CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-10-2013, 06:38 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(30-09-2013 12:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  Lumi, good on ya for going with this.

Quote:Please note, that part of the claims concerns a laboratory in Oregon (see further) and it might be wise if you decide to perform this investigation to send a copy to a CSICOP fellow in Oregon.

If they do undertake to do it, the investigation will require a significant investment of their time... just... don't be surprised if they decline Wink I do hope that they will reply.
From what I see, that would take 2-3 people with background in physics and biology a couple of evenings, to go through the websites and papers, and get some idea of what to reply. All they need to do is to say, if it's coherent or not and why. I'm not so worried about the investment of time, but about bureaucracy.

The way bureaucracies work, they first refuse this stuff, because it was proposed by 19th century occultists, based on ancient religions of East and West. Then, when some fringe scientists get this aura and energy stuff into more technical form, the bureaucracy refuses it, because it's too new and untested. And decades of later, fringe research growing, they refuse it because it's such a big thing, has been around for decades, so science would already know if there was anything true about it. That's the absurdity of bureaucracy applied to science. Franz Kafka should have worked at a patent office.

But in any case, they do need to address this research. They must take some stance towards it. For all practical purposes this looks like science, so there must be discourse about it. Without discourse it would look like there is a schism in science. I think there is, but they don't, so it's their job to prove it.

(30-09-2013 12:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  But ya gotta start somewhere and like cjlr says, good on you for stepping up and actually getting as far as trying to get this scientifically tested. From my observations, most fringe science types are pretty good at finding reasons why their science shouldn't be subject to rigorous test, but yet should be accepted as true. (Excuses like "Oh, the research is too expensive, oh, there's no one who could be interested because it'd be career suicide to investigate something as far out as this").
Well, that's an excuse for scientists, but not for me.

From my point of view, I test the existence of the energies and the phantom body every day. I don't see as strange that every once a while some fringe scientist comes up and says "wow, there's some weird energy field around people and it's just like these old religions describe it." So in principle, it's supposed to be a part of science, I don't know why it isn't, if it wasn't for some historical blunders like Michelson-Morley experiment.

(30-09-2013 12:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  Even if they reply in the negative, what this letter has done is forced you to distill some of your ideas about this orgone stuff and so on. So now *you* are better equipped to follow your own interest and read more productively yourself, regardless.

Nice one Smile
Thanks Big Grin
Well, I feel what I'm doing is basically wrong. These things have their time and place for development. If scientists got the wind of nuclear fission back in the 19th century, we'd be all fucked. But maybe, if they did not fuck up the Michelson-Morley experiment, we would already know that Reich was essentially right, so maybe we are behind in development and I am doing the right thing, I don't know.

I'll send the e-mail after the weekend, if clrj doesn't reply sooner.

I am only learning about the structure of science, the man-made institutions, not the nature-made divisions of knowledge. This year I will read The Structure of scientific revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and something else by Michel Foucault. You have a great confidence in science, but I see it's not foolproof. I just learned there is a great delusion that affects all scientists at once, it's called a paradigm. Paradigm decides what questions do we ask, what questions do we even consider real questions. Paradigm directs the investigation and shapes all the hypotheses, it's the assumption of all assumptions.

I think the current paradigm is wrong. It basically says, the universe is a sum of great and hot gravity wells with some emptiness, radiation and dust between them. What we see and can interact with is more important than the things we don't see. We got along without them just fine, so far. Life is just a chemical reaction on planetary surface, suffering delusions of grandeur and spirit. The only frontiers are the relativistic and quantum scale worlds and the lifeless cosmic distances.
My paradigm is different, more like inverse.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 07:44 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(02-10-2013 05:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  What equipment do you need? Simply show cause and effect of something that cannot be explained by current understanding.

You know, sharpen some razor blades under a pyramid, charge a crystal with energy, transform some water into an effective medicine, and so on.

