ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark matter

Reply
Old 30th July 2016, 06:28 PM   #321
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,454
The samples were not treated the same as the controls.
Quote:
:
The treatment bottles were placed inside a double-steelwalled,
electromagnetically shielded room (Series 81 Solid Cell;
Lindgren/ETS, Cedar Park, TX) at the Institute of Noetic Sciences
(IONS) in Petaluma, California. This room was used primarily
as a convenient, limited-access location in which to place
the bottles during the remote treatment period. The control
bottles were placed in separate cardboard boxes and stored on a
desk in a quiet location on another floor of the building that
housed the shielded room. D.R. and G.H. did not inform the
third or fourth authors (M.E. or T.K.) about the existence of
the control bottles until after the treatment period was completed.
But the critical thing with the forming of ice crystals is the freezing. Were all samples frozen the same? Same temp, air motion, .....
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 06:35 PM   #322
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,651
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
The samples were not treated the same as the controls.


But the critical thing with the forming of ice crystals is the freezing. Were all samples frozen the same? Same temp, air motion, .....
Those are extremely good questions.

But don't forget about the
Quote:
double-steelwalled,
electromagnetically shielded room (Series 81 Solid Cell;
Lindgren/ETS, Cedar Park, TX) at the Institute of Noetic Sciences
(IONS) in Petaluma, California
that's what makes it science.

__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 06:45 PM   #323
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,247
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
So, only accept the results of scientific study when it fits with my prejudiced wishfull thinking as a sceptic? I get it.
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You see what you want to see... Wishfull thinking.
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I don't see any convincing argument here against this study.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 07:04 PM   #324
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,858
Marten, "wishful" is spelled with only one l.

Maaaaarten, OTOH, is spelled with as many a's as I please. Freeze that as cold as you like.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 07:28 PM   #325
Peregrinus
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
"The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention . . . .
And the woo-woo continues, unabated by the sharp divide of reality.

P.s.: Baron Münchhausen was right, too. Not.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 07:48 PM   #326
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 10,248
Whenever you see

Quote:
Institute of Noetic Sciences
,

you may trust that you are not evaluating scientific research.

INS does NOT engage in scientific investigation. By their own definition of their work and goals, they ignore the principals of science to produce their research.

Quote:
no•et•ic sci•ences: A multidisciplinary field that brings objective scientific tools and techniques together with subjective inner knowing to study the full range of human experiences.


"Subject inner knowing" is the opposite of evidence-based investigation. The input of "subjective inner knowing" at any point in an otherwise well-formed study invalidates the study.

When you see the word Noetic, you may safely dismiss any referenced information as non-scientific, if not anti-scientific.
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I changed my signature
gerdbonk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 08:11 PM   #327
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,002
The study offers impressive evidence that focused concentration can influence how a photographer takes pictures. But I'm not sure what to make of it.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 09:08 PM   #328
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 20,532
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
The study offers impressive evidence that focused concentration can influence how a photographer takes pictures. But I'm not sure what to make of it.
Remember to go "ommm...click." If you go "click....ommm" you're doing it wrong.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2016, 09:29 PM   #329
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,002
Nice ice baby.

Kick it.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 01:06 AM   #330
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,429
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
I always think hateful thoughts when I piss, but I see the changes that have happened in the world in my lifetime and think maybe I should stop that.
Good of you to take the blame!

Respect!
Rincewind is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 03:35 AM   #331
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,116
The blinding did not work. DR labelled the bottles and knew which were 'treated' and which 'control'. DR received the photos (presumably labelled e.g. A1, D2 etc.) so knew which pictures applied to which bottle. The method of randomising order of display for the web scoring is not documented. Each bottle should have been analysed independently so we should see the results for bottle A, B, C and D. There really should be measures of range for each crystal. A measure of inter observer variation would be interesting. Given the inequality in crystal formation this probably reflects some unevenness in freezing process so one would want to know allocation in the freezer was random.

