In another post, recent contributor TomMueller stated that GPS satellites use relativistic synchronization to match up their clocks with earthbound clocks. I explained to him that this was not so, even though its easy to believe, if you don’t think critically, that it is.
Tom followed my post to him with a litany of ad hominem, “Oh, you are a moron, you are a troll, creationist idiots, I read about it on a credible site, I talked to a physics professor about it…” and on and on he went with his insults and denial.
Now to be fair to Tom, if you just read mainstreams sites, like Wikipedia, or Wired or Salon, or even many science websites, this is the information you will find-that GPS satellites use Einstein’s theory of relativity to sync their clocks to earth clocks. Its written everywhere, surely it must be true. But I know why its not true, because I actually thought about it. At first I just had a hunch about it, but again, if you just google it, most sites will tell you its true. But it didn’t make sense to me, for so many reasons. What clocks are the satellite clocks syncing with, a GPS’s receivers clock? Huh? How precise are they? For that matter, how precise are any clocks. Its nearly impossible to ever get ANY two clocks to match.
I also read about the so called Haefele-Keating atomic clocks, where relativistic changes in clocks due to speed was tested and confirmed aboard airplanes going around the earth. Again, everywhere you looked online, they say its true. It was tested, it worked. And its bullshit. But how would one know, if all you did was read what is supposedly credible sources, written by academics and scholars and Wikipedia…
I wouldn’t even bother telling you how I learned it was not true. I wouldn’t even bother citing sources, because all skeptics do is try to spew the same old defense, “Oh, that source is for cranks, try MY sources, they are the best parrots for information.” I learned by thinking, skeptics will never understand that.
And so here’s the thing, I didn’t learn that things are complete bullshit, by just going to the vast amount of sources online that claim they are true, instead I thought about. But here’s what skeptics, as ironic as it sounds, tell you to do. They tell you to just accept the common wisdom. Accept that these science facts must be true, because someone famous says so. Accept that evolution is true, accept that GMO foods are good for you, accept that Oswald acted alone, accept that alternative medicine is all fake, accept that bigPharm is looking out for your best interests, accept materialism, accept that every time you hear about a study which contradicts strict materialism it must be wrong, accept that every time someone challenges the scientific consensus, then they are by definition quacks, and basically just stop thinking for yourself. The skeptical movement is founded on the exact opposite principle of be skeptical, instead it means to simply follow whatever the skeptic movement tells you must be right.
Its the same everywhere, on podcast like the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, or anything with Seth Shostak, or Michael Shermer, or Phil Plaitt, or Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye, or any of the whole community of people who identify themselves as skeptics, by virtue that they all believe exactly the same things. This toxic thought has seeped into virtually every source of information you can find, be it television, news, blogs, everywhere. They will claim they are deep thinkers, and this is how they found the answers, buts its a con game, they are anything but, they are sheep. They never have an original thought, ever. I think I even read Lawrence Krauss repeating this same crap line about relativity and GPS satellites-and he has a PhD in physics, for crying out loud. But don’t ask him to think, he prefers to just parrot the party line, its so much easier.
So nowadays where do you find truth, it sure as hell ain’t easy, thanks to these brainwashed preachers of the scientific consensus. Its what leads Allan to make ludicrous statements about what fitness means, its what leads parrots like Tom Mueller to say, “Oh, I read it about it, so how dare you say its not true! Moron!”
The skeptic movement is one of the biggest diseases to stifle learning that I can think of. They cloud every news article, and every attempt at understanding with their atheist based need to preach their worldview. Its just like Lynn Margulis said, they want to tell everyone what to think, by telling them to stop thinking. I despise these types of thought Nazis. They are the worst thing that has ever happened to academia.
Wait!! One “skeptic” NEVER says another skeptic is wrong about ANYTHING! Haven’t you read the commandments lately!
Three demerits, Rum. X>{
So phoodoo makes decisions in a way that do not depend on mere cause an effect but he refuses to say how or why.
phoodoo has worked out that we’re being lied to about gps but refuses to say how or why.
Anyone notice a pattern appearing?
Sheldrake argues that there are dogmas which are actually holding science back.
Here is a short article where he gives us a intro to his views.
His lays out what he considers to be ten dogmas of science. A critical review of these can be found here
Here is a video of him discussing the dogmas.
Is it okay to be sceptical of his views but not okay to agree with him in his scepticism of what he calls dogmas of science?
Sure it’s okay. But you have to at least try to make a little sense when doing it.
