@Lou

Quote:

As for science, they are wrong all the time and spend as much time correcting their erroneous ways as anything else.

Applause! Science is observing, testing, and seeing the result. It's innately self skeptical. The hard part is we should be correcting falsities. Why? Incremental learning only comes from mistakes.

Quote:

Infact it's standard practice to have a theory be accepted as fact until it is disproven.

Not true. It's standard practice to accept the theory that has the largest evidenced and makes the best predictions as the present best understanding we have on a topic. Theories, rarely and likely never, become fact.

Though a Scientific Theory hold MUCH more weight than just a theory. For example. Evolution is backed by the preponderance of evidence and as constructed is falsifible. A good Scientific Theory. Creationism has a small minority of the evidence and is constructed could never be falsibile. While a 'theory' it's clearly not a Scientific Theory. Thusly, as far as evidenced understanding creationism falls significantly short of the mark, I'd say it doesn't even make the chart. Be careful here as often we see people saying 'it's just a theory. This is akin to saying - a guess. That usage is a clear indicator that the presenter fails to understand what the significant difference is of a theory derived from a scientific endeavor.

Quote:

Infact, most scienfic progress is/are corrections.

And that's good! That's the way it's meant to be. Science continues to observe and question those observations. Science continues to ask why and question if the why is right. And today as a result we have safer food, faster transportation, better medicine, stronger buildings, trips into outerspace, and the computer you are using and typing on the internet... All because science continues to ask why, how, and are we right or do we need to build an even better understanding.

And likewise the 4 fundamental forces are continued to be questioned, poked, prodded, and asked are these are there is or can we unify this understanding in some manner that may make an even better system of predictability and usefulness in society.

Last edited by BrianK on 22-Sep-2011 at 04:43 PM.

Here's another anti-Elenin datapoint. We're told that Elenin is causing all sorts of havok on earth. Yet the Global Fire Trend peaked around 1998. Global Fire Trends from NASA

@Lou

Quote:

I don't believe in any religion. This would include anything to do with any 'god(s)' or a 'God'. On a brighter note it means I don't believe in a satanic entity as well.

Don't tell anybody, but I think that this is something that we agree about.

Quote:

Infact it's standard practice to have a theory be accepted as fact until it is disproven.

You seem to have put the cart before the horse here. In order to be accepted as a fact in the first place, the theory has to be proven. Then somebody comes along with a better theory, complete with proofs, and the better theory gets accepted as proven. Sometimes the new theory totally supplants the old one in the manner that Charles Hapgoods "crustal displacement" was totally discredited by the later plate tectonics, and sometimes the new theory merely improves the accuracy as in the replacement of Newtonian laws by Einstein.

Quote:

So yes, if you ask me, every stupid idea does indeed need to be completely disproven.

It is when you try to disprove stupid ideas that you get stuck in debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Ignore the stupid ideas and prove the good ideas. That is the only way to move beyond stupidity.

Quote:

Infact, most scienfic progress is/are corrections.

In fact, most scientific progress is corrections. (Statement corrected, progress made. )

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: As for science, they are wrong all the time and spend as much time correcting their erroneous ways as anything else. Applause! Science is observing, testing, and seeing the result. It's innately self skeptical. The hard part is we should be correcting falsities. Why? Incremental learning only comes from mistakes. Quote: Infact it's standard practice to have a theory be accepted as fact until it is disproven. Not true. It's standard practice to accept the theory that has the largest evidenced and makes the best predictions as the present best understanding we have on a topic. Theories, rarely and likely never, become fact. Though a Scientific Theory hold MUCH more weight than just a theory. For example. Evolution is backed by the preponderance of evidence and as constructed is falsifible. A good Scientific Theory. Creationism has a small minority of the evidence and is constructed could never be falsibile. While a 'theory' it's clearly not a Scientific Theory. Thusly, as far as evidenced understanding creationism falls significantly short of the mark, I'd say it doesn't even make the chart. Be careful here as often we see people saying 'it's just a theory. This is akin to saying - a guess. That usage is a clear indicator that the presenter fails to understand what the significant difference is of a theory derived from a scientific endeavor. Quote: Infact, most scienfic progress is/are corrections. And that's good! That's the way it's meant to be. Science continues to observe and question those observations. Science continues to ask why and question if the why is right. And today as a result we have safer food, faster transportation, better medicine, stronger buildings, trips into outerspace, and the computer you are using and typing on the internet... All because science continues to ask why, how, and are we right or do we need to build an even better understanding. And likewise the 4 fundamental forces are continued to be questioned, poked, prodded, and asked are these are there is or can we unify this understanding in some manner that may make an even better system of predictability and usefulness in society.