This is just a badly designed experiment. There are alternative explanations for the results to quote Holmes once all other explanations have been excluded what ever remains... The problem here is that alternative explanations have not been excluded.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 04:40 AM   #332
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,408
Well, good to know that prayer will make me a prettier corpse if I ever happen to freeze to death
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 04:52 AM   #333
stanfr
Graduate Poster
 
stanfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,771
Actually, as insane as the hypothesis is, the study wasn't all that bad compared to most other studies of insane things that folks like Radin and Emoto are known for. Ill be a lot more impressed when someone who isn't infamous for their complete abuse of the scientific method comes up with the same result. As others have mentioned, there are serious questions about the methodology employed. My initial reaction, looking at the 'results', was that even if I accepted all the silliness that preceded--why did some of the untreated bottle samples score significantly higher than the majority of the treated ones? (even if the mean was lower). If the hypothesis were correct, one would expect more of a uniform bias. Well, this was done in 2006...Im sure it has been replicated many times by prestigious universities...
stanfr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 06:32 AM   #334
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by gerdbonk View Post
Whenever you see

,

you may trust that you are not evaluating scientific research.

INS does NOT engage in scientific investigation. By their own definition of their work and goals, they ignore the principals of science to produce their research.

"Subject inner knowing" is the opposite of evidence-based investigation. The input of "subjective inner knowing" at any point in an otherwise well-formed study invalidates the study.

When you see the word Noetic, you may safely dismiss any referenced information as non-scientific, if not anti-scientific.

....it is worth pointing out that the entirety of science is utterly dependent on ‘subjective inner knowing.’

‘Consciousness’…it’s called.

IOW…science so far doesn’t have a clue how science occurs or is created. It’s all a direct function of ‘subjective inner knowing.’

…and you have just insisted that the input of such a phenomena invalidates whatever is associated with it. A bit hasty dontcha think given that you have just invalidated not just all of science but your entire life as well.

…not to mention that post you just poured such vitriol into. Not-valid!

Last edited by annnnoid; 31st July 2016 at 06:34 AM.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 07:06 AM   #335
Davidm
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Philadelphia suburbs
Posts: 152
Do the study again, using the same setup, except this time have 2000 people concentrate on the bottles sitting in the cardboard boxes on the desk. Do both versions of the study 50 or 100 times.
Then evaluate the crystals using some objective criteria, ideally using some kind of image processing software rather than human evaluators.
Davidm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 07:30 AM   #336
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,771
My beer (being roughly 94% water) tastes better when I have dirty thoughts about the hot bartender. If tested it numerous times. I use ugly bartenders as a control group.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 08:30 AM   #337
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,257
Pity the poor controlicles, melting in a box; so asymmetrical and unwanted.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 09:16 AM   #338
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,257
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
....it is worth pointing out that the entirety of science is utterly dependent on ‘subjective inner knowing.’

‘Consciousness’…it’s called.

IOW…science so far doesn’t have a clue how science occurs or is created. It’s all a direct function of ‘subjective inner knowing.’
Therefore fairies.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 09:37 AM   #339
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
....it is worth pointing out that the entirety of science is utterly dependent on ‘subjective inner knowing.’
...
Right. How does 'subjective innner knowing' successfully land a probe on another planet or a comet after which said probe successfully gathers much data and successfully sends that data back to Earth, even if that probe can drive around successfully on another planet?

The paranormal only creates yammering crying failures and whiners needing to blame others for their lack of results.
The paranormal is a pathetic endeavor lacking any meaningful results. Science produces meaningful results almost as a matter of course.

The paranormal .....
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 09:37 AM   #340
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,644
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The blinding did not work. DR labelled the bottles and knew which were 'treated' and which 'control'. DR received the photos (presumably labelled e.g. A1, D2 etc.) so knew which pictures applied to which bottle. The method of randomising order of display for the web scoring is not documented. Each bottle should have been analysed independently so we should see the results for bottle A, B, C and D. There really should be measures of range for each crystal. A measure of inter observer variation would be interesting. Given the inequality in crystal formation this probably reflects some unevenness in freezing process so one would want to know allocation in the freezer was random.

