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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


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.
Reply
Old 4th April 2019, 06:36 AM   #1
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,904
Easiest woos to explain/debunk

In this thread, we talk about the easiest superstitious beliefs to debunk/explain without having to actually study them case by case and run experiments.

Here's one: The "picture frame with following eyes"
A lot of people have reported that when walking by a painting of a person, that they notice its eyes are following them as they walk. This is perhaps one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard. For once, it's pretty obvious why that illusion happens: We're talking about a two dimensional image, so that obviously, if you stare at its eyes, both sets of eyes will remain "locked" from any angle (which is not what would happen if it was an actual three-dimensional figure like a sculpture or a mannequin, in which case, the "line" of sight from the eyes can only be aligned from a unique, specific angle, and so, if it ever were to follow someone with its eyes, it would be incredibly obvious)

Here's one I've never understood: The OUIJA Board
How the Hell does this even manage to fool people into thinking that the pointer is being "moved" by a spirit? Especially considering it takes two people holding it, so that obviously, at some point the differential between the movement of one set of hands against the other set of hands, is gonna make for some unpredictable movements. This one doesn't even require an explanation (other than an explanation as to why do people believe it's anything other than the two sets of hands moving the pointer)

The Law of Attraction:
As pointed out once by another forum member whose name I don't remember: It takes only one word to explain why people being really convinced that they're going to obtain something is not only not guaranteed to give them the thing, but most of the times it won't: Casinos. Most people who are there, despite their conviction/desire to obtain what they want, lose.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins 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 4th April 2019, 07:39 AM   #2
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,847
It seems, for me, the easiest to debunk someone's nonsense is to expose them to sensible communication. People like to cherry-pic random bits and pieces of what supports their stance. When you ask them their about their sources of information, it is always be, "I read it somewhere", "a friend told me . . ." If the person asking the question is prepared, it is easy to back up your knowledge.
__________________
Julia
wasapi 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 4th April 2019, 07:46 AM   #3
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,142
I sort of think the Ouija Board wouldn't survive anyone pointed out that it was literally invented as a parlor game* in 1890 and is copyrighted and owned by Parker Brothers (well I think now Mattel) which literally makes it as supernatural and ancient as Sorry! and Candyland. It's like starting a religion around Settlers of Cataan or Cards Against Humanity.

*Okay before anyone "Well askchsually..."'s me, yes precursors and the vague concept of "automatic writing" did exist but the actual Ouija Board with the planchette and the 1-9, and the Yes/No, and the Letters was invented, yes invented, by businessman and inventor Elijah Jefferson Bond in 1890. I mean literally check out the dude's tombstone, it's hilarious.

It wasn't until WWI that an American spiritualist named Pearl Curran basically retconned it into an actual "mystical tool" that could "Communicate with the dead."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 4th April 2019 at 07:49 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 4th April 2019, 07:48 AM   #4
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,142
Astrology you can pretty much throw out the windows with basic math. If where the planet Neptune is at in the sky has an effect on my mood or personality, a plane flying overhead would have magnitudes more just by basic physics.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 4th April 2019, 08:04 AM   #5
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,813
Round earth. Easy to disprove.

All the flat earthers have to do is mount an expedition to 4 roughly equidistant points around the so-called equator. I suggest Singapore, Gabon, Ecuador and Kiribati.

At each location, the team mark the shadow the sun casts of the top of a flagpole, lamppost or similar every hour as it rises (which round-earthers claim will be due East of them) climbs directly overhead then sets (supposedly due West) just to see whether it really moves in a straight line without deviating or in fact curves.

They can phone each other regularly to check that everyone's results agree where they overlap (for example as the sun sets in Singapore it ought to be overhead in Gabon, and just rising in Ecuador). The sun should constantly be visible from at least two positions.