So now let me point you to http://leedskalnin.com/
...again...

Quote:

You know we receive an education in the schools from books. All those books that people became educated from twenty-five years ago, are wrong now, and those that are good now, will be wrong again twenty-five years from now. So if they are wrong then, they are also wrong now, and the one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. All books that are written are wrong, the one who is not educated cannot write a book and the one who is educated, is really not educated but he is misled and the one who is misled cannot write a book which is correct. The misleading began when our distant ancestors began to teach their descendants. You know they knew nothing but they passed their knowledge of nothing to the coming generations and it went so innocently that nobody noticed it. That is why we are not educated.

And this is why I can easily reject any 'currently accepted' scientific 'fact' you wish to throw at me.
In the meantime, I'll patiently wait until 2900+

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: I don't believe in any religion. This would include anything to do with any 'god(s)' or a 'God'. On a brighter note it means I don't believe in a satanic entity as well. Don't tell anybody, but I think that this is something that we agree about.

:P

Quote:

You seem to have put the cart before the horse here. In order to be accepted as a fact in the first place, the theory has to be proven. Then somebody comes along with a better theory, complete with proofs, and the better theory gets accepted as proven. Sometimes the new theory totally supplants the old one in the manner that Charles Hapgoods "crustal displacement" was totally discredited by the later plate tectonics, and sometimes the new theory merely improves the accuracy as in the replacement of Newtonian laws by Einstein.

You cited examples of what I've been saying. Theories are accepted if they seem 'good enough'. Eventually a better one comes along. See my previous post to BrianK.

Quote:

Quote: So yes, if you ask me, every stupid idea does indeed need to be completely disproven. It is when you try to disprove stupid ideas that you get stuck in debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Ignore the stupid ideas and prove the good ideas. That is the only way to move beyond stupidity.

Even stupid ideas might be 'good enough' to satisfy some/most people. A flat earth was 'good enough' at one point in time, iirc...

The key difference between the two of us is I've experience the UFO phenomenon first hand and you haven't. It was these experiences that made me 'non-religious'. So the reality I perceive is different then yours. Mines contains many more possibilities because of my experiences where as you denounce what I deem possible due to your lack of experiences similar to mine. The book will tell you one thing, life has shown me another.

@Lou

Quote:

So now let me point you to http://leedskalnin.com/ ...again... Quote: You know we receive an education in the schools from books. All those books that people became educated from twenty-five years ago, are wrong now, and those that are good now, will be wrong again twenty-five years from now. So if they are wrong then, they are also wrong now, and the one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. All books that are written are wrong, the one who is not educated cannot write a book and the one who is educated, is really not educated but he is misled and the one who is misled cannot write a book which is correct. The misleading began when our distant ancestors began to teach their descendants. You know they knew nothing but they passed their knowledge of nothing to the coming generations and it went so innocently that nobody noticed it. That is why we are not educated. And this is why I can easily reject any 'currently accepted' scientific 'fact' you wish to throw at me. In the meantime, I'll patiently wait until 2900+

Again Scientific Theory is not a fact. A Scientific Theory is the best explaination we have, at present, to explain the set of facts, we have presently available.

Using 'wrong' in the sense that LeedSkalnin does is incorrect. Clearly ALL 25 year old books aren't wrong. Most are correct for the set of facts then. And certainly science always criqtiques it's ideas to build something better. This is the way it works. What LeedS is looking for is some sort of static perfectly realized understanding. There might come a day when science is unchanging. Though this doesn't mean every idea has equal value to the truth. Just because someone said Elenin will happen doesn't dictate any truth to the situation. Instead we can use our present understanding to see the truth of the situation is something completely different. Thus, on Monday I'll see sun not the darkened planet from the comet predicted by those that discard 'facts' because afterall a comet is 'just a theory'.

And the line about misleading ancestors is something science is continually and innately skeptical about. Not only does it question the sun revolving around the earth but the earth revolving around the sun. Because the evidence is for the later, and against the former, we reject the misleading ancestors. And likewise we're willing to reject the 4 fundamental forces as soon as valid evidence is available that builds a better mousetrap.

Science is progressive learning. LeedS rejects progressive learning. He seems to want the answers written in a book. (Perhaps yourself from Stichin). Science as fairly turns a skeptical eye not on itself but Stichin as well. Again this is to ensure we aren't following a misleading ancestor.