This is just a badly designed experiment. There are alternative explanations for the results to quote Holmes once all other explanations have been excluded what ever remains... The problem here is that alternative explanations have not been excluded.
I don't think anybody has mentioned this:

The four bottles were commercially produced drinking water, and they were used "as is". Thus we have no guarantee that the contents were identical; there might have been slight variations in the content of various salts always present in such water.

An absolute prerequisite for such a trial must be to ensure that all the water comes from one batch.

Also, having only four samples during most of the experiment results in a high risk for bias or breach of blinding. It would have been much preferable if oen batch of water had been divided into 40 samples, which would then be labelled and divided randomly into two groups before the experiment was made.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 09:51 AM   #341
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
My beer (being roughly 94% water) tastes better when I have dirty thoughts about the hot bartender. If tested it numerous times. I use ugly bartenders as a control group.
See? Look, science. It's not that hard.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 10:16 AM   #342
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,669
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
So, only accept the results of scientific study when it fits with my prejudiced wishfull thinking as a sceptic? I get it.
No, although Elsevier publishes real journals, this appears to be one that is on the border of reality and allows studies that are not quite there. Looking into some of the articles, I particularly noted one on the value of chiropractic treatment on infants. For those not aware, in the real world chiropractic is not allowed or is highly dis-recommended for infants as it can easily paralyze/kill them due to the softness and fragility of their bones.

I suggest taking this particular journal with a large quantity of salts.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 10:34 AM   #343
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,669
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I don't see any convincing argument here against this study.
Nothing incompetently expressed/performed or written seems to be unsupportable by you. If it is in print or online you will pull it out and trumpet it as an example of how the real scientists just try to hide, push under the carpet or otherwise lie about whatever crap you choose to believe today because it fits your prejudices and, of course, if you believe it it must be right!!!!

Do you ever wonder (or care) why people (and there were more than just me) who tried to help you with real science for several months when you first came on here finally gave up on you? It is because you are not remotely interested in learning real science, you have no interest in learning the fields you make pronouncements about and I will not use the term for what you are doing here and are here, but we all know what it is.

You serve no purpose here. Except as a very bad example.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 12:18 PM   #344
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
Therefore fairies.
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Right. How does 'subjective innner knowing' successfully land a probe on another planet or a comet after which said probe successfully gathers much data and successfully sends that data back to Earth, even if that probe can drive around successfully on another planet?

The paranormal only creates yammering crying failures and whiners needing to blame others for their lack of results.
The paranormal is a pathetic endeavor lacking any meaningful results. Science produces meaningful results almost as a matter of course.

The paranormal .....

You folks are soooooooooooooooo predictable!!!! Science can’t even begin to explain how science happens…and yet whenever the issue is raised you all scream and moan like the world has just ended.

…or even more hilarious…you actually try and pretend it doesn’t matter. The ultimate irony…since if science is about anything it is about how things happen. But how science happens…somehow not an issue!?!?!?!

It’s metaphysics…pure and simple…and for all we know about it, it may as well be blue fairy dust.

Denial…that’s the word you’re looking for.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 12:31 PM   #345
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,257
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
You folks are soooooooooooooooo predictable!!!!
Ha! Says the pot.

Quote:
Science can’t even begin to explain how science happens…and yet whenever the issue is raised you all scream and moan like the world has just ended.
And yet it and all other rational fields are slipping along nicely.

Quote:
…or even more hilarious…you actually try and pretend it doesn’t matter. The ultimate irony…since if science is about anything it is about how things happen. But how science happens…somehow not an issue!?!?!?!
Yes, yes. Long on the solipsism; short on the ideas; as usual; tiny violin without end.

