to not be biased by common sense. While this posed a problem for social interaction, it was a benefit for her research.

RCE wrote: ". . . . . religion is philosophical doctrine, the two are not mutually exclusive however, as philosophy and science answer things differently."

That's like arguing that One is equal to Zero!

There is a battle going on right now in the schools about efforts to introduce thinly disguised creationism in opposition to Darwinism. What makes it offensive is their efforts to call that argument a science! That the ploy got so far as a courtroom before being shot down is embarrassing. That it did get so far is further evidence of the voracity of proponents of pseudoscience.

That global warming is now viewed by some as a religion is further evidence of how the distinction between science and pseudoscience has gotten muddied. I try to explain that other planets in our Solar System are experiencing the exact same increses in temperatures and show them data attributed to scientists at JPL in Pasadena. "It's the Sun dummy!" but they refuse to entertain the obvious contradiction. Denial of reality is impossible to get away with in science!

It also validates the teachings of one of my mentors who believes that one of our fundamental flaws as a species is our failure to make fundamental distinctions.

I attempted a fair amount of study on the principles underlying epistemology and came away with the sense that I'd wasted valuable time until I realized that while I am no closer to understanding how people think, I did come to appreciate the limitations of using conventional abstractions when defending a position. I also came to understand why some of the worlds best Philosophers were theoretical mathematicians. At their levels of inquiry, conventional language and its foggy distinctions don't work. 1 will never equal anything but 1

That is a double edged sword, especially for one as passionate about engineering and design such as I. The words I use here are abstractions; symbolic interpretations of things that really do not exist except in my imagination. The same goes for that complex 3D model I've created spinning around inside the virtual world of Catia, Solidworks or Pro E. Only when those abstractions can be validated in Reality by my senses does my psyche rest easy. Virtually everything I do with a computer is really unreal, including this conversation. To forget that and believe it's real is to be on the threshold of insanity

I sense a distrust of the senses in your argument. If that estimate is warranted then I suggest that the problem lies not with the senses so much as with the choices and decisions we have already made.

We place things into categories; constructs for organizing. It is human nature to only experience things that are consistent with our prior decisions about the world. Once that pattern of selected experience starts, true learning ceases. From that point on we are merely stimulus response mechanisms with about as much choice as Pavlov's dog.

Bigotry and prejudice are built on this phenomenon. Unfortunately, so is religion, be it organized or not.

I still abide by the most fundamental rule for testing any theory: its ability to consistently predict future behavior. I am an Aristotelian to the core in spite of many decades studying human behavior and the things that influence how people show up.

I got my nickname from a well known South American shaman after hours of beating drums and chanting around a campfire in the woods. A buddy looked at me through the smoke and rising sparks and muttered: "Man you are fun! And you are weird! The engineers I know don't chant at campfires or beat drums."

My response: "You've been hangin' out with the wrong engineers! Hang out with ME's who are fun!"

The Laughing Jaguar

keep in mind that darwinism is an -ism, a philosphical belief system. The theory evolution has much to be developed to meet the criteria of a scientifically acceptable theory, it may be correc, but being correct is not the mandate to meet that stanbndards of science. I believe a real look at the theory itself in an unbiased comparison with the requirements to being a theory in science would truly surprise you. Plus the faithful zealot are just are zealous about darwinism as comminists or catholics are about their beliefs.

Yes, Belief Systems do get in the way. I am in agreement with the Buddhist point of view that it's our attachments that keep us stuck.

Whether those beliefs deal with a deity or with a scientific principle is of little importance to me. It's the activity not the subject matter that counts. I spent a year designing components for a Fusion Reactor in an environment teaming with PhDs. It's amazing how candid they became after a third glass of wine about the futility of the theories driving the place. The "kids" dare not tell the Emperor that he's naked or they'll get beaten up by the crooked tailors for sure.

It's clear that those who feel the need to believe in God are betraying the fact that all they have experience in life is religion. That's a crying shame.

Those who have experienced God have no need to believe and, not surprisingly, have no need for religion either.

It's unfortunate that our identities are so tied up in all this. It encumbers any tendency to let go and start once more Tabular Rasa. Expecting that is kind-of-like expecting a Jesuit Priest to consider the possibility of atheism, if only a moment, after a lifetime of being a priest.

It would be like watching a fish gasping for air when pulled from his water.

The Laughing Jaguar

RCE, I have been uncomfortable with your response and have gone back repeatedly in an attempt to understand what it is about the post that does not sit right with me. With each subsequent reading I have begun to see that you have made many assertions in your post, that under closer examination, do not hold up, not individually and not collectively.

Philosophy, versus pure logic, is highly interpretive.

Philosophy, can not be disproven through experimentation.

. . . many types of philosophies are just types of religions.

you can never experimentally prove a theory (I especially enjoyed THAT one)

Science contradicts the concept of common sense (I suspect that often, it's the other way around!)

I observed a good example of a more scientific approach in conflict with common sense in this movie on HBO the other night.

In a subsequent post I quoted Ayn Rand who reminded us that contradictions do not exist in nature, only in the minds of men.

Your arguments are flawed.

What I find especially disappointing is an underlying current of disrespect for our abilities as a species and an unspoken but omnipresent condescending tone that we are, all of us, incompetent and incapable of knowing.

L.J.

You actually can not prove a scientific theory by experimentation, only disprove it. This is actually why the trend was to move away from the use of terms like Laws and Principles, because scientific theories are not set in stone and may be disproven someday. This is a very basic concept of the scientific method, so it should not seem unusual to anyone. There is no experimental proof of a theory, experiments disprove theories. This is the common mistake of those ignorant of the methodology to assume experiments prove theories. Theories are accepted based on the fact that peer review could not find a logical flaw in the argument for the theory, and that repeatable controlled experiments conducted did not disprove the theory.

Additionally, keep in mind common sense is just a lazy construct of man, and thus not part of nature per se, designed to give a quick answer for an ends when we do not understand the means adequately. It is just common sense, everyone knows that is an easy way of saying I don't know why such is the case but i have heard or experienced something that indicates this will occur if this happens. It is very lazy.

I am not sure about human incompetence, but the concept of common sense is really a mechanism used by those who have experience but lack the understanding to explain or convey that experience without any attempt to understand or explain understanding. It is something i think is pretty common to the majority of the people to not investigate cause relationships to every experience, but to accept you do that and this will happen, and you accept it. Most people perceive it as too cumbersome and/or time consuming to investigate causes for things they consider mundane (if they didn't we probably would not have words liek mundane in our language).

Hi Blink!~

Thanks for the kind words. You as well Natural Extraction.

Most everything I know has been taught to me by others. I've never been smart enough to pick my own teachers, yet mysteriously, they were always there at the appropriate time when needed.

Eric Hoffer is one of the more memorable ones and while I never got to meet him personally, one of my more revered teachers used to play chess with him down on the docks of San Francisco

I bring Hoffer up in the context of what you wrote Blink in response to my tome. You wrote:

"The atrocities committed in the name of religion (and against religious people) can only occur with a population that is anti-intellectual: don't think... just do what you are told to do: kill the infidels, in the name of Jesus or Allah. Kill the Jews."

I respectfully disagree and I strongly believe that were Hoffer alive he would disagree with you as well. He would use likely pre-war Germany as a compelling arguement for disagrement.

Germany was and continues to be one of the most educated societies in western Europe. What disturbed Hoffer a great deal was that with all it's education and a history rich in cultural and intellectual advances, it still surrendered itself body and soul to a raging megalomaniac who rewarded its subservience by almost destroying it and the rest of the world along with it.

His book "The True Believer" demonstrates an astonishing insight into the psychology and behavior of mass movements. What helped make that treatise such a cold shower to those schooled in Sociology was that Hoffer was a self taught laborer, a dock worker with little formal education in that discipline. Still, "The True Believer" made a significant impression on President Dwight D. Eisenhower who was heard to quote the book in public many times. (Just as an aside, notice that Ike chose intellectual achievement over scholastic credentials; the exact opposite from today's influencial mentors to the White House)

The True Believer syndrome has been alive and well for some time. Evidence of that assertion can be found in the behavior of followers of everyone from Jesus Christ, through Gandhi, to Hitler, to David Koresh and to the Jim Jones Cool Aid megacide in Africa. It runs ramped in the minds of suicidal terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests in the Middle East.

Anti Intellectualism is not, as you suggest, at the core of such behavior, but rather a discontent with self, society or both and a desperate need to believe in something or someone outside themselves. (Parenthetically, this just might even explain the mythical sacrifices discussed earlier)

They all have in common the compulsive need to elevate some symbolic figure who is placed on a pedestal and worshipped like the promised Messiah, for attributes that exist only in the minds of wishful followers, hence the term True Believers. It is the common need for such leaders that form the basis of the heroes in movies like "The Matrix" which so enrolled theater audiences.

True Believers are a fickle and disloyal lot however, and quick to turn against their chosen Messiah at the first cold shower of Reality, as Barrack Obama is finding out.

Like Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and other compelling orators, Obama used his very effective oratorical skill in speeches that manipulated the discontent that prevailed in our Country. It was that skill that turned the disenchanted in his favor with words of Hope and which put him over the top in the election. Now they are seeing that "He is NOT the one." Those familiar with Hoffer's book and the transient loyalty of True Believers, knew it would happen and were not surprised when it did.

This tome is not an indictment against language! Language, by itself, is neither good nor evil it simply IS. It's who uses it and his motives that makes the difference. And, as I suggested earlier, it is the morally bankrupt, intellectually lazy and most especially, the disenchanted who are most vulnerable to the Pied Pipers of history.