What do you think Charlie? Is it possible to tell if somebody is staring at the back of your head?
Then why was his TED talk moved?
The official TED line is:
We are being told what to consider science and what is pseudoscience.
OMagain,
Do you think there are no scientific studies on precognition or physic abilities that have shown positive results?
Because if you do, you are once again, a skeptic that is wrong.
No, we are not. Rather, we are being told the opinion of one person.
Both my wife and I have had experiences that would confirm some of Sheldrake’s proposals were it not for the fact that they are personal experiences which we cannot demonstrate to others and so are purely anecdotal.
Sheldrake is a showman, trying to get attention.
CharlieM,
If I told some of my stories about some precognition or coincidental events I have experienced, most people would never believe it, because they seem so fantastic.
Which is fine with me, but which are nevertheless amazingly true.
So maybe Sheldrake is really demonstrating human gullibility.
So when you said nobody claims GMO foods are good for you, you meant “except for the exceptions”. I admit I didn’t read about the exceptions in the fake news media.
Does the TED science board consist of just one person?
You are welcome to your opinion.
Maybe Neil Degrasse Tyson is.
Maybe Einstein is.
Please don’t tell us you were abducted by aliens 🙂
They’d be purely anecdotal anyways.
I do.
Wait, I meant don’t (now I keep my nails).
Glen Davidson
Saying “this food which is basically fortified in an essential vitamin is good for you” about a specific food, is very different from the across the board generalization that “GMO foods are good for you”.
As with anything you ingest, you have to look at a case by case basis. Phoodoo failed to supply a single case of anyone engaging in the complete generalization that all “GMO foods are good for you”.
Also, if you’re not deficient in some essential nutrient and eat a normal healthy diet, there’d be no additional benefit to eating vitamin fortified food of any sort, whether GMO or not.
But there are definitely many GMO foods that have been modified in order to be more nutritious in all sorts of ways. Whether to increase the starch content of common fruits like appleas and pears, or the vitamin contents of normally more nutritionally limited foods and crops, like rice.
Why do you suppose it remains so, even though many have tried to demonstrate parapsychological effects in a scientific manner?
And seriously, since parapsychology tests occur, how does science hold back research into anything, other than demanding meaningful evidence?
Glen Davidson
Most (but never all) kidding aside, I actually think phoodoo is on the brink of asking an interesting set of questions about the sociology of what we could call “institutionalized skepticism”. (There’s a list here.) Are there certain beliefs that tend to dominate within institutionalized skepticism? What are the mechanisms whereby these beliefs are perpetuated or reinforced?
I think these are interesting questions independent of whether The Skeptical Zone is affiliated with any official skeptical organizations (it isn’t, so far as I know).
To be honest, the very idea of a skeptical organization always struck me as a bit silly, and I never took any interest in them. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t interesting sociological questions to be asked about their own dogmatism.
I’ve had this conversation here with WJM at great length. As each source is produced it is debunked or otherwise shown to be unreliable.
So no, I don’t think there are no scientific studies on precognition or psychic abilities that have shown positive results. There are. It’s just that none of them stand up to the slightest scrutiny
In fact it’s you that’s wrong.
But it does not matter. In order for me to demonstrate that you are in fact wrong rather then just claim it as you do there in the quoted text, we’d have to have a back and forth discussion supported by evidence.
For example, you name a study. Then I will point out what’s wrong with it. You’ll then rebut that. Then I’ll either agree or disagree with your rebuttal. If I disagree but can’t then explain why you are wrong then I will concede that point. You would need to do likewise.
But we both know you don’t do that.
But if you fancy demonstrating that I’m wrong rather then just giving the bare assertion that I am, then please list in order of impressiveness scientific studies that you believe are the best demonstrations that precognition or psychic abilities exist.
Perhaps we can even start a new OP on it, a joint OP dedicated to demonstrating the truth of the matter once and for all! Won’t that be wonderful!
So to summarise, please post your best scientific evidence for PSI and we can thereby demonstrate rather then just merely claim that I am in the wrong.
And perhaps we can have, as an opening taster round, your opinion on why none of the many psychics out there have won Randi’s Million Dollar challenge that was on offer for a long time?
Why not tell them then? Go on, give us an example of a coincidental event that was so fantastically improbable that it could never ever happen without some PSI.
Perhaps phoodoo and Charlie would like to opine as to if PSI really exists we don’t all have it? It anecdotally runs in families, so therefore it must have a genetic component.