Quote:
It’s metaphysics…pure and simple…and for all we know about it, it may as well be blue fairy dust.

Denial…that’s the word you’re looking for.
And your alternative to all this ersatz science that so blasts your last nerve?
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 12:36 PM   #346
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,408
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
You folks are soooooooooooooooo predictable!!!! Science can’t even begin to explain how science happens…and yet whenever the issue is raised you all scream and moan like the world has just ended.

…or even more hilarious…you actually try and pretend it doesn’t matter. The ultimate irony…since if science is about anything it is about how things happen. But how science happens…somehow not an issue!?!?!?!

It’s metaphysics…pure and simple…and for all we know about it, it may as well be blue fairy dust.

Denial…that’s the word you’re looking for.
How can it matter? If the ultimate nature of reality is unknowable, or even just unknown, all we have to go on are the things we can verify, falsify or apply.
Reality could be soulless and material, a computer simulation, the dream of a god, or unicorn farts, but the laws of physics still function the way they do.
No amount of open-mindedness has ever made anyone levitate instead of fall, or rise from the dead.
Not having perfect knowledge is not an excuse to just fill the gaps with whatever you like best, and contradict the things we do seem to know without evidence.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 01:22 PM   #347
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,338
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
You folks are soooooooooooooooo predictable!!!! Science can’t even begin to explain how science happens…and yet whenever the issue is raised you all scream and moan like the world has just ended.

…or even more hilarious…you actually try and pretend it doesn’t matter. The ultimate irony…since if science is about anything it is about how things happen. But how science happens…somehow not an issue!?!?!?!

It’s metaphysics…pure and simple…and for all we know about it, it may as well be blue fairy dust.

Denial…that’s the word you’re looking for.

Well, exactly. How can you know whether all this science stuff actually works? For all you know, the perfectly sensible posts you are composing on your keyboard are emerging on other peoples' screens as total nonsense.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 01:59 PM   #348
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,257
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
For all you know, the perfectly sensible posts you are composing on your keyboard are emerging on other peoples' screens as total nonsense.
I think this really is the case.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 03:18 PM   #349
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
... Science can’t even begin to explain how science happens… ...
Observation, replication, experimentation, more replication, application.
What do you mean, can't even begin to explain?

Let me begin to explain how the paranormal investicles are trying to do science:
Observation, replication, experimentation, more replication, application.

Can you see why science obtains useful and usable results but the paranormal investicles are not?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 03:22 PM   #350
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
...But how science happens…somehow not an issue!?!?!?! ...
It's interesting to talk about it but it's not really an issue. Unless you're in denial., of course.


Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
...
It’s metaphysics…pure and simple…and for all we know about it, it may as well be blue fairy dust.
...
It's practical application of intelligence. Blue fairy dust is done by the paranormal investicles.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 04:29 PM   #351
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,356
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
Denial…that’s the word you’re looking for.
Some denial of the real world, annnnoid, because it is the philosophy of science, not "science" that tries to explain how science happens.
Science starts off with a few basic, easily understandable assumptions, e.g.
  • An objective universe exists so that people can make empirical measurements and be confident that other people can duplicate them.
    For example everyone that measures the spectrum of hydrogen in a lab here on Earth will measure the same spectrum. Strangely that is exactly what happens!
  • A truthful universe exists, i.e. the universe does not lie to us.
    For example if we measure a spectrum of He on Earth and measure the same spectrum in light from the Sun then the Sun contains He, not a magic substance that is faking the spectrum of He.
If you want to live in a subjective, lying universe then that is your choice.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 05:59 PM   #352
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,651
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
You folks are soooooooooooooooo predictable!!!! Science can’t even begin to explain how science happens…and yet whenever the issue is raised you all scream and moan like the world has just ended.

…or even more hilarious…you actually try and pretend it doesn’t matter. The ultimate irony…since if science is about anything it is about how things happen. But how science happens…somehow not an issue!?!?!?!