If the things you perceive exist and have an effect, simply show the effect. You need ideas and time - not equipment. Come up with testable hypotheses that show the existence of something.
Please realize something that nobody in science does, that we are dealing here with a different order of matter, with different sub-atomic structure, probably. Using measuring instruments made of simple, dead matter of our type gives random or no results at all.
We know that this different order of matter reacts the most to complex material structures, such as living cellular tissue, or as you say, a crystal lattice. But living tissue, especially nerves react the most of all. I have no experience whatsoever with crystals and pyramids, but lots of experience with my nerve system. So I have no intention to test any lifeless things. If you have noticed, I point towards the research which uses very proactive approach, based on some special technologies which took decades to develop.

That is in my opinion the most intelligent approach, use living people as test subjects, and use some electro-static field (DeMeo, Provod) or electro-plasmatic stimulation (Korotkov, Kirlian) to excite the interaction into measurable or optically visible effects, or use a specially sensitive camera (Oldfield).
Maybe 20 years from now we will know exactly what to look for and we will be able to measure potency of crystals and pyramids and other New Age cliches, but trust me, these are much weaker than what a living nerve system can do. The problem is, a nerve system can do an awful lot of things energy-wise, but we usually have no idea what exactly. Even though I have a manual, it's not a comprehensive one and I usually can't tell which page of it applies. It could be said that the "phantom body" of a person is like an electric appliance. Not extremely complex, but still, complex enough and everyone is in a somewhat different working order, usually not a good one. For most of people, most parts don't operate fully. If they did, these people would get hurt, get insane, or in some situations die. So even though this phantom body is a wonderful instrument, it's far from standardized and it's best not to take it into equation just yet and study it from the outside.

What we're dealing with are different orders of matter. So not only we have a problem of intensity of the energy, we also have a problem of "frequency" or subtlety of the matter. We never know if the energy is measured weak because it is weak, or because its frequency is so high, that it mostly doesn't register, it doesn't make the atoms of the instrument resonate with it. (and vice versa, if we feel something strong) An instrument of dead matter can register lower frequencies but not higher, and a person can register higher ones, but in an unprovable and unreliable way. We are blind here with our hands tied and our best chances are sticking with the relatively hi-tech research which I point at. That much I learned after the years of working with energy and learning about skeptics.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 08:21 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(03-10-2013 06:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(30-09-2013 12:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  Lumi, good on ya for going with this.


If they do undertake to do it, the investigation will require a significant investment of their time... just... don't be surprised if they decline Wink I do hope that they will reply.
From what I see, that would take 2-3 people with background in physics and biology a couple of evenings, to go through the websites and papers, and get some idea of what to reply. All they need to do is to say, if it's coherent or not and why. I'm not so worried about the investment of time, but about bureaucracy.

The way bureaucracies work, they first refuse this stuff, because it was proposed by 19th century occultists, based on ancient religions of East and West. Then, when some fringe scientists get this aura and energy stuff into more technical form, the bureaucracy refuses it, because it's too new and untested. And decades of later, fringe research growing, they refuse it because it's such a big thing, has been around for decades, so science would already know if there was anything true about it. That's the absurdity of bureaucracy applied to science. Franz Kafka should have worked at a patent office.

But in any case, they do need to address this research. They must take some stance towards it. For all practical purposes this looks like science, so there must be discourse about it. Without discourse it would look like there is a schism in science. I think there is, but they don't, so it's their job to prove it.

(30-09-2013 12:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  But ya gotta start somewhere and like cjlr says, good on you for stepping up and actually getting as far as trying to get this scientifically tested. From my observations, most fringe science types are pretty good at finding reasons why their science shouldn't be subject to rigorous test, but yet should be accepted as true. (Excuses like "Oh, the research is too expensive, oh, there's no one who could be interested because it'd be career suicide to investigate something as far out as this").
Well, that's an excuse for scientists, but not for me.

From my point of view, I test the existence of the energies and the phantom body every day. I don't see as strange that every once a while some fringe scientist comes up and says "wow, there's some weird energy field around people and it's just like these old religions describe it." So in principle, it's supposed to be a part of science, I don't know why it isn't, if it wasn't for some historical blunders like Michelson-Morley experiment.

(30-09-2013 12:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  Even if they reply in the negative, what this letter has done is forced you to distill some of your ideas about this orgone stuff and so on. So now *you* are better equipped to follow your own interest and read more productively yourself, regardless.