Clearly LeedS is wrong. Science has noticed, time and again, the passing of innocent knowledge and it's lower value of applicableness to the evidence available. It does indeed educate us better in the operation of the world. Which again is why we have rockets and aren't riding horses and why we've opened the body to repair it, something our ancestors forbade.

It's interesting you'll claim that 'ancestor' of fact wrong when it comes to science and it's preponderance of evidence. Yet, you refuse to turn a skeptical eye on Stichin who himself is but another ancestor with a severe lack of evidence. Your embrace of the later is a hope the book is the truth without an ability to suss out if it is not. In turn you have become that mislead descentant.

"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny." -- Carl Sagan.

Quote:

Mines contains many more possibilities because of my experiences where as you denounce what I deem possible due to your lack of experiences similar to mine. The book will tell you one thing, life has shown me another.

Actually no. My possibility isn't limited to aliens or not aliens. In fact it accepts all oncomers and judges them on the same criteria (thus infinite.) The criteria must have the ability to explain the evidence and put together the most accurate predictability. And again we'll soon see the outcome of such a question. Will Monday the 26th be the first day of 3 days of darkness that the Eleninian's predict? Or will it be the much better evidenced - nada - that science predicts. Think of the 26th as another point of data. I don't personally care which way it ends up. In either case it provides more evidenced data to one side or the other.

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense." -- Carl Sagan.

If you haven't read it yet, read Demon Haunted World by Sagan. There's a few quibbles I have but it's a good primer on skepticism and it's innateness within the scientific method.

Last edited by BrianK on 22-Sep-2011 at 10:37 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 22-Sep-2011 at 09:27 PM.

Here is something else to get the naysayers and conspiracy theorists claiming that scientists do not know anything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

I'm amazed that the illuminati or reptilians didn't manage to keep this a secret.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK
It seems you are trying to throw 9/26 on my shoulders.

You missed the point as you have not walked a mile in my shoes. Your 'scientific' methods, procedures, theories, postulations, etc.. could not be applied to several real experiences I have had. So those methods are meaningless to me. You only believe what you've been able to go back and verify and measure, I believe what I experienced.

@Nimrod
Already saw that. The list goes on...
Eventually new 'laws' will be written when the paradigm is changed again... I think BrianK took '25 years' too literally...

Last edited by Lou on 23-Sep-2011 at 12:34 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

It seems you are trying to throw 9/26 on my shoulders.

Not you personally. It's a claim made by Nibiru lovers of Elenin. You seem to disagree. Even though your evidence and my evidence is different about why we disagree are either of us right? If 9/26-29 are dark days perhaps we are wrong. Which BTW is exciting because that means we'd identify something we didn't know and can investigate more into the how and why.

Quote:

Your 'scientific' methods, procedures, theories, postulations, etc.. could not be applied to several real experiences I have had

Not true. They could have been applied. What can be said, perhaps, is they weren't applied.

Quote:

You only believe what you've been able to go back and verify and measure, I believe what I experienced

Note if I am verifying and measuring I am experiencing something. I think the nuance you're missing out on here is experience itself can be misleading. People experienced the sun going around the earth, except when measured and verified they didn't. People can be tricked by a mirror into thinking they have a phantom 3rd arm. Etc... Experience goes one step further into memory. The work we have now is that we only remember pieces at best. Each time we recall an event we rebuild it and that makes each recall imperfect. Science is a tool of skepticsm it's the thing that can, if done correctly, filter out memory and experience related errors.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You only believe what you've been able to go back and verify and measure, I believe what I experienced Note if I am verifying and measuring I am experiencing something. I think the nuance you're missing out on here is experience itself can be misleading. People experienced the sun going around the earth, except when measured and verified they didn't. People can be tricked by a mirror into thinking they have a phantom 3rd arm. Etc... Experience goes one step further into memory. The work we have now is that we only remember pieces at best. Each time we recall an event we rebuild it and that makes each recall imperfect. Science is a tool of skepticsm it's the thing that can, if done correctly, filter out memory and experience related errors.

What you are doing here is typical of skeptics. You just don't get it. Until it happens to you, you will never get it. So please just stop.

@Lou

Quote:

What you are doing here is typical of skeptics. You just don't get it. Until it happens to you, you will never get it. So please just stop.

IMO it's a valid question. People have an observational and experience system that is imperfect. Magicians, grifters, Illusionists, etc. all make their earnings utilizing the imperfect and expecting people won't filter for truth or reality. How does one best weed out the imperfections to ensure what really happened? Or perhaps the question is more importantly 'How does Lou, filter out his own innate errors to best determine reality' (No need to answer but a very important point.)