It’s metaphysics…pure and simple…and for all we know about it, it may as well be blue fairy dust.

Denial…that’s the word you’re looking for.
Scientists don't know what time and therefore clocks don't work?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 06:04 PM   #353
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 10,248
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
....it is worth pointing out that the entirety of science is utterly dependent on ‘subjective inner knowing.’

‘Consciousness’…it’s called.
No. The process of science is built to explicitly exclude subjectivity. Consciousness, a product of our minds, may enable us to decide what inquiry to pursue, but a well-formed study will eliminate any individual subjectivity. Most people actually understand this about science. It is an objective endeavor. Even the Noetics acknowledge this, before applying their nonsense.



Quote:

IOW…science so far doesn’t have a clue how science occurs or is created. It’s all a direct function of ‘subjective inner knowing.’

The scientific method was arrived at over centuries of theorizing and testing. And arguing. It required lots of external work, challenges, mistakes, evaluations. Nobody had any inner knowing. That's for the fairy world.


Quote:

…and you have just insisted that the input of such a phenomena invalidates whatever is associated with it. A bit hasty dontcha think given that you have just invalidated not just all of science but your entire life as well.

…not to mention that post you just poured such vitriol into. Not-valid!
These last statements of yours seem to indicate a "subjective inner ignorance" on your part. "Inner knowing" is a fluff phrase that has no value to anyone but the "knower". It's synonym is "belief", a thought state that denies any external evidence that contradicts it. Prefixing this with "subjective" just adds personal bias to the fluff. This is exactly why different people have different beliefs. They have different "subjective inner knowing". And none of these individual inner thoughts have any relevance to science, which, by both theory and practice, seeks empirical evidence subject to no individual's bias.

If you would like to continue to be ignorant about the nature of science, no one can stop you. But try to understand that your "subjective inner knowing", which you mistakenly equate with "consciousness*", offers you, by definition, no objective argument against science.


*Consciousness: state of being aware
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I changed my signature
gerdbonk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 06:46 PM   #354
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,669
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
I think this really is the case.
Must be since all I am seeing from that and several others is certainly pathetically wrong/misguided/misinterpreted or otherwise not functional in real science.
I wish people who think they know science would at least show a BS degree from a legitimate College/University in one or more of the major fields of science or somehow pick up enough correct science to not make themselves look like incompetent fools or trolls. Or both.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2016, 03:41 AM   #355
TheAdversary
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by TheAdversary
You can say the same thing about Newtonian mechanics. If you apply Newtonian mechanics to the spinning of galaxies, the theory starts predicting
large quantities of mass to account for the fact that the stars further away from the center have a much lower orbital velocity than the theory
predicts using the amount of mass we can observe.
Originally Posted by Dancing David
They have a higher orbital speed than predicted, as though there was unseen mass accelerating it.
I stand corrected. I'm confusing basic orbital mechanics
TheAdversary is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2016, 04:13 AM   #356
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,257
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Must be since all I am seeing from that and several others is certainly pathetically wrong/misguided/misinterpreted or otherwise not functional in real science.
I wish people who think they know science would at least show a BS degree from a legitimate College/University in one or more of the major fields of science or somehow pick up enough correct science to not make themselves look like incompetent fools or trolls. Or both.
Just hit me, an alternative: It could be that Annnnnnoid* is an unsung sceptical hero of this forum. He posts such monocognitive repetitions of his basic thesis and no amount of alteration finds him, that he must be doing it on purpose in order to elicit responses like those hence — strong arguments appear like petrichor after the rain to waft a smell of sense into stale threads.

A round of applause to our one and only Annnnoid!*


* Spelling may vary.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2016, 09:44 AM   #357
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
How can it matter? If the ultimate nature of reality is unknowable, or even just unknown, all we have to go on are the things we can verify, falsify or apply.
Reality could be soulless and material, a computer simulation, the dream of a god, or unicorn farts, but the laws of physics still function the way they do.
No amount of open-mindedness has ever made anyone levitate instead of fall, or rise from the dead.
Not having perfect knowledge is not an excuse to just fill the gaps with whatever you like best, and contradict the things we do seem to know without evidence.

