Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/26/2018 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Ultimately all scientific hypotheses and theories are validated by 1. observation and measurement 2. laboratory experiment and testing 3. clinical testing which generally uses some statistical form of hypothesis test. The bottom line is: the predictions have to match what nature shows through either observation or experiment. Science of any kind has to be subject to testing and potential empirical falsification. Obviously the details of the experiments and observations depend on what is being studied. Some things can be corroborated by conditions in imposed in the laboratory. Other things have to be observed and measured as they happen naturally. Astronomy, as you pointed out, is such a science. So is cosmology. Particle and Field physics are tested in such installations as CERN. Chemistry is tested in the lab. Biology is test both in the lab and in the field. The essential thing that distinguishes the physicals sciences (that work) is ultimate empirical testing and possible falsification, from philosophy which is all vapor and abstraction. Mathematics is a peculiar thing. It is not a science because it is not empirical but its claims have to be validated by proofs which are formulated by mathematicians, then read and checked by other mathematicians. Checking a proof for correctness is empirical even though all of the subject matter is abstract.
  2. 2 points
    Well, okay, then, I'll just believe that guy's opinion rather than my own observations of what happened at the time. Yeah, his charts and graphs nullify the things that were being said at the time. I didn't hear those things because your Doctor Kimball C. Atwood didn't look for them, but instead presented charts and graphs. And I haven't seen interviews of Marshall or Warren in which they discussed the dogmatic mindset that they faced, because your Kimball C. Atwood didn't see such interviews. If he didn't look for them, find them or see them, then they never happened. It's settled science that it's just a silly myth. Everyone was actually very nice and open minded to the ideas of Drs. Marshall and Warren. It was all smooth sailing. And it's all very "nuanced" to take a subject which, by its nature, involved mostly oral expressions of resistance to new ideas, then to not look for any evidence of those expressions, then to not find any of them, and to conclude that it was all a myth! Were absolutely certain that it was a myth. Atwood's comments prove it. Let's say "myth" some more just to make it even more true. Max, you're demonstrating the illogic and pompous stupidity that we're criticizing. Your linked source doesn't address the actual issue, but attempts to bypass it with non sequiturs, obfuscation, equivocation, and sloppy assumptions. J
  3. 1 point
    Bob, I wish that were true. But it's only true in some imaginary utopia. You can't have science without scientists. You can't have scientists without money. Today's scientists like government money. And many do sloppy sloppy work for unearned money and call it science. And they squelch scientific inquiry in the name of "science" to keep their money flows open. It's all interconnected. Michael
  4. 1 point
    Duplicate (Jon - LOL... please redo the text here and delete this comment. I deleted your other post for being a duplicate. )
  5. 1 point
    Bob, Poppycock. When science is funded by its victims, there's not only a big honking lot of morality in it, there's a ton of immorality. Let's do like this. Remove government from science and let the scientists survive on the free market. Do you think that's a good idea? I think it's wonderful. Another thought, to you believe it's possible for people to become corrupted by unearned money, even scientists? Hmmmm?... These are moral issues that go right to the heart of scientific credibility. If you want to know "how the world works," really works, cut government funding from science. Then talk to me about ethics. Michael
  6. 1 point
    Bob, I will give you a bigger hint. When a sequence of events is widespread and someone says events in that sequence of type A COULD NEVER cause events of type B, run from THEM. Don't worry about their burdens of proof. Their kind of mentality helped cause your own burdens. They are not just sloppy in their thinking, they do not have truth or the well being of the victims among their intentions. They may have some other agenda, goosing their personal vanity about always being right, acquiring and keeping gobs of money, virtue signaling they are members of the Good Tribe, whatever. But they are not interested in fixing the problem at root. They are interested in ignoring and/or humiliating the victims (often giving lip service, though) while scapegoating those with limited capacity who are trying to fix the problem to show their own superiority. Oddly enough, many parents of autistic kids were sanctimonious like that before they experienced the switch on-switch off effect of taking their kids to be vaccinated, returning with zombies (the effect is generally immediate), then listening to the superior people tell them there was no link between their suddenly damaged kids and the vaccines--don't even think about mentioning something kooky like that and keep your questions to yourself. These are the most radical. On top of trying to fix their kid, they feel they have to atone for the sin of sheepleness. A scientist is not an automatically virtuous person who is interested in truth. He creates weapons of mass destruction just as easily as he creates marvels of life-enhancing procedures. Hell, he creates propaganda scams on a massive scale like manmade global warming knowing what his work will be used for. And he goes to bed happy in all cases. Michael