Nice one Smile
Thanks Big Grin
Well, I feel what I'm doing is basically wrong. These things have their time and place for development. If scientists got the wind of nuclear fission back in the 19th century, we'd be all fucked. But maybe, if they did not fuck up the Michelson-Morley experiment, we would already know that Reich was essentially right, so maybe we are behind in development and I am doing the right thing, I don't know.

I'll send the e-mail after the weekend, if clrj doesn't reply sooner.

I am only learning about the structure of science, the man-made institutions, not the nature-made divisions of knowledge. This year I will read The Structure of scientific revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and something else by Michel Foucault. You have a great confidence in science, but I see it's not foolproof. I just learned there is a great delusion that affects all scientists at once, it's called a paradigm. Paradigm decides what questions do we ask, what questions do we even consider real questions. Paradigm directs the investigation and shapes all the hypotheses, it's the assumption of all assumptions.

I think the current paradigm is wrong. It basically says, the universe is a sum of great and hot gravity wells with some emptiness, radiation and dust between them. What we see and can interact with is more important than the things we don't see. We got along without them just fine, so far. Life is just a chemical reaction on planetary surface, suffering delusions of grandeur and spirit. The only frontiers are the relativistic and quantum scale worlds and the lifeless cosmic distances.
My paradigm is different, more like inverse.

"Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity. These include experiments from 1902 to 1905, and a series of experiments in the 1920s. In addition, recent resonator experiments have confirmed the absence of any aether wind at the 10−17 level.[2][3] Together with the Ives–Stilwell and Kennedy–Thorndike experiments, the Michelson–Morley experiment forms one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory."

Lumi, your understanding of science is completely shit. Rubbish.

Scientists are honestly investigating the nature of dark matter and dark energy, and you go on and on about the fucking conspiracy against bullshit fringe science.

You are a fucking loon.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 10:34 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(03-10-2013 06:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I think the current paradigm is wrong. It basically says, the universe is a sum of great and hot gravity wells with some emptiness, radiation and dust between them. What we see and can interact with is more important than the things we don't see. We got along without them just fine, so far. Life is just a chemical reaction on planetary surface, suffering delusions of grandeur and spirit. The only frontiers are the relativistic and quantum scale worlds and the lifeless cosmic distances.
My paradigm is different, more like inverse.

I'll get to the other nonsense later.

If something happens, it is observable.
There are many, many things we interact with without seeing. That is a very bizarre and reductive outlook. I cannot 'see' an electron. I cannot 'see' gravity. I cannot 'see' kinetic energy. I cannot 'see' the spin networks I study for a living. They all exist, because we can interact with them.

You are proposing some type of interaction. It is an interaction because you say it is observable. Therefore it must interact with your or other matter. At some point an interactive force must influence the constituent particles of matter. You have completely failed to explain how and why this might occur. I cannot give much credence to such a non-starter.

If something is explicable, it is predictable.
You have not presented independent confirmation of anything. You have mentioned experiments like those of Michelson and Morley and declared them false, despite the century plus of repeated confirmation under ever wider conditions; given your background I can only assume you do not know what they were testing, you do not know how they were testing it, you do not know what their results were, and you do not know how they interpreted their results.

If an observable interaction occurs (see above), then it is presumed to have happened for a reason. If it occurs within certain parameters and under certain circumstances then it is explicable, in that it is known when it will and when it will not be observable.


Your subjective experience suggests to you that "science" is wrong. So be it. You conclude that based on an incredibly shallow and cursory understanding of that science, but you allow that conclusion to stop you from learning more of that science. That is not a productive attitude.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Lumi, you've suggested that the Michelson-Morley experiment is flawed...

I suggest that's an interesting line of research to take. Why not find out about what the experiment was designed to test. IIRC it's not hard to understand. Wikipedia would probably include enough info for a fairly good insight into how it works.

I don't know if there's a uni near you, but if you can get access to an interferometer you can try doing some measurements with one yourself. They're not helluva expensive to buy AFAIK but yeah, a uni would probably have one since they're good for first year practicals etc. They're interesting things, and the cleverness of the design I think can only really be appreciated by playing with one.