"How can it matter."

Just like I said. I seriously wonder whether you people are deliberately obtuse, or terminally biased!

If I had to guess, I’d say it’s the latter. You simply don’t like the implications of your own individual and collective ignorance.

Obviously the answer is currently unknown (though you might be surprised how many skeptics have insisted otherwise on these very threads). Why it matters is because there HAS to be an answer…and the answer implicates realities of the most profound nature.

Science is the closest thing we have to an explicit empirical representation of reality. What is the relationship between this representation and the reality it describes?

…no one has a clue. No one has a clue if there even is one. But then again, there HAS to be one…because the representation is created by reality (so there’s a relationship…by default). Neural reality. It’s not random, It’s not arbitrary, It’s not a coincidence.

If you look below…you’ll notice Reality Check dancing the typical skeptic jig about how reality obeys the same laws from here to eternity.

But just try and point out that a law is a metaphysical reality. That Reality Check (and the vast majority of the skeptic hoard) constantly play the ‘nature follows rules’ game all the way up to the point where the implications are identified.

…do rules actually exist?

“No no no no no no…of course not. Never said that. Don’t mean that. Could never mean that. Could never happen.”

(…I don’t think it’s really necessary to point out why such a conclusion is so frightening to the skeptic POV)

…so what, then, is the reason that everything occurs as it does (not to mention the remarkable utility of our own models). And why do you and just about every skeptic alive keep insisting that everything from here to eternity follows all the same laws / rules?

“…oh…we don’t really know…we’re just being poetic…and it doesn’t really matter…it’s not really a question that we have to answer…and it can’t be rules because that would make skeptics pee their pants…so it just can’t be.”

So what is it?

“Don’t know…and it doesn’t matter (didn’t I just say that) but it can’t be that cause all the skeptics and me we all say so.”

…and that’s all we get. Denial.

Interestingly enough…not a single one of you can even begin to describe what it is that actually does explain why everything occurs as it does (let alone what everything actually is), or how we come to create the math and physics that we do…or what the relationship between all these ridiculously diverse phenomena actually is.

All you do…is make excuses…and try and pretend that it doesn’t matter. Again…denial.

Of course, in order to empirically resolve the question of the relationship between the laws of physics and reality it will be necessary to determine how the laws of physics are created by reality. Neural reality…and how it creates our subjective experience.

…and what do we actually empirically and definitively know about what our subjective experience is…or is not…and how it’s created? The same subjective experience that creates all the laws / rules … and asks all these really annoying questions.

Very close to nothing.

Quite obviously…science happens, despite our all-but-complete ignorance of how. As do vast quantities of other subjective activities that we empirically know equally close to nothing about…including anomalous psychological events.

IOW…we can no more empirically adjudicate anomalous psychological events than we can adjudicate whatever it is that creates science. That does not in any way unconditionally validate every crazy idea that comes along. But reports of these experiences number in the hundreds of millions (probably billions…but a hostile research climate precludes accurate accounting). Until some means is arrived at to accurately adjudicate the issues…they have evidentiary validity.


Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Some denial of the real world, annnnoid, because it is the philosophy of science, not "science" that tries to explain how science happens.

Tell that to Cristof Koch and the half million or so other cognitive scientists currently sweating out some kind of functional neural and / or cognitive theory. Not to mention the legions of computer scientists trying to hash out some kind of AI. To put it simply…the last thing they’re interested in is metaphysics. They want empirical data. They want to know what ‘philosophy’ is. They want to know where it comes from. And they want to know how it’s created.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Science starts off with a few basic, easily understandable assumptions, e.g.
  • An objective universe exists so that people can make empirical measurements and be confident that other people can duplicate them.
    For example everyone that measures the spectrum of hydrogen in a lab here on Earth will measure the same spectrum. Strangely that is exactly what happens!
  • A truthful universe exists, i.e. the universe does not lie to us.
    For example if we measure a spectrum of He on Earth and measure the same spectrum in light from the Sun then the Sun contains He, not a magic substance that is faking the spectrum of He.