  7. 1 point
    THe difference is with sloppy thinking cause is immediately inferred from a before-after observation. Jumping to the conclusion is a fallacy which has a name: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. After this therefore because of this. In a scientific context the connection between a possible cause class of events and a class of possible effect events is thoroughly examined and a --mechanism-- of connection is hypothesized. The mechanism then is thoroughly tested in a lab. BTW if event A happens and event B does not always happen following A then type(A) cannot be a cause for type(B). The aforementioned issues illustrates the difference between superstition (black cat stories) and physical science. Immediately jumping to the conclusion of a causal connection is sloppy thinking. When the connection between smoking and cancer was discerned the tobacco companies claimed (of course) it was an example of the post hoc fallacy. But further investigation showed that cigarette paper when burned leaves small amounts of radioactive polonium in the air sacs of the lungs. Smoking long enough produces enough of the radioactive polonium deposits to increase the probability of lung cancer. Here it was discovered that a radioactive substance is left in the long so as to increase the probability of lung cancer. In short a mechanism connecting cigarette smoking with lung cancer was uncovered. Clinical studies of the various immunizations have uncovered no genetic changes that might cause autism. BTW no one knows for sure (at this time) what causes autism. Genetic anomalies are suspected but not yet proved by clinical examination or laboratory studies. So the firm conclusion that immunization leads to autism is yet to be shown. The firm belief without the underlying establishment of a mechanism for genetic change is a clear example of "black cat" thinking. Sloppy, sloppy. I will give you a hint. When someone says events of type A causes events of type B, the burden of proof is on THEM. At this point there is no lab based evidence that immunization causes autism and the counter examples I gave support the doubt that immunization causes autism.
  8. 1 point
    From: PaleoObjectivist To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Allie Oops--Bogus Science? Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:59:54 EST. Dear List Members: Considering some of the rather striking (not to say outlandish) claims about the "fundamental nature of reality" made on this list recently, it thought would be interesting to consider the following material from a recent issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Two questions: 1. Are the criteria of "bogus science" valid, or are they overgeneralizations and risky to apply consistently? 2. Do they apply to recent claims by Everett Allie about the basic constituents of nature? all 4 now, REB ======================================== The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, By ROBERT L. PARK The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is investing close to a million dollars in an obscure Russian scientist's antigravity machine, although it has failed every test and would violate the most fundamental laws of nature. The Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent 6,362,718 for a physically impossible motionless electromagnetic generator, which is supposed to snatch free energy from a vacuum. And major power companies have sunk tens of millions of dollars into a scheme to produce energy by putting hydrogen atoms into a state below their ground state, a feat equivalent to mounting an expedition to explore the region south of the South Pole. There is, alas, no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it. And many such claims end up in a court of law after they have cost some gullible person or corporation a lot of money. How are juries to evaluate them? Before 1993, court cases that hinged on the validity of scientific claims were usually decided simply by which expert witness the jury found more credible. Expert testimony often consisted of tortured theoretical speculation with little or no supporting evidence. Jurors were bamboozled by technical gibberish they could not hope to follow, delivered by experts whose credentials they could not evaluate. In 1993, however, with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. the situation began to change. The case involved Bendectin, the only morning-sickness medication ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It had been used by millions of women, and more than 30 published studies had found no evidence that it caused birth defects. Yet eight so-called experts were willing to testify, in exchange for a fee from the Daubert family, that Bendectin might indeed cause birth defects. In ruling that such testimony was not credible because of lack of supporting evidence, the court instructed federal judges to serve as "gatekeepers," screening juries from testimony based on scientific nonsense. Recognizing that judges are not scientists, the court invited judges to experiment with ways to fulfill their gatekeeper responsibility. Justice Stephen G. Breyer encouraged trial judges to appoint independent experts to help them. He noted that courts can turn to scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to identify neutral experts who could preview questionable scientific testimony and advise a judge on whether a jury should be exposed to it. Judges are still concerned about meeting their responsibilities under the Daubert decision, and a group of them asked me how to recognize questionable scientific claims. What are the warning signs? I have identified seven indicators that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse. Of course, they are only warning signs -- even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate. 