And such a skill would presumably be very advantageous. So why don’t we all have it?
Or perhaps they think we all do have it already but only some of us can express it. It’s odd how phoodoo’s ability to express his PSI seems to come in tandem with his other somewhat outlandish beliefs about evolution and fitness.
I have a hunch it’s not a coincidence.
One’s man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens (i.e., they’ll say that since we DON’T all have it, evolutionary theory must be false).
CharlieM,
Thanks Charlie. I doubt that I will remember this person later, but thanks anyway.
His views are not about science as such, though. It’s more of a claim, or series of claims, about metaphysics, or about basic philosophy of science. No need for anybody to tell you if it’s pseudoscience or science. It’s neither. It’s pretty poor philosophy at best.
Anyway, thanks. I’m going to vomit now. Later!
If you do indeed want to play phoodoo then pick your paper and we’ll start an OP. Would not want to derail this one huh? It’s going so well after all…
I’m sure it feels that way.
But, what if you are just confabulating? And what if it really just is coincidence? Or some combination thereof?
Seriously, I have had experiences in my own life that as a skeptic I’m rationally inclined to interpret as some combination of coincidental and confabulation.
When I was about 15 we moved to a new town because my mother got a job there. I had to change to a new school and had some anxiety about this. I remember wondering about what the new school will be like, and in that moment I’m imagining sitting in class. I get this pretty vivid picture in my mind about how the classroom looks, colour of the walls, their shape, the colour of the tables and chairs, the layout, the whole thing. In this picture, I imagine the classroom to be right under the roof of the building, so the walls are actually inclined with ceiling windows. The walls are painted white. The tables are arranged in a horseshoe with the opening facing the blackboard. The chairs and tables are part of some sort of set, with red-painted round metal legs and bright colored wooden seats and back rests. I imagine having a sensation of sorts about this room, what it is like to be in this room.
Long story short, I start on the new school. Everything is exactly and I mean exactly in every tiny detail how I imagined it would be. I get this incredible feeling of deja vu as I walk into the new classroom. As if I somehow had experienced this all before. The classroom really is up under the roof with inclined white walls and ceiling windows. The tables are arranged in a horseshoe facing the blackboard. They are bright wooden tables with red painted metal legs, the chairs too.
As if I somehow knew beforehand. That was 22 years ago, I still remember all of it like it was yesterday. I remember having anxiety about starting in a new class in a new school, I remember imagining how the new school will be like. And then later, coming to experience that it was all exactly like I imagined.
Nevertheless, I don’t believe I really did predict the future. The rational part of me knows it is probably some part confabulation, some part coincidence. How many classrooms have tables arranged in horseshoes facing the blackboard? Probably a lot. Bright wooden tables with red painted legs? Truth be told, I have seen that more than once, it’s quite common. White walls? Like every school I ever went to. Inclined walls because the room is right under the roof? Well all buildings with a roof is going to have rooms like that. In fact I have been in more than one classroom with that architecture.
While the whole thing really felt surreal and “supernatural” when it happened, and still in some way does when I recall it, the fact is that events like these can’t be that rare. You’d expect that people occaionally imagine things the right way by chance alone.
Whether it is one person, or a small committee, makes no important difference. It is not the government, and it is not telling us what to believe.
This OP has been mildly amusing, but before we move on, I need to correct the public record
phodoo claims:
This is untrue! An argumentum ad hominem is just that… an argument or rebuttal
I had already dispatched phoodoo’s ignorachio elenchi on previous posts and further rebuttal was superfluous and no longer required
When I presumed (mistakenly it seems, according to easily verifiable empirical method) phoodoo was a “moron”…
I was wrong
… I was attempting a statement of fact and intending no insult
It is never my intent ( at least not deliberately) to insult anybody, not even phoodoo
But to be on the safe side and in true Canadian fashion, I offer a preemptive apology
To all morons worldwide, I apologize!
I will never again compare any moron to phoodoo
To continue with phoodoo’s egregious slander:
I do not consider all creationists “idiots” and definitely do not consider all who subscribe to empiricism as “non-idiots”
As Joe can attest after our exchange regarding Jewish Theology in general and Chasidus in particular: there exists a subset of creationists who are remarkably intelligent
… meanwhile there exist a subset of “evolutionists” for lack of a better term, who in fact are idiots
I even cited a remarkably intelligent YEC who also happened to be Christian (indeed a remarkably rare combination)
So please cease and desist… do not misrepresent my views
regarding “denial”
Is it possible to calibrate two atomic clocks sitting side by side in the same lab?