If they get the results round-earthers expect then they will have shown that the sun continuously moved in a straight line across the sky, yet after 24 hours had returned to where it started. This is clearly impossible, so they must maintain the utmost vigilance in order to spot the moment when the sun changes direction in order to jump back to the starting point.
Jack by the hedge 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 4th April 2019, 08:10 AM   #6
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
The Law of Attraction:
As pointed out once by another forum member whose name I don't remember: It takes only one word to explain why people being really convinced that they're going to obtain something is not only not guaranteed to give them the thing, but most of the times it won't: Casinos. Most people who are there, despite their conviction/desire to obtain what they want, lose.
There's a great SNL sketch on this involving Oprah and the author of the secret trying to tell a Sudanese villager that is problems really are just due to his negative feelings.

Does anyone other than fundie christians think OUIJA boards are anything but a parlor game?

Homopathy, most folks that use it have no idea what it is and think its just herbal remedies. They generally don't believe you when you tell them because it is so stupid, but if they look it up.....
ahhell 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 4th April 2019, 08:12 AM   #7
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,813
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Astrology you can pretty much throw out the windows with basic math. If where the planet Neptune is at in the sky has an effect on my mood or personality, a plane flying overhead would have magnitudes more just by basic physics.
The effects of the planets on people's behaviour and on their fortunes was so obvious thousands of years ago that our ancestors were able to make a comprehensive list of their influences. Yet we can't even detect them now. I wonder what changed.
Jack by the hedge 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 4th April 2019, 08:29 AM   #8
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,656
It's not the belief, it's the believer.

Any woo is easy to explain or debunk, if the person you're talking to is willing to listen to what you have to say and consider that they might be wrong.

With respect to Jack by the hedge, I think that because the flat earth is so easy to disprove, that makes it paradoxically very difficult to debunk. You're not dealing with someone who sincerely holds a misguided belief through ignorance. You're dealing with a troll who's adopted a pose. It goes back to the problem of the believer. You're not trying to convert someone who believes in a flat earth. You're trying to convert someone who believes that it's fun to pose as a flat-earther and watch your debunking antics while they maintain their pose.

---

I think this is actually a problem for a lot of debunkers. There's this cargo-cult sense of "if I just show the geometry, they'll give up their woo!" But that's not how belief works, and it's not how people work. I think that a lot of people are attracted to the skeptical pose because they think it means they get to be right without having to bother with being humane.

Last edited by theprestige; 4th April 2019 at 08:32 AM.
theprestige 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 4th April 2019, 08:34 AM   #9
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,142
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
With respect to Jack by the hedge, I think that because the flat earth is so easy to disprove, that makes it paradoxically very difficult to debunk. You're not dealing with someone who sincerely holds a misguided belief through ignorance. You're dealing with a troll who's adopted a pose. It goes back to the problem of the believer. You're not trying to convert someone who believes in a flat earth. You're trying to convert someone who believes that it's fun to pose as a flat-earther and watch your debunking antics while they maintain their pose.
I think it's even deeper then that. It's not even trolling sometimes, it's more of a sincerely held belief in anti-intellectualism.

There is an angle of "I'm just trying to show you that being factually correct about everything isn't that big of a deal" to at least some of this. It's unspoken, it's ill-defined, hell probably often to the people who hold it, but I do think with a lot of Woo the... moral I guess (probably not exactly the right word but close) we're supposed to be taking away from it is less "I'm trying to convince you that this is actually literally true" and more a vaguer "I'm trying to show you that I hold this patently false belief, I'm not going to work to get rid of it, and I still manage to get by."

I do think at least some of this comes from people who, on some level either conscious or unconscious, see skepticism as "having to be right all the time" and are pushing back against that image of it by being wrong for affect basically.

ETA: Basically I think a lot of Woo has nothing do with actually believing the Woo on any practical level. It's about the idea that "skeptics" are just this bunch of joyless busybodies spending their time ruining things for everybody else and a lot of Woo is just showy "Lookit me. I'm believing in this dumb thing and I'm still happy and functioning."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 4th April 2019 at 09:06 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 4th April 2019, 08:34 AM   #10
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,465
I will admit, I can't get through a description of homeopathy without laughing.