…but that’s exactly what we’ve got. Isn’t it Reality Check.

Magic!

Neither you nor anyone else on this planet has the faintest clue what ‘He’ or anything else actually is, where it ultimately came from, or why / how it behaves as it does. Not only that…but all you DO have…is models. And not only that…but you don’t have a clue where these models come from…or how. Nor do you have a clue what relationship they have with what is actually there…if any.

IOW…when it comes right down to it…you don’t understand anything. All this stuff is happening…right here, right now… and you can’t ultimately explain ANY of it.

The very definition of magic!

…and then you come on here lecturing me about denial. That’s rich!

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
If you want to live in a subjective, lying universe then that is your choice.

…yeah, and if you want to play silly word games, that’s your choice. I don’t suppose it is worth pointing out that you exist as nothing other than a 100% subjective creature. Tell me Reality Check…are you convinced that you do nothing but lie to yourself? Must be hard doing science (let alone anything else) if you can’t trust a single thing you think or feel.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2016, 10:41 AM   #358
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,408
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
"How can it matter."

Just like I said. I seriously wonder whether you people are deliberately obtuse, or terminally biased!

If I had to guess, I’d say it’s the latter. You simply don’t like the implications of your own individual and collective ignorance.

Obviously the answer is currently unknown (though you might be surprised how many skeptics have insisted otherwise on these very threads). Why it matters is because there HAS to be an answer…and the answer implicates realities of the most profound nature.

Science is the closest thing we have to an explicit empirical representation of reality. What is the relationship between this representation and the reality it describes?

…no one has a clue. No one has a clue if there even is one. But then again, there HAS to be one…because the representation is created by reality (so there’s a relationship…by default). Neural reality. It’s not random, It’s not arbitrary, It’s not a coincidence.
'You people', nice... not only have you decided that everybody who doesn't see things your way is the enemy, you apparently know what people think before they speak...
Getting back to your objection, until we know this 'deeper layer' of existence, we can't say anything about it. We'll have to make do with what we have. Ignoring what we can know and verify in favor of wishful thinking and unfalsifiable ontological assumptions is just navel gazing.

Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
If you look below…you’ll notice Reality Check dancing the typical skeptic jig about how reality obeys the same laws from here to eternity.

But just try and point out that a law is a metaphysical reality. That Reality Check (and the vast majority of the skeptic hoard) constantly play the ‘nature follows rules’ game all the way up to the point where the implications are identified.

…do rules actually exist?

“No no no no no no…of course not. Never said that. Don’t mean that. Could never mean that. Could never happen.”

(…I don’t think it’s really necessary to point out why such a conclusion is so frightening to the skeptic POV)

…so what, then, is the reason that everything occurs as it does (not to mention the remarkable utility of our own models). And why do you and just about every skeptic alive keep insisting that everything from here to eternity follows all the same laws / rules?

“…oh…we don’t really know…we’re just being poetic…and it doesn’t really matter…it’s not really a question that we have to answer…and it can’t be rules because that would make skeptics pee their pants…so it just can’t be.”

So what is it?

“Don’t know…and it doesn’t matter (didn’t I just say that) but it can’t be that cause all the skeptics and me we all say so.”

…and that’s all we get. Denial.

Interestingly enough…not a single one of you can even begin to describe what it is that actually does explain why everything occurs as it does (let alone what everything actually is), or how we come to create the math and physics that we do…or what the relationship between all these ridiculously diverse phenomena actually is.

All you do…is make excuses…and try and pretend that it doesn’t matter. Again…denial.