Yes
If one of those clocks were then sent into geostaionary orbit, would both clocks still remain synchronized?
No
Can adjustments be made to one or the other clock which would correct for the discrepancy
Yes
Is the correction to the nanosecond predicated upon Special Relativity and General Relativity ?
Yes
Is all of the above happening even as we speak?
Yes
Is any of the above disputable?
No
Well then, would denial of any or all of the above still be l possible?
Yes… possible, but not cogent!
For more denial along lines similar to phoodoo’s refer to http://www.crank.net
Phoodoo spotted….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/93f087a5-33e5-49a5-b36b-0605c3fd2820
Because Randi challenge is itself a con. He doesn’t even have 1 million dollars to give, he never did. Its a very easy con.
I can say I will give one million dollars to anyone who can beat me at arm wrestling. But I get to decide the rules. And I get to decide when. And I get to decide who I am going to accept through the application process. And you have to pay all the fees to meet my conditions.
Hey, guess what, turns out I am the best arm wrestler in the world, no one has beaten me so far! Voila!
That is Randi.
Incorrect. The JREF stated that the million dollars was in the form of negotiable bonds within a “James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account” and that validation of the account and the prize amount could be supplied on demand. The money was held in an Evercore Wealth Management account.
Wrong. The rules were agreed by all sides. And while it is true that after a time they restricted entrants to prominent claimants by definition they would be the strongest candidates anyway.
The official challenge rules stipulated that the participant must agree, in writing, to the conditions and criteria of their test. Claims that cannot be tested experimentally are not eligible for the Challenge. Claimants were able to influence all aspects of the testing procedure and participants during the initial negotiation phase of the challenge. Applications for any challenges that might cause serious injury or death were not accepted.
To ensure that the experimental conditions themselves did not negatively affect a claimant’s ability to perform, non-blinded preliminary control tests are often performed. For example, the JREF had dowsers perform a control test, in which the dowser attempts to locate the target substance or object using their dowsing ability, even though the target’s location has been revealed to the applicant. Failure to display a 100% success rate in the open test would cause their immediate disqualification. However, claimants were usually able to perform successfully during the open test, confirming that experimental conditions are adequate.
Also incorrect. There are been many entrants to the challenge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge#Tests_at_The_Amazing_Meeting
So you are simply incorrect in all your statements. Which is understandable because it’s better for you to think that PSI exists and Randi is a fraud then to think that PSI is a fraud and Randi is right.
But your attitude towards Randi is the right one, for you. You already know, without question, that PSI exists. So how to explain the failure to demonstrate PSI under controlled conditions? Well, you just demonstrated that. Randi is a con. It’s not that PSI can’t be demonstrated under controlled, agreed by all parties conditions. It’s that Randi is a con.
I missed your reason for why you refuse to name the scientific paper(s)that demonstrates support for PSI.
Woodbine,
1800 feet? Well, that should clinch it.
Out of interest, phoodoo, what do you think about Uri Geller?
Does he have PSI powers?
Here is part of a debate between Rupert Sheldrake and Massimo Pigliucci on evidence and scepticism in science. (It gives a link to the full debate)
Below is some of what Sheldrake has to say:
He says further:
Replying to a point made by Massimo that all the evidence is so invalid that parapsychology departments get closed down:
Have you researched any of the evidence? Have you actually read any papers on this subject? Papers that are not out to discredit it at the outset? If not, you are making Phoodoo’s point. You are uncritically accepting the views of the establishment.
OMagain,
No, you are incorrect. Just because you read something on Wikipedia, that doesn’t make it correct, as I have warned you often. When Randi doesn’t feel like allowing someone to challenge him, he often either just disqualifies the applicant, or simply stops corresponding with them. I personally know someone that happened to.
Furthermore Randi can, and does, make people change their methodology, simply when he wants to. Who is judging if his changes are fair. Guess who, Randi is. So if someone says they can prove physic ability using 5 people, Randi can come back and say, no that’s not enough, I want ten. And there is nothing you can do.
Rupert Sheldrake has in fact proposed taking up the challenge on many occasions, and Randi just stalled him, and didn’t allow him to do it.
So your argument is really nothing but hot air.
Right, just like Omagain, he can claim, oh all scientific studies that have shown positive results have been debunked. Debunked by whom? By whoever wants to claim the methods are wrong. Many of these studies are conducted by university professors who use accepted study practices. But anyone can complain about ANY scientific study that is done, be it on medicine effectiveness, or psychology studies, or what have you. You can always claim its not rigorous enough. Or not large enough. Or not repeated enough. But if we accept the results of some studies that use similar techniques, we are really just being biased by saying we don’t accept these results.
If there was anything to PSI (or whatever) then it would have been a staple of scientific research by now and not just the preserve of aggrieved old men.
Am I being closed-minded because I’ve no interest in reading the latest dispatches from parapsychology? Do I really have to approach every new séance with unalloyed wonder? Or is 200+ years of complete and total failure enough for me to dismiss it?
How many more ‘free energy’ papers must I endure before I’m permitted to ignore them? How many more prayer studies? How many more telekinesis experiments?
“Yes, but have you read this paper….” is not a sufficient counter to the abysmal track records that all these ‘sciences’ carry with them.
Nor is “You are uncritically accepting the views of the establishment….” a serious complaint. If PSI (or whatever oppressed ‘science’) actually worked it would be part of the establishment. It would be technologised and available at the local supermarket.
But no, it staggers on, zombie-like, perpetually sustained by statistical noise and martyrdom.
Woodbine,
Sort of like looking for life on other planets you mean?
Woodbine,
Do you know the FBI uses psychics?
Yes, I’ve researched it some. But really, I’m not interested in the yammerings of Sheldrake or the endless patter of meaningless excuses from apologists like yourself, I actually rely especially on the fact that no good evidence for anyone using your precious magic for making money off of the stock market, or some other enterprise that could rake in the money. Obviously one could get money from Vegas or the stock market using any number of psychic abilities, yet somehow the psychics are always making their money from gullible marks instead, selling you books of excuses and what-not.
Truth is, I’m not sure if I think that Randi’s challenge is entirely fair (could be, but who really is judging?), yet the stock market and Vegas could always provide the rewards for psychokinesis, ESP, or teleportation, while dowsing could make millions by finding oil. They don’t work when money’s involved? Or they do work but the ones making it work keep it quiet (wouldn’t be easy, especially over extended periods of time)? Well, either way the good evidence somehow is missing, while interminable excuses are made, and we’re supposed to wade through every bit of mindless tripe that various idiots produce, whether it’s creationism/ID, or your meaningless claims.
Don’t blather on about junk that supposedly has the evidence, get some science going for once, whether it’s for the magic of “design” or supposed magic today. If there was truth in those, people would be using them for more than just sketchy papers, books to sell to the rubes, and endless excuses for no useful results from your beliefs.
Glen Davidson
No, nothing like that at all.
The search for extraterrestrial life is a technical challenge not a metaphysical one.
More fool them.
It invariably turns out that “not out to discredit it at the outset” is paranormalist-speak for “papers that call for implementation of proper and verifiable testing protocols”.
Anyone remember the case where a couple of professional stage illusionists pretended to be paranormalists with special powers, and fooled a group of university researchers into testing them? The story goes that the stage illusionists managed to completely convince the scientists, that they had magical powers. Do’t remember the exact details off the top of my head. I’ll have to dig up link for it later, it is extremely revealing about the psychology of even well educated normal human beings.
This is bullshit. The multiverse is not believed without evidence, that this guy has no clue as to why there’s proposals about multiverses shows his ignorance, not the lack of evidence. There’s evidence. the evidence is not convincing to me (yes, I’m not convinced), but there’s two reasons: (1) I don’t know enough to understand how well the equations that model different ways in which our spacetime, our universe, began, to know how good they’re at predicting, or implying, that multiverses would be a consequence too. That’s a reflexion of my ignorance, not of the strength of the evidence. Since I don’t know how strong the evidence might be, or how to evaluate such strength, I hold my convictions. (2) I’m not convinced because there’s no direct evidence detecting signs of multiverses, other than those models and equations (as far as I know).
In any event, physicists continue with their models because, even if there’s little more they can hold to in order to show that the multiverses might be real, they get to understand features of our own universe that both, inspire the models, and then those that the models predict. There a spiral of knowledge that spring from the different models, and their combination with new discoveries allows the work on the origins of our cosmos to continue. But it’s not that they make a career of things believed without evidence, it’s that their models are useful for better understanding of the physics of our cosmos and its origins.
This Sher-Whatever guy is full-of-shit. I’m going to puke again. The bullshit smells really bad. Later.
Which is not evidence…
Maybe you don’t know what evidence means