I'll wait for Monday to see if you and I are right and Elenin will have no impact, just as it hasn't so far.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: What you are doing here is typical of skeptics. You just don't get it. Until it happens to you, you will never get it. So please just stop. IMO it's a valid question. People have an observational and experience system that is imperfect. Magicians, grifters, Illusionists, etc. all make their earnings utilizing the imperfect and expecting people won't filter for truth or reality. How does one best weed out the imperfections to ensure what really happened? Or perhaps the question is more importantly 'How does Lou, filter out his own innate errors to best determine reality' (No need to answer but a very important point.) I'll wait for Monday to see if you and I are right and Elenin will have no impact, just as it hasn't so far.

You're basically saying I was on drugs or something. You're assuming way too much. You're also coming from the point of view that such things are impossible.
Something is only impossible until it actually happens. Until it actually happens to you, it will seem impossible.

@Lou

Quote:

You're basically saying I was on drugs or something. You're assuming way too much. You're also coming from the point of view that such things are impossible.

Not sure how you read that in there?? I said nothing about drugs.

Though note our brain operates on drugs. (Drugs being chemical reactants.) During a time of crisis, for example, it floods itself with dopamines. This has a side effect of mental time dialation. People who fall, for example, give estimates of time that are significantly out of step with reality. It didn't take them 5 minutes to fall 8 meters it took about a second. Exercise releases serotoin which in some studies has been shown to be more effective than anti-depressants. 'Super human' type of events have been documented and correspond to the body itself. High amounts of adrendalin help the body release it's glucose stores giving one more energy than nornally experienced. As such things people claim to have picked up a tractor off their friend. And it appears it's likely possible for the body to do in exterme conditions.

And again I clearly did not assume anything was impossible. I merely claimed that all events have evidence and that evidence should be held up with a skeptical eye as the best way to suss out the truth.

(EDIT -- If you didn't notice I've purposefully tried to stay far away from your claimed alien encounter and talk in generalities. Events such as that are very emotionally tied and people are both reason and emotion. If emotion is heavily tied it's unlikely a particular person will apply logic. So as another person I don't expect you to reassess. I would like you to understand there is a better way of assessing all items than using a 'gut reaction'. Which is why I've tried to stay away from a particular event. )

Quote:

Something is only impossible until it actually happens. Until it actually happens to you, it will seem impossible.

When I think of impossible my view is there are events in the universe with such a statistically high unlikelihood of occurrance that they aren't going to happen. Though this number is greater than 0 so they might. Going back to Elenin -- it's neither thesize, the distance, the speed, the direction nor the composition that could cause 3 days of darkness on the planet. I'd call the event impossible. Though there's probably some astronomical odds that it might happen.

Take for example the recent NASA satellite which is coming down the odds of hitting someone is fairly high (1 in about 3K) that a piece might hit a person. The odds that we can know the particular individual which will be hit is fairly astronimical (1 in a couple trillion). So you and I'd both say impossible to hit 'me'. Afterall someone always wins at Vegas, simply the odds are stacked such that the event happens to the house significantly more times than it does to you.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Sep-2011 at 02:05 PM.

@Lou

Take a look at this. Color is effected by langage The Himba tribe uses their own langage for colors and don't intepret what they are seeing the same way you or I do. And certainly while these 2 disagree with what 'red' means the reindeer that sees infra-red would probably disagree again.

The next step is one of science. What does 'red' mean? Turns out it's a certain wavelength of light that's reflected from the object we're viewing. What we see as 'red' isn't really 'red' it's every color except red and the red is bouncing off into your eye.

Likewise all our experiences are filtered by the body which is a sort of tool with it's own error boundaries. One must use science to help understand that observation is always being made through the tool of the human body filter. If one didn't filter this out it's easy to let that gut reaction obscure what truly had occurred.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Take a look at this. Color is effected by langage The Himba tribe uses their own langage for colors and don't intepret what they are seeing the same way you or I do. And certainly while these 2 disagree with what 'red' means the reindeer that sees infra-red would probably disagree again. The next step is one of science. What does 'red' mean? Turns out it's a certain wavelength of light that's reflected from the object we're viewing. What we see as 'red' isn't really 'red' it's every color except red and the red is bouncing off into your eye. Likewise all our experiences are filtered by the body which is a sort of tool with it's own error boundaries. One must use science to help understand that observation is always being made through the tool of the human body filter. If one didn't filter this out it's easy to let that gut reaction obscure what truly had occurred.

If I see a flying vehicle floating slowly 100 feet over my head, then it's a flying vehicle floating slowly over my head 100 feet in the air and not a hampster.

@Nimrod, BrianK

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/neutrino-results-depend-on-exquisite-measurements-of-time-space.ars

So, perhaps Einstein was wrong...
Who would have thunk it?

Quote:

The theorists, however, will undoubtedly be having a field day. It will be a while before anyone has the chance to test these results independently, giving theorists a chance to try to reconcile fast neutrinos with the rest of physics until then.

Remember, what's right today is wrong tomorrow...

@Lou

Quote:

If I see a flying vehicle floating slowly 100 feet over my head, then it's a flying vehicle floating slowly over my head 100 feet in the air and not a hampster.

The odds are fairly high we're not the only lifeform in the universe. So there's always a possibility this is some alien from a distant plant.

Overall, what do we have for UFO evidence? In the case of UFOs we have 0 positive evidence. We have about 95+% of the events evidenced as some other cause. And we have a small handful of events without a proven cause. One shouldn't draw a conclusion from what they don't know. It'd be the logical fallacy of ad ignoratium to start claiming all of those handful are Little Green Men. We don't know if they're little (they might be big) or if they are green (greys seem very popular lately) and we don't know if they are men (perhaps they're women or even asexual). Instead we must draw conclusions with the evidence we know that there is a handful of events which have an unknown cause to us.

.... Today is sunny. Darn I was hoping for the sun to be blotted out. Seems like Elenin is a dud. I wonder when MikeB will come out of his bomb shelter?

@Lou

Quote:

So, perhaps Einstein was wrong... Who would have thunk it?

Like all science it's unfair to draw an overarching conclusion from 1 experiment. If people read more about this event they will find the researchers stated they couldn't find the source of their error and were opening their research up for others to help them out. That's great! But, there is even more steps here. Other researchers must duplicate the experiments. And other researchers must develop correlating experiments.

Looking at the numbers published in the press it seems the researchers measured a result that measured 100.000025% the speed of light. It'd be interesting to see what their statistical error is and if this result is within the statistical error. And one correlating experiment I have is why don't we see this effect with SuperNovas? They produce neutrinos, according to our present observations. Being millions of light years away and having a small FTL component would produce an effect that we see a flood of neutrinos for years prior to any supernova. It's not an effect we've seen yet. So why haven't we? IMO a great question for future science to work on.

To your question more directly certainly people have had ideas of items faster than light. Tesla is one that had said something to this effect. Also, there's the idea of tachyons.

Quote:

Remember, what's right today is wrong tomorrow...

You seem to be resting your hat on an unverified experiment. There's still lots of work to be done.

I think we see a different approach between us. You are saying 'done lightspeed not true'. I am saying - interesting result, must buy popcorn and watch how our understanding unfolds.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Sep-2011 at 03:17 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: If I see a flying vehicle floating slowly 100 feet over my head, then it's a flying vehicle floating slowly over my head 100 feet in the air and not a hampster. The odds are fairly high we're not the only lifeform in the universe. So there's always a possibility this is some alien from a distant plant. Overall, what do we have for UFO evidence? In the case of UFOs we have 0 positive evidence. We have about 95+% of the events evidenced as some other cause. And we have a small handful of events without a proven cause. One shouldn't draw a conclusion from what they don't know. It'd be the logical fallacy of ad ignoratium to start claiming all of those handful are Little Green Men. We don't know if they're little (they might be big) or if they are green (greys seem very popular lately) and we don't know if they are men (perhaps they're women or even asexual). Instead we must draw conclusions with the evidence we know that there is a handful of events which have an unknown cause to us. .... Today is sunny. Darn I was hoping for the sun to be blotted out. Seems like Elenin is a dud. I wonder when MikeB will come out of his bomb shelter?

You aren't listening and are continuing to rationalize things in your own world.
I and 3 other people around me saw 100 feet over our heads a slow moving triangular vehicle float over our heads and disappear behind some rooftops without making a sound.
However you decide to rationalize that, it's wrong.

@Lou

Quote:

I and 3 other people around me saw 100 feet over our heads a slow moving triangular vehicle float over our heads and disappear behind some rooftops without making a sound. However you decide to rationalize that, it's wrong.

The point is I don't. I believe you are convinced of what you thought you saw. It's yours to own. I've seen some strange stuff in my life too. Perhaps that's why you think I'm not listening as I commented on the 'UFO phenomena' in general without specifically critiquiting your personal experience.