Of course, in order to empirically resolve the question of the relationship between the laws of physics and reality it will be necessary to determine how the laws of physics are created by reality. Neural reality…and how it creates our subjective experience.

…and what do we actually empirically and definitively know about what our subjective experience is…or is not…and how it’s created? The same subjective experience that creates all the laws / rules … and asks all these really annoying questions.

Very close to nothing.
Of course rules exist. And language exists, symbols exist. Not at the same level energy and matter do, but noone here is claiming that. Everyone here knows that what we call 'Laws', aren't set in stone, but are just our best attempts at creating a predictive model of the world we live in.

Your gotcha about laws being metaphysical isn't scaring or confronting anybody.

You started ranting in this thread in defense of a poorly designed experiment.
The control samples were from a different batch of water, they were stored differently, the experiment was improperly blinded, and the researchers don't appear to have set any criteria for what would count as a success beforehand, they've just mined the data they got in order to say what they wanted.

No amount of pseudo-philosophical huffing and puffing about metaphysics is going to save this shoddy experiment, or justify your anger at everybody's supposed close-mindedness.
You accuse everyone here of being ignorant and in denial, but your entire motivation for attacking everybody who criticized the water experiment appears to stem from your own bias and personal beliefs.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2016, 11:05 AM   #359
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
'You people', nice... not only have you decided that everybody who doesn't see things your way is the enemy, you apparently know what people think before they speak...
Getting back to your objection, until we know this 'deeper layer' of existence, we can't say anything about it. We'll have to make do with what we have. Ignoring what we can know and verify in favor of wishful thinking and unfalsifiable ontological assumptions is just navel gazing.

That's all good...but problems occur when 'what we know' so frequently ignores 'what we don't know' and the implications thereof. Those implications are anything but academic since they influence and inform vast areas of our individual and collective existence. IOW...there is lots of evidence that we may, in fact, 'know' this deeper layer of existence...just not in ways that are amenable to empirical adjudication.

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Of course rules exist. And language exists, symbols exist. Not at the same level energy and matter do, but noone here is claiming that. Everyone here knows that what we call 'Laws', aren't set in stone, but are just our best attempts at creating a predictive model of the world we live in.

Your gotcha about laws being metaphysical isn't scaring or confronting anybody.

You started ranting in this thread in defense of a poorly designed experiment.
The control samples were from a different batch of water, they were stored differently, the experiment was improperly blinded, and the researchers don't appear to have set any criteria for what would count as a success beforehand, they've just mined the data they got in order to say what they wanted.

No amount of pseudo-philosophical huffing and puffing about metaphysics is going to save this shoddy experiment, or justify your anger at everybody's supposed close-mindedness.
You accuse everyone here of being ignorant and in denial, but your entire motivation for attacking everybody who criticized the water experiment appears to stem from your own bias and personal beliefs.

…no, I started ranting cause there’s a lot of hypocrisy going around. Making assumptions and generalizations is, admittedly, a bad habit of mine. The experiment itself has obvious design flaws…but the paradigms that are implicated are very far from resolved…which is the sentiment that underlies most of the discussion that occurs here.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2016, 11:12 AM   #360
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,669
Originally Posted by stanfr View Post
Actually, as insane as the hypothesis is, the study wasn't all that bad compared to most other studies of insane things that folks like Radin and Emoto are known for. Ill be a lot more impressed when someone who isn't infamous for their complete abuse of the scientific method comes up with the same result. As others have mentioned, there are serious questions about the methodology employed. My initial reaction, looking at the 'results', was that even if I accepted all the silliness that preceded--why did some of the untreated bottle samples score significantly higher than the majority of the treated ones? (even if the mean was lower). If the hypothesis were correct, one would expect more of a uniform bias. Well, this was done in 2006...Im sure it has been replicated many times by prestigious universities...
I am sure they were studied thoroughly at Liberty University and Donald Trump University!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.