Seriously, how much more stupid could you get?

Then again, the guy that invented Scientology was the one who boasted that he could completely make up a religion and get people to fall for it, and that's what he did. He's like the magician who tells you, "This isn't magic, it is an illusion" and people still insist that he is doing magic.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 4th April 2019, 08:59 AM   #11
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,813
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
With respect to Jack by the hedge, I think that because the flat earth is so easy to disprove, that makes it paradoxically very difficult to debunk. You're not dealing with someone who sincerely holds a misguided belief through ignorance. You're dealing with a troll who's adopted a pose.
None taken, as they say. Yes, that was pretty much my point: if flat earthers were serious there's plenty they could do to show if they were right. It's not about being right, it's about being contrarian and the sport of batting away objections.
Jack by the hedge 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 4th April 2019, 09:25 AM   #12
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,593
I would think anyone who's ever made a cup of tea could see right there that homeopathy is nonsense.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 4th April 2019, 09:50 AM   #13
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,041
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I would think anyone who's ever made a cup of tea could see right there that homeopathy is nonsense.
Bah! That argument is weak tea!

__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound 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 5th April 2019, 07:15 AM   #14
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,779
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Here's one: The "picture frame with following eyes"
A lot of people have reported that when walking by a painting of a person, that they notice its eyes are following them as they walk. This is perhaps one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard. For once, it's pretty obvious why that illusion happens: We're talking about a two dimensional image, so that obviously, if you stare at its eyes, both sets of eyes will remain "locked" from any angle (which is not what would happen if it was an actual three-dimensional figure like a sculpture or a mannequin, in which case, the "line" of sight from the eyes can only be aligned from a unique, specific angle, and so, if it ever were to follow someone with its eyes, it would be incredibly obvious)
It's not that simple. For a start it only works if the subject was looking directly at the painter's face, otherwise the eyes won't follow you at all. Second, it's some real image processing in the brain that actually tells you that, not just the fact that you can see the eyes.

The thing is, we actually evolved to track the exact direction someone's eyes point. Presumably because it was really important back when some tiger could pounce you on very short notice. And not just we. Your dog can also tell if you're looking directly into its eyes or a bit left or right or above. The evolutionary importance of it goes waaaahahaay back.

And it's really accurate. From the back of a college lecture hall, you can actually tell whether the professor is looking at you or the guy next to you. The difference is, what, one or two degrees? But you can tell that. And it's not just the fact that you can see the professor's eyes, since you can see them just as well in both cases.

In the case of a 2D picture, essentially you see what the painter saw, even if you move around a bit. If that guy was looking straight at the painter or the camera, yep, your brain tells you that he's looking at you.

But in any case, it seems to me like if you want to "debunk" it, it helps if you know WTH you're talking about. Going into your own equal and opposite woo, like that "you lock eyes", is not very helpful.

Not the least because the only reason some pictures seem special is that the majority of pictures don't seem to follow you at all. That's what makes those that do that stand out. To use a well known painting as an example, in Leonardo's Last Supper there are 13 people in the scene, and exactly NONE seem to track you with their eyes. So asserting to people that all pictures do that is just gonna sound like you're the one making up some woowoo, and rightfully so.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 5th April 2019 at 07:29 AM.
HansMustermann 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 6th April 2019, 01:16 AM   #15
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,301
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I sort of think the Ouija Board wouldn't survive anyone pointed out that it was literally invented as a parlor game* in 1890 and is copyrighted and owned by Parker Brothers (well I think now Mattel) which literally makes it as supernatural and ancient as Sorry! and Candyland. It's like starting a religion around Settlers of Cataan or Cards Against Humanity.