Then I suggest you find one of these papers that claims that the experiment is flawed and go through it line by line. Try to see if what they're saying makes sense. Maybe find the original paper by Michelson & Morley if you can. See if you can follow what they're saying.

It'd be a fair amount of work... but you'd then be in a much stronger position to argue the case that the experiment is flawed, as right now you're relying on other people's work, and all we have to do is say "but those guy's are certified nut-cases" and then there's nothing you can do. You can say "but you're biased" but then, how do you know ? You aren't an expert, so you can't tell. So become an expert.

My belief is that if you do this, you will find some glaring error in the alleged proof that MM is flawed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(03-10-2013 08:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  "Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity. These include experiments from 1902 to 1905, and a series of experiments in the 1920s. In addition, recent resonator experiments have confirmed the absence of any aether wind at the 10−17 level.[2][3] Together with the Ives–Stilwell and Kennedy–Thorndike experiments, the Michelson–Morley experiment forms one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory."

Lumi, your understanding of science is completely shit. Rubbish.

Scientists are honestly investigating the nature of dark matter and dark energy, and you go on and on about the fucking conspiracy against bullshit fringe science.

You are a fucking loon.
I don't say scientists are dishonest. I say they operate under an old paradigm, which makes them form bad hypotheses. They assume that dark matter is an inert, lifeless stuff of the outer space and they search for it in distant space and lifeless vacuum chambers.
Had they operated under a new paradigm of Reich and Silvertooth, they'd look for dark matter as a counterpart of life and a complex life shaped and vitalized by the dark matter counterpart.

What about Silvertooth experiment from 1986? It demonstrated existence of a partially dragged, dynamic non-luminoferous aether. It also measured a speed and direction of Earth's travel through space (378 km/s towards the constellation of Leo), later confirmed by NASA direct observation.

I could call into question the validity of Ives-Stillwell experiment peer-review, but I really don't have time nor energy for this.

I didn't know about almost any of this, but looks like there is an awful lot of stuff for scientists to explain.
http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/Engl...ometry.php

I'm not a loon, I am just driven by my observations. If there is anything to my observations, then some of what I say is true in some sense. Of course I'll say it wrong, I'll mix all the words, but there will be a scientific way of how it can work. I am not a scientist and this is not my job, I am like that dog Lassie, I know where a boy with sprained ankle lies, I have to run to some adults and bark at them until they follow me. That's all I can do, barking, I have no voice as a scientist. You say I'm a loon, but you are a loon for asking a peer-reviewed paper from a collie, instead of just following where it barks.

(03-10-2013 10:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I'll get to the other nonsense later.
You should get to it first - or rather, all I need from you is to give me green light. Tell me if the letter is good enough to send and I'll send it. If not, tell me what to change.

(03-10-2013 10:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  If something happens, it is observable.
There are many, many things we interact with without seeing. That is a very bizarre and reductive outlook. I cannot 'see' an electron. I cannot 'see' gravity. I cannot 'see' kinetic energy. I cannot 'see' the spin networks I study for a living. They all exist, because we can interact with them.

You are proposing some type of interaction. It is an interaction because you say it is observable. Therefore it must interact with your or other matter. At some point an interactive force must influence the constituent particles of matter. You have completely failed to explain how and why this might occur. I cannot give much credence to such a non-starter.
I can't measure particle interactions with my bare hands! This is exactly how I measure this strange phenomenon. With my nerve system. But I can look for experiments and theories that are compatible with my observations.

These experiments say that there is an interaction, but it is not electro-magnetic. If anything, it's electro-static. DeMeo and Reich detect it with an electro-static field. Korotkov and Kirlian made it visible by some kind of stimulated photon emission, also on the electro-static basis. Both used complex living organisms - people - as the subject. Obviously, they couldn't put a sun or a planet in a laboratory and electro-static interaction in space is obviously not as visible as EM radiation. But there seems to be a lot of electro-static interaction in an organism, enough to attract and hold lots of dark matter, if it is dark matter.
So regardless of what I say, there is a lot of work for scientists to verify.