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists. One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion – a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. (Ian Wilmut's announcement that he had successfully cloned a sheep was just as public as Pons and Fleischmann's claim, but in the case of cloning, abundant scientific details allowed scientists to judge the work's validity.) Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater. 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion. 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science. Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there. 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote." 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth. Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories. 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists. 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong. I began this list of warning signs to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense. But as I finished the list, I realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop. Robert L. Park is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and the director of public information for the American Physical Society. He is the author of Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford University Press, 2002).
  9. 1 point
    William, rumors of Bill Dwyer's demise have been greatly exaggerated! ;-) I don't know who Mary Ann is or was, but Bill is still going strong at age 78. Dennis
  10. 1 point
    It's a truncated transcript. In their own words ... There will be supporting testimony if this is true. Which 'the shot'? At which point in infant life was this shot given, by whom, where? Vaccination records are kept, the family will have access to this. Which was the 'trigger' shot of the vaccine schedule? -- did the triplets complete the vaccines schedule? Was it done at a doctor's office or clinic? Did the parents seek medical opinion on the triplets' sudden change in behaviour/development? The parents will have access to those medical files if so. What is the diagnosis, and when was it given -- what year? By whom? Knowing that, you can get a better picture of the family's position. It is a possibility that each triplet reacted to "the shot" in the similar way. It is a possibility that otherwise genetically-identical children each was later given a diagnosis of autism. One question I would seek an answer to was if the family recorded contemporaneous video of the children, near the time of their 'trigger' event. Given the opportunity, the details sort themselve out. Discussion is possible without slanging or defamation. Notice, I did not say it is causation. I asked a question. You can always come up with your own answer. In so doing, when you do a probability analysis, you should declare your priors, in a kind of Bayesian enterprise. I take the question in two parts, with two possible dependencies. The dependencies are 'triplets with autism' and 'triplets with documentation of 'immediate onset' autism after 'the shot' as claimed. For the first question, "Are autism rates in triplets, twins, quadruplets, etc measurable with precision?" The second: "Given the 'rate' of autism diagnoses shared within twins/triplets/etc 'sets' ... as measured, is it a statistical abnormality to have three geneticially-similar infants show signs of autism?" I'll come back to answer the questions posed, which answers necessitate a view of the entire video.
  11. 1 point
    William, you won't like my "best guess." You like gossip, inquisiting nosily. You like posting gobs of stuff. You like getting a rise from people and then whining about their not treating you respectfully. You crave attention, which you wouldn't have much success at getting on liberal sites. You aren't seeking rational discourse and aren't actually "a fan of reason," as you describe yourself, but Objecivish sites give you a place where you can preen ruffled feathers over people's lack of desire to discuss issues with you and where you can adopt a superiority tone tut-tuting their supposed (sometimes actual, granted) cultishness. Ellen
  12. 1 point
    Binswanger recently published yet another essay promoting open borders, ... HBletter.com/what-is-national-sovereignty ARI Watch analyzes it in ... Harry Binswanger on National Sovereignty
  13. 1 point
    The logical conclusion of Binswanger's view is that Israel could repel an invading Islamic army but is morally obligated to allow in millions of immigrants even if they would vote Israel out of existence. However Binswanger, for some reason, doesn't apply his open borders nonsense to Israel.