*Okay before anyone "Well askchsually..."'s me, yes precursors and the vague concept of "automatic writing" did exist but the actual Ouija Board with the planchette and the 1-9, and the Yes/No, and the Letters was invented, yes invented, by businessman and inventor Elijah Jefferson Bond in 1890. I mean literally check out the dude's tombstone, it's hilarious.

It wasn't until WWI that an American spiritualist named Pearl Curran basically retconned it into an actual "mystical tool" that could "Communicate with the dead."
Well askchsually...

Bond did not invent the talking board with the planchette. It is questionable whether he or Kennard or Reiche invented the actual Ouija board. But the Ouija was taken directly from talking boards used by Spiritualists.

Spiritualism became popular in the 1850s after the popularity of the Fox sisters. They used taps and knocks to indicate communications from the spirit world. That led to similar parlor activities. People would ask the spirits questions and knocks would identify the answers.

To get more specific answers, spiritualists would call out letters and a knock would indicate to write the letter down. By that means the spirits could call out a written message. They did similar things with letters written on slips of paper or tiles or cards.

The problem with this method was that it was painfully slow. That gave rise to talking boards and the planchette. There were talking boards in the 1850s and 1860s that used a board with letters and numbers and used a variety of mechanisms or dials to mysteriously select the numbers and letters to spell out messages from the spirits. But it was the planchette that became really popular in the 1860s. The planchette was a small table with three legs similar to that used for Oujia but with a hole to insert a pen or pencil. People would move around the planchette to write out messages from the spirits.

Planchettes were originally sold in bookstores and stationary stores due to their association with writing. Milton Bradley popularized board games in the 1860s. The toys and games industry largely took over the market for planchettes.

The Spiritualist movement died down in the 1870s, but was revived in the 1880s. The planchette with its messy writing was replaced by the talking board. Tuttle sold the Psychograph in Ohio, which was a dial that two people would put their hands on and would select letter, numbers, yes, no and good bye.

Using a table with painted letters and a planchette was attested to as early as 1876 in American Spiritual Magazine. These types of talking boards became popular with Spiritualists in Ohio in the 1880s.

In 1886, the Associated Press released an article on the use of talking boards by the Spiritualists in Ohio. This article received wide attention, including the attention of Kennard. Kennard started a company with Maupin and others to make a talking board. It was Maupin’s friend, Bond, who was named as the inventor for the patent, which was assigned to Maupin and Kennard.

The Ouija board was marketed as “mysterious” but they intentionally did not describe how It worked. They didn’t say that it was messages from the dead or some other spirit or some other type of divination. Kennard and his associates were not Spiritualists trying to push some Spiritualist idea. They were businessmen trying to make money. By leaving it vague, it made the board more mysterious and allowed people to project their own thought and ideas onto the board.

Although the Ouija board, and other talking boards and planchettes, became products of the games industry, it has its roots in Spiritualism. It is more akin to a manufacturer of card games production a deck of Tarot cards.
__________________
"Glass slippers don't come in half sizes." - Rachael Smith
DevilsAdvocate 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 6th April 2019, 02:03 AM   #16
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,696
The point about pictures with eyes looking at you is that if the picture is painted looking at the painter, there is no position where it will not look as if the eyes are looking at the spectator. Conversely, if the eyes are painted looking away, there will be no position where the eyes will look at you.

I think that the reason why some pictures stand out with following eyes, is that some painters were more accurate in painting this.

Our biological ability to see when we are being looked at, is thrown completely off kilter when we encounter a cross-eyed person. That is probably why we feel so uncomfortable in this situation.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 6th April 2019, 03:24 AM   #17
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,018
Energy orbs or spirit orbs or ghost orbs or whatever in photos.

Nope. It's just out of focus dust or something else in the air, usually illuminated by the camera flash. Breathtakingly easy to debunk and demonstrate, but people still believe it and post their pictures of spirit orbs all the time.