(03-10-2013 10:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  If something is explicable, it is predictable.
You have not presented independent confirmation of anything. You have mentioned experiments like those of Michelson and Morley and declared them false, despite the century plus of repeated confirmation under ever wider conditions; given your background I can only assume you do not know what they were testing, you do not know how they were testing it, you do not know what their results were, and you do not know how they interpreted their results.

If an observable interaction occurs (see above), then it is presumed to have happened for a reason. If it occurs within certain parameters and under certain circumstances then it is explicable, in that it is known when it will and when it will not be observable.
Yes, that's what I assume. So I point at the experiments which have the greatest chance of fulfilling these criteria. I use my hands-on experience to tell what is empirical and what is not.
But I have no credibility, so my pointing doesn't speak for itself. You should look at the experiments and look for similarities. You're too busy, so I must to send the letter to someone else. But still, don't you see the similarities between the works of Reich, JDM, Provod, Korotkov, Kirlian and Oldfield?

(03-10-2013 10:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Your subjective experience suggests to you that "science" is wrong. So be it. You conclude that based on an incredibly shallow and cursory understanding of that science, but you allow that conclusion to stop you from learning more of that science. That is not a productive attitude.
Well, in my line of study it is, I mean the sociology and philosophy of science. Scientists are people and there are more people, non-scientists around them, and so this is one of areas of sociology. And also a reason why scientific community is not foolproof. I think we are long overdue for another scientific revolution of paradigm, not just new experiments, but a new way of looking at the old experiments.

What do you think about scientific revolutions? Are they just a conspiracy theory? Be assured, I sighed up for two sociological courses that deal with this subject, so in time I'll be able to offer an opinion. Right now I tell you, that your habit of marking everything you don't like as "conspiracy will not be graded" is not productive. Sociology is a science too, scientific community has a sociological aspect and you can learn about it.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-10-2013 10:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I'll get to the other nonsense later.
You should get to it first - or rather, all I need from you is to give me green light. Tell me if the letter is good enough to send and I'll send it. If not, tell me what to change.

Well; I didn't have time to read it thoroughly. Gimme a couple days!

(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I can't measure particle interactions with my bare hands! This is exactly how I measure this strange phenomenon. With my nerve system. But I can look for experiments and theories that are compatible with my observations.

You still must explain the means and scope of the interaction. Which you have so, so not done.

(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  These experiments say that there is an interaction, but it is not electro-magnetic. If anything, it's electro-static.

That is not physically coherent.
(as I have told you)

(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  DeMeo and Reich detect it with an electro-static field. Korotkov and Kirlian made it visible by some kind of stimulated photon emission, also on the electro-static basis. Both used complex living organisms - people - as the subject. Obviously, they couldn't put a sun or a planet in a laboratory and electro-static interaction in space is obviously not as visible as EM radiation. But there seems to be a lot of electro-static interaction in an organism, enough to attract and hold lots of dark matter, if it is dark matter.
So regardless of what I say, there is a lot of work for scientists to verify.

Repeat after me: it's not dark matter. Dark matter is not electromagnetic.

This is incoherent. A jumble of science-y sounding words.

(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, that's what I assume. So I point at the experiments which have the greatest chance of fulfilling these criteria. I use my hands-on experience to tell what is empirical and what is not.

It's not empirical unless there's outside confirmation...

(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But I have no credibility, so my pointing doesn't speak for itself. You should look at the experiments and look for similarities. You're too busy, so I must to send the letter to someone else. But still, don't you see the similarities between the works of Reich, JDM, Provod, Korotkov, Kirlian and Oldfield?

Reich and Kirlian are full of crap. The others I've not wasted time looking into.

You still have not considered the null hypothesis.

(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, in my line of study it is, I mean the sociology and philosophy of science. Scientists are people and there are more people, non-scientists around them, and so this is one of areas of sociology. And also a reason why scientific community is not foolproof. I think we are long overdue for another scientific revolution of paradigm, not just new experiments, but a new way of looking at the old experiments.

You misunderstand.