As Nietzsche pointed out, it is not the strong who are the greatest threat, but the weak. Until the starving nations of this planet are up to the standards others enjoy, they will continue to be breeding grounds for violence, intense suffering and discontent and ripe for manipulation by those who would do us harm.

Language continues to be THE most powerful tool for manipulation of listeners. They need not be anti intellectual Blink, just blind to the source of their discontent and desperate for a savior.

Guys like Osama Bin Laden just love it!

L.J.

Again, very well put.

I think you are right regarding my use of the term anti-intellectualism. Even as I first wrote it, I squirmed a little, because at that instant I thought of my father, who is very capable intellectually (valedictorian, highly creative, etc.) but at the same time phenomenally bigoted in ways that seemingly defy logic. He is perhaps the last one to admit that he is a True Believer, but he has created his own view of the world, and actively and selectively screens out those experiences which do not support his view.

And certainly, in pre-war Germany there were many very smart people promoting the Nazi cause, and loads of smart people supported The Inquisition.

There are shades of meaning in the terms Anti-Intellectualism, anti-intellectual, intellectual laziness, and the pop culture affection for what we might call stupidity or utter lack of common sense. I want to say to my father (and others like him) "How can you be so "stupid" to have observed this and this, but to then conclude such and so?" But it is not stupidity, it is the True Believer syndrome.

One advantage of getting "more mature" is that some things seem new again. I read a little Hoffer decades ago, and was impressed, but don't have a clue if I read True Believer. I'll pick up a copy.

Thanks For your thoughts,

Blink

Thank you very much artsmith, I've printed out the post already and a couple others for more discussion with my boys at our local coffee hang out. I'll be curious for their input. It's been a blast actually. Thanks again artsmith, great points!

A great post and well written! I am jealous of NE's boys!

It might be of interest to you to learn that the mentor who pointed at Life and asked that I view it as being the ultimate value, and thus the foundation for the entire hierarchy of values, was herself an atheist.

Her name was Ayn Rand.

Our dialogues were few, often brief and frequently intense. Were she a witness to these dialogues, I know intuitively that she would lay a hammer to pseudoscience in an adrenalin heartbeat and she would be mad as Hell for any tolerance for it.

"There are no contradictions in Reality. . . . only in men's minds!"

There was no greater proponent for the sanctity of rigorous, purposeful thought than she and while I recognize that the use of the word "sanctity" may appear out of place when discussing an atheist, it fits. Thinking, for her, was the "holiest"of endeavors though I know her expression would have soured quickly at such choice of words.

Laughing Jaguar

I hope this entire rant doesn't depend on the idea presented that people with different religious belief, and religious standard of conduct, will be invited to leave. How would you characterize Roman Civilization then, as they were extremely open to a variety of religions of very different codes of conduct, as long as everyone followed the Roman legal codes (not necessarily religious beliefs). Organized Religion has always been in a contest of wills to control peoples conduct agaisnt the communities legal systems even back 5,000 year to early egypt. If you really do some research you will frequently find religious codes can be altered by the local political systems, which actually maintain primary control of social conduct, if they do not suit those in political power or zealots. Consider in the context of their own religions of their society during their times Henry VIII, Martin Luther, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, et. al.. There were different religious standards they had been raised to follow, and with some thought they made the conscious decision to go against their religion and the codes of conduct within those religions that they did not like. Much like people today, it is just easier to let some one in authority, legal, moral or spiritual, direct you in how to behave rather than really thinking through the morality of your actions. Today however, there is a certain amount of religious faith in anything that carries the title science along with it, and this in part leads to those who seek power and influence trying to validate their beliefs through attachment to the word science. Over time this erodes the public trust in true science, as many of these personal agenda under the cloak of science become apparent, must continuously be revised or provide no accuracy and precision of prediction, and/or their failings are exposed. Something of note in distinguishing science from religion or law. spirituality is just a means of saying a person would rather not have to really rationally think about something, but would rather constuct some simpler explanation for the mechanics of a system. Afterall, for most people it is easier to just believe there is a god of lightning then to understand electromagnetism.