Sure, the debunkers explanation might explain most of the orb photos, but it doesn't explain their photo. Because they're special.
JesseCuster 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 6th April 2019, 06:00 AM   #18
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,965
Reflexology. Why doesn't half of somebody's body literally stop working when they have a foot amputated?

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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 6th April 2019, 06:02 AM   #19
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 6,394
It's not really about debunking anything, IMO. You can spend all day offering reasonable information about why something very likely doesn't exist, but if the person you're offering this information to is set in his or her beliefs, then you've basically spent all of that time kicking a brick wall for no good reason.

Most avenues of woo are pretty straightforward things to debunk, but the people who need it to be debunked aren't interested.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome 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 6th April 2019, 07:53 PM   #20
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,904
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It's not that simple. For a start it only works if the subject was looking directly at the painter's face, otherwise the eyes won't follow you at all. Second, it's some real image processing in the brain that actually tells you that, not just the fact that you can see the eyes.

The thing is, we actually evolved to track the exact direction someone's eyes point. Presumably because it was really important back when some tiger could pounce you on very short notice. And not just we. Your dog can also tell if you're looking directly into its eyes or a bit left or right or above. The evolutionary importance of it goes waaaahahaay back.

And it's really accurate. From the back of a college lecture hall, you can actually tell whether the professor is looking at you or the guy next to you. The difference is, what, one or two degrees? But you can tell that. And it's not just the fact that you can see the professor's eyes, since you can see them just as well in both cases.

In the case of a 2D picture, essentially you see what the painter saw, even if you move around a bit. If that guy was looking straight at the painter or the camera, yep, your brain tells you that he's looking at you.

But in any case, it seems to me like if you want to "debunk" it, it helps if you know WTH you're talking about. Going into your own equal and opposite woo, like that "you lock eyes", is not very helpful.

Not the least because the only reason some pictures seem special is that the majority of pictures don't seem to follow you at all. That's what makes those that do that stand out. To use a well known painting as an example, in Leonardo's Last Supper there are 13 people in the scene, and exactly NONE seem to track you with their eyes. So asserting to people that all pictures do that is just gonna sound like you're the one making up some woowoo, and rightfully so.
That's all fair enough, and thank you for contributing with more knowledge and background information to expand on that one.... But I just wanna state for the fact that the bolded is a strawman. I never said that this applies to all paintings.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins 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 8th April 2019, 04:42 AM   #21
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
In this thread, we talk about the easiest superstitious beliefs to debunk/explain without having to actually study them case by case and run experiments.
A better pointed question to ask is: why do easily discredited beliefs persist? That question has been tackled by Shermer in his book titled something like : why do people believe weird things.
Steve001 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 8th April 2019, 05:37 AM   #22
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,717
'Dowsing' gets my vote.

Dowsing for water,
Dowsing for gold,
Dowsing for ...

James Randi did thousands of Dowsing tests over the years and never even once found a case of real Dowsing.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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 8th April 2019, 06:55 AM   #23
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,142
The XKCD sums it all up well for me.

Almost all woo, if true, would have some company making millions of dollar of it. Not of all selling to stupid people, but off of it.



"xkcd is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. Hotlinking specifically permitted by website owner/operate."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 8th April 2019, 06:56 AM   #24
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,142
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
'Dowsing' gets my vote.

Dowsing for water,
Dowsing for gold,
Dowsing for ...

James Randi did thousands of Dowsing tests over the years and never even once found a case of real Dowsing.
The worst case of this was a company trying to pass of Dowsing Rods as mine/explosive detectors to the various allied militaries during the height of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 9th April 2019, 08:31 PM   #25
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 64,690
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It's not that simple. For a start it only works if the subject was looking directly at the painter's face, otherwise the eyes won't follow you at all. Second, it's some real image processing in the brain that actually tells you that, not just the fact that you can see the eyes...
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
The point about pictures with eyes looking at you is that if the picture is painted looking at the painter, there is no position where it will not look as if the eyes are looking at the spectator. Conversely, if the eyes are painted looking away, there will be no position where the eyes will look at you.

I think that the reason why some pictures stand out with following eyes, is that some painters were more accurate in painting this...
I have hanging on my wall a print of Frans Hals' Laughing Cavalier, which clearly demonstrates this principle. It was a wedding gift to my grandparents, and when they passed away it came to me, since I had admired it all my life.


By Frans Hals - www.wga.hu : Home : Info, Public Domain, Link
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot 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 9th April 2019, 08:34 PM   #26
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,271
Flat Earth can be debunked using a multi-storied house with a view towards the east or west horizon.
__________________
“Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham
The Great Zaganza 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 9th April 2019, 10:40 PM   #27
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,350
By far the easiest is large, terrestrial cryptozoological creatures.
Venom 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 10th April 2019, 06:13 AM   #28
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,561
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The XKCD sums it all up well for me.

Almost all woo, if true, would have some company making millions of dollar of it. Not of all selling to stupid people, but off of it.

I seem to recall Uri Geller claiming that various corporations had paid him huge sums of money to find oil, mineral deposits, etc. using his "powers".
Armitage72 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 10th April 2019, 08:17 AM   #29
SumDooder
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
...And it's really accurate. From the back of a college lecture hall, you can actually tell whether the professor is looking at you or the guy next to you. The difference is, what, one or two degrees? But you can tell that. And it's not just the fact that you can see the professor's eyes, since you can see them just as well in both cases.
I disagree, depending on the size of the lecture hall, of course. I would like to see this put to the test. I don't think we could tell the difference of a few millimeters at a distance over 10 or 20 feet. And of course, how many times have we waved back at someone only to find out they were waving and looking at someone else?

Somewhat related is the fact we don't really look into someone's 'eyes', we can only focus on one eye at a time. I've noticed it mostly in Soap Operas, but it occurs in other movies and tv shows: when talking face to face, one of the actors eyes will dart back and forth between the other's. I actually just testing with a coworker and he was able to tell on which eye I focused. I would assume that would only work at short distances (we were probably 4 feet apart). At some point I suppose I wouldn't focus on just one eye, but on the entire face maybe.

Speaking of which, how did painters handle this? Is the focus of the subject's gaze painted towards one eye? This wouldn't be the case with photography and motion pictures. Since the subject is looking at a single lens, to an observer, the focus would be directly between the eyes.
SumDooder 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 10th April 2019, 11:11 AM   #30
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,779
I think most good painters simply understood that you tell your models to look a bit to the side and/or up or down. Not the least because we look better from a bit to the side. As I was saying, when you look at the last supper, Leonardo managed to paint 13 people in that scene without any of them looking directly at you.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 10th April 2019, 04:28 PM   #31
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 64,690
The Laughing Cavalier's face is turned slightly to one side, but his eyes are fixed on the viewer.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot 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 10th April 2019, 05:16 PM   #32
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,779
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The Laughing Cavalier's face is turned slightly to one side, but his eyes are fixed on the viewer.
Well, that is why I've phrased it as "look a bit to the side" and not "have the head turned a bit to the side." As you've correctly noted, we can figure out the direction the pupils point at, even if the head is turned a bit.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 11th April 2019, 01:16 AM   #33
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,965
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The Laughing Cavalier's face is turned slightly to one side, but his eyes are fixed on the viewer.
And his face is eerily reminiscent of someone's avatar.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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 12th April 2019, 02:09 PM   #34
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,125
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
In this thread, we talk about the easiest superstitious beliefs to debunk/explain without having to actually study them case by case and run experiments.

(...)

The Law of Attraction:
As pointed out once by another forum member whose name I don't remember: It takes only one word to explain why people being really convinced that they're going to obtain something is not only not guaranteed to give them the thing, but most of the times it won't: Casinos. Most people who are there, despite their conviction/desire to obtain what they want, lose.