You can't have new ways when you so completely fail to understand the 'old' ways.

(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What do you think about scientific revolutions?

No such thing. There's only scientific evolution.

(and it is a punctuated equilibrium)

(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Are they just a conspiracy theory? Be assured, I sighed up for two sociological courses that deal with this subject, so in time I'll be able to offer an opinion.

I'm not denying that the sum total of fallible humans working to the same purpose may retain fallibility. Your claim goes much further than that.

(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Right now I tell you, that your habit of marking everything you don't like as "conspiracy will not be graded" is not productive. Sociology is a science too, scientific community has a sociological aspect and you can learn about it.

I say that about claims which necessitate the active participation of vast numbers of people and application of vast resources by same towards an ephemeral ill-defined goal and for no adequately-explored purpose.

I'm well aware of sociology, I'm well aware of unconscious behaviour and biases, I'm well aware of the risks of (conscious or unconscious) intellectual complacency. Your claim goes so, so much further than that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(03-10-2013 03:36 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't say scientists are dishonest. I say they operate under an old paradigm, which makes them form bad hypotheses. They assume that dark matter is an inert, lifeless stuff of the outer space and they search for it in distant space and lifeless vacuum chambers.
Had they operated under a new paradigm of Reich and Silvertooth, they'd look for dark matter as a counterpart of life and a complex life shaped and vitalized by the dark matter counterpart.

What about Silvertooth experiment from 1986? It demonstrated existence of a partially dragged, dynamic non-luminoferous aether. It also measured a speed and direction of Earth's travel through space (378 km/s towards the constellation of Leo), later confirmed by NASA direct observation.

I could call into question the validity of Ives-Stillwell experiment peer-review, but I really don't have time nor energy for this.

I didn't know about almost any of this, but looks like there is an awful lot of stuff for scientists to explain.
http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/Engl...ometry.php

I'm not a loon, I am just driven by my observations. If there is anything to my observations, then some of what I say is true in some sense. Of course I'll say it wrong, I'll mix all the words, but there will be a scientific way of how it can work. I am not a scientist and this is not my job, I am like that dog Lassie, I know where a boy with sprained ankle lies, I have to run to some adults and bark at them until they follow me. That's all I can do, barking, I have no voice as a scientist. You say I'm a loon, but you are a loon for asking a peer-reviewed paper from a collie, instead of just following where it barks.

I haven't ever, not once, asked you for a peer-reviewed paper. You need to find a way to show that what you perceive exists outside of your own head and you repeatedly refuse to make any effort to do so. Instead, you point to already debunked crap and say "See? See? They say so!"

They could not demonstrate that there was anything to investigate. There is no conspiracy, there is no paradigm that makes scientists ignore this other that the requirement for evidence.

Produce some evidence that there is anything there. You haven't.

Produce a convincing argument that a scientist (I suggest a neuroscientist) should help you look. You haven't.

Writing a letter full of paranoid accusations of scientists ignoring the field because of bias or conspiracy isn't going to help your case.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 07:27 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(03-10-2013 04:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  I haven't ever, not once, asked you for a peer-reviewed paper. You need to find a way to show that what you perceive exists outside of your own head and you repeatedly refuse to make any effort to do so. Instead, you point to already debunked crap and say "See? See? They say so!"
It wasn't you who asked me for a peer-reviewed paper? Oh. Sorry.
I did not refuse to make any effort. I went through several nurse appointments, waited a half a year to actually see a doctor and paid a proverbial 100 bucks per hour (not in dollars, adjusted for purchasing power here) to spend two hours and prepare extensive materials for her.
The doctors here are actually more like clerks who gather written evidence to give or take away a disability welfare or assistants, which is way beyond my league. And anything they can recommend means another 100 bucks per hour activity. What I got was zero help, zero advice and I was the first one to ask her ever about any kind of brain scan. People here just don't do that, unless they're about to die, apparently. Yes, it seems there is a MRI or fMRI facility in this city, but I've run into a dead end. Last week I've read a book by a guy who managed to do some experimental work in there, so I'll write him an e-mail probably. He is just as messy, sloppy and intuitive guy as me, but he cooperates with neuroscientists and fringe science shamans, so he should be able to give me advice.