Science can quantifiably accurately and precisely predict specific defined future events based on a set of initial parameters and external driving forces, e.g. gravity. this is what makes it must trusted by the modern public. Predictions by spiritual leaders or political/legal authorities tend to be inaccurate, imprecise, unrepeatable, and/or ambiguous providing no quatifiable and predictable results. The application of law can change from case to case, and thus since the law is based on previous cases, the laws changes too. Religious values change in very short periods of time with changes in authorities, social composition, and many other factors, consider something like slavery through out the history of the church, which is allowable under the 10 commandments. the problem with providing quantifiable accurate, precise prediction is when some biologist develops a "theory" about Kit Fox habitats and migration patterns, the causes of delta smelt mortalities, etc. that is later shown to be flawed and is substantially revised or disavowed, then it erodes the public trust or belief in the accuracy or precision of all scientific theories in general. While this in some ways may not be a bad thing as it would mean people would have to conduct some research on their own to validate the different scientific theories they seek to apply, it probably would be extremely cumbersome for every person in society to think for themselves and have to conduct the experiments/research needed to validate every scientific theory that they must apply daily. Thus they tend to have common beliefs some conveyed from hearsay, direct experiences, or from others from religious, legal or scientific authorities. It saves the time, labor and effort for the majority of the public that feel they need to spend more time shopping or playing Xbox. As long as science can continue to make quantifiably accurate and precise predictions, and people continue to suffer from any number of environmental stressors, diseases, wars, overpopulations, food shortages, water shortages, etc., it will be in the forefront as it can predictable provide theories that can be utilized for solutions that address such problems. Spirituality and religion on the other hand really doesn't provide tangible solutions, but rather it is easier for people to understand and less rigorous, flexible to their imaginations and intellectual limitations, and provides hope it makes them feel better about the possibilities for their futures (or allows them to turn a blind eye, you know hear no evil, see no evil... a diety may step forward and save them or take them off to heaven, or some such thing)

Theory is "scientific method" term for a comprehensive overview and insight into phenomena that is consistent with all prior (accurate) data about said phenomena.
True theories make (unexpected) predictions that are testable or refutable.
Theories usually bring disparate scientific knowledge into a new harmony. Usually they refine, else sometimes shatter, previous Theory.
It may be inspired by hypothesis (hunches) and new data, but reason is necessary to make new - testable - predictions and reason is often necessary to design experiments or observation tools to prove or refute a theory.
A philosophy may be consistent with all knowledge, but unlike a theory, it makes no testable/refutable predictions. In this way it is intractable to reason.

This definition however would not allow for many of the non-phsyical science "theories" as you can not develop a comprehensive test for many of them until the physical science develop enough to provide a scientific basis for the "theories" and test the basis.

This is one of many major juxtapositions between physical sciences and the other "sciences". Most other sciences develop "theories" based on a kind of evidentiary casuary system that the interconnect by some means of argument. With limited evidence they compare to existing cases they understand and draw forth some theory, then in order to justify the casuary linkage and correlate the limited evidence they create some argument typically in an ambiguous language that allows a great amount of interpretation. Whuile they may be correct, it would be an unacceptable means of providing an argument for theory in physical sciences just because of the imprecision and ambiguity.

I am referring to scientific theories as opposed to pseudoscience theories. The scientific method uses logic, math, and examples to explain. Integral to hard scientific theories is the requirement to propose experiments to verify/disprove.

Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Blink, nice ranting, loved it. Good comments as usual amigo.

What do you think of every man , father or male authority figure in everything from TV shows like Family Guy , The Simpsons , Cheerios TV adverts , and even to Disneys The Little Mermaid being made out to look like ineffectual , impotent , useless non entities ? Do you think this characterisation of adult males is any coincidence ? Its supposed to funny , I guess , but is it really ? If it isnt funny then what is it ? Whats the message ?

"Down with Dad?"

Now take a long look at how the courts view fathers rights and the role of fathers in families. Most divorce courts seem to regard the father as a necessary evil and little more than a meal ticket. The courts decry fathers limited involvement in their families and then turn right around and tell a divorced father he can see his kids only four days a month. Their concern , they say , is whatever "is in the best interests of the child." Four days a month is standard in most states. I suppose anything more would not be "in the best interests of the child?" The courts , in so doing , betray their opinion of fathers in no uncertain term . And the media backs them every inch of the way .

"Down with Dad."

As the father goes , so goes the family .

As the family goes , so goes the nation .

We are the best, the sharpest tacks in the box. Our opinion is irrefutable. We are always right.

Than, why are there two negative marks on the above posting? It is a fellow engineer's opinion, which must be respected. The posting had no offensive statements in it, nor immoral. If the two brave anonymous "marksmen" were of a contrary opinion, shouldn't they just post their arguments?

r...r...r..

What were we talking about?

indel asked: "why are there two negative marks on the above posting?"

I agree that they are short sighted. While the response may not directly address the question posed by this string, it does speak to how the family unit does effect the way people behave in later life. Having been through a divorce I can understand his frustration. It's unfortunate others did not look beneath the language to the obvious underlying context.

Thanks for coming to his defense

L.J.

my dear indel,
peace be with you.
Rating dialog box is not a [ thumbs down ]/[ thumbs up ] vote. We don't get to disagree there.
It is an [ off topic ] [ agree ] [ exit/cancel ] dialog box.
We hope to see all off-topic subjects in new Forum Threads. :)