But you also know how they convince themselves that they are right: They didn't desire/want it enough and their conviction/faith faltered.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 12th April 2019, 02:14 PM   #35
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,696
julian assange was arrested at just the right time.
p0lka 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 12th April 2019, 02:20 PM   #36
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,904
Originally Posted by dann View Post
But you also know how they convince themselves that they are right: They didn't desire/want it enough and their conviction/faith faltered.
Yes, true. I'm familiar with those lame cop-outs people use
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins 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 17th April 2019, 05:00 PM   #37
hank hill
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 202
I'd say popular dead musicians being still alive- Elvis or Tupac. That's nuts.
hank hill 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 22nd April 2019, 09:41 PM   #38
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,527
I don't think there's any woo that's easy to debunk because no matter how ridiculous it is or how trivially easy it is to show false, there are people who fight very hard to keep the bunk on.

This morning, I popped open a can of Coke Zero Sugar in the breakroom. One of my coworkers told me, "Why are you drinking a soda in the morning? That's bad for you!" I questioned her about why she thought it was bad and she said it was because of the sugar. I pointed out that there was no sugar in Coke Zero Sugar. She said "well, the artificial stuff is bad too. That's probably why you had a heart attack!" I asked her if there was something especially bad about the morning and soda and she replied that , indeed there was -the only thing people should drink in the morning is juice and water. I pointed out that juice has a lot of sugar. She seemed mystified for a moment, then shot back, "But the sugar in juice is natural. You are drinking artificial sugar." I replied, "What if I drank a soda with pure cane sugar, would that be better?" She replied, "No! Soda in the morning is bad!" I said, "OK, so soda in the morning isn't bad because of the sugar then? Is it the carbonation that's bad in the morning?" She just rolled her eyes and said, "You don't get it."

You just can't disabuse people of really dumb ideas that they strongly believe in, no matter how trivially false or not-well-thought-out those ideas are. She will likely think that diet soda in the morning is bad and continue to guzzle down sugary juices well after her first diabetic coma . . .

Another soda related one: When my kids were in school, one of their classmates did a Science Fair project where they soaked a chicken bone in Coke. The effect was, of course, that the bone began to dissolve. They used this obvious effect to conclude that drinking soda will cause your bones to dissolve. I pointed out to the kid and the parent that they should instead say that it can cause tooth enamel to erode by the same kind of process that dissolves the chicken bone. They vehemently disagreed with me -soda would cause your actual bones to dissolve like the chicken bone. I pointed out that bones never come into actual contact with the soda acids and that the stomach produces hydrochloric acid which is a bit stronger than the acids in soda. But no. They were convinced that their little project proved that sodas dissolved skeletal bone. And the kid got a ribbon at the Science Fair so I guess they showed me.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 22nd April 2019, 10:11 PM   #39
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,301
I drink a fair bit of soda as the water here in Mexico is a bad weight loss program for me.

A guy holding a cheap beer and cig will tell me soda causes gastric damage. Which maybe it does.

Point at his beer and he says that is natural without sugar. Say dehydration is also bad and he suggests bottled water which costs more and tasted like ugh.
Many times it isn't very purified and still causes problems.

Pure gov propaganda these people believe without knowing booze isn't good either and gringos can't drink tapwater in Mexico. But they put lots of wonderful sugar and caffeine in sodas and sell it cheap so they got that right.

Fake sweetener sodas are horrible tasting swill.
8enotto 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 24th April 2019, 01:14 PM   #40
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,742
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Astrology you can pretty much throw out the windows with basic math. If where the planet Neptune is at in the sky has an effect on my mood or personality, a plane flying overhead would have magnitudes more just by basic physics.
A basketball held at arms length has more of a gravitational effect on a person than any of the other planets..

" What's your sign?"

" Rawlings .. "

As for the Ouija Board, just suggest the believer try it blindfolded, and see what happens..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "

Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 24th April 2019 at 03:00 PM.
Skeptical Greg 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

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 11:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.