Well, that's as productive and practical as I get. It's just one of my hobbies, not a job.

(03-10-2013 04:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  They could not demonstrate that there was anything to investigate. There is no conspiracy, there is no paradigm that makes scientists ignore this other that the requirement for evidence.

Produce some evidence that there is anything there. You haven't.
I have still less and less idea what do you mean by demonstrating and evidence. I don't see you making any distinction between a natural phenomenon, experimental evidence, journal publication, peer review and science as such.

In your place I would say that there may well be real evidence in the fringe science laboratories, but nobody can travel them all, so we have journals to do the review for us. Journals are a convenience, maybe a necessity for any kind of discourse. But they are also one of points where science meets politics. At this point my sociological gut instinct says, watch out. This is not just about natural sciences anymore.

Scientific community is a community of people with shared values and principles, who get closed off a lot. As far as I can see, it would be easy for them to share a paradigm, which makes them ask some questions and not even think of others. A paradigm is an absolute necessity in science, scientist can not research everything at once or research nothing. Paradigm makes them focus that preference into an actual work. Paradigm says what is even a legitimate question, what is a coherent question. You see you never consider a question in its own merit, that would require learning the question's own paradigm. If it's not coherent with the current scientific paradigm, you simply skip it.

There is no systematic work without a paradigm. And in social sciences, it is naturally accepted that no paradigm is an absolute truth and that there is sometimes a buildup of contrary information, which results in scientific revolutions. Revolutions, not evolutions. No single direction is ever the right direction. I suppose that in time I will have something to teach you about social sciences. If you consider them sciences at all. But I think only social sciences have an actual evolution without revolutions, because they are naturally multi-paradigmatic. Natural sciences have only one paradigm and so they have revolutions, when one paradigm dies and gets replaced by another. No paradigm lasts forever.

I can see that, because my thinking is naturally multi-paradigmatic. I seem to have what sociologists call sociological imagination (yes, there really is such a thing). So if I commit a blasphemy against natural sciences, I might as well get a degree for it.

(03-10-2013 04:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  Produce a convincing argument that a scientist (I suggest a neuroscientist) should help you look. You haven't.
I'm working on it, but I do a lot of things on the side (like passing exams and writing theses).
Meanwhile, I suggested multiple fringe scientists with research for you to look at. You haven't. Evil_monster

(03-10-2013 04:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  Writing a letter full of paranoid accusations of scientists ignoring the field because of bias or conspiracy isn't going to help your case.
Well, of course I am as you say "paranoid"! I gather broad range of experiences and seek to make intuitive connections! You may scoff at this function of brain (if that was you, or someone like you), call people pattern-seeking apes, but this is what I do purposefully, I look for patterns. I might as well get good at it. Unskilled pattern-seekers tend to fall into all the cliches of common conspiracy theories. But you see I have a good sense to ask for the opinion of others - if you say my letter is paranoid and accusatory, I edit it, that's why I publish it. We are anonymous here and we don't risk our careers. Don't worry. You can relax here, you can open up and tell me something constructive, what to do, not what to not do. You can allow yourself to speculate.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:07 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(04-10-2013 07:27 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-10-2013 04:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  Writing a letter full of paranoid accusations of scientists ignoring the field because of bias or conspiracy isn't going to help your case.
Well, of course I am as you say "paranoid"! I gather broad range of experiences and seek to make intuitive connections! You may scoff at this function of brain (if that was you, or someone like you), call people pattern-seeking apes, but this is what I do purposefully, I look for patterns. I might as well get good at it. Unskilled pattern-seekers tend to fall into all the cliches of common conspiracy theories. But you see I have a good sense to ask for the opinion of others - if you say my letter is paranoid and accusatory, I edit it, that's why I publish it. We are anonymous here and we don't risk our careers. Don't worry. You can relax here, you can open up and tell me something constructive, what to do, not what to not do. You can allow yourself to speculate.

Two words for you Luminon, just two words:

false positive.



You do not even admit of the possibility that you are in error. That is not rational inquiry.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: