62 replies to this topic

[Log]

The Nehor, on 24 April 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

What a lot of drivel. Science is wrong 89% of the time? What? Why do people like this use the internet if they are convinced quantum theory is most likely wrong?

I so dare you to take it up with Vox.  Please don't chicken out!

Edited by Log, 24 April 2012 - 07:53 PM.

[Tarski]

calmoriah, on 23 April 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

That's too bad....not because I am antiscience, I am just proweird science, it's so much fun.

I like weird too (and relativity is plenty weird) but there is something even better than  "weird" and that is the brilliant light that breaks in thanks to one monumental insight.  The conceptual clarity afforded by Lorentz invariance and other closely related symmetry principles (spin etc) cannot be overstated. Millions of pieces of the puzzle suddenly made sense at a higher level and that light keeps shinning into new corners everyday.

I think that only people who have seen deeply into this matter can fully appreciate how ugly, ridiculous and jumbled physics would be if the essential insights of relativity were to be withdrawn.  Of course, it is conceivable that higher principles might be found that subsume these principles (maybe in some sense this has already happened before e.g. with general relativity).

Besides, it is weird too. If it failed we would lose weirdness! Before relativity, there was no speed limit that we knew of and it is down right weird that there should be one. (Why couldn't a bullet shot from rocket which was already travelling very very nearly the speed of light, exceed that speed? Common sense says relative speeds should just add.)

Lorentz invariance is what gives us time dialation and ruler shortening so it is plenty weird already and once spacetime curvature and quantum theory get into the picture we get even more weirdness. But it isn't the mere weirdness that so pleases the fringe science nuts. It is real  insight into a strange but real world--our world.

Edited by Tarski, 24 April 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[The Nehor]

Log, on 24 April 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I so dare you to take it up with Vox.  Please don't chicken out!

From his website:

Quote

What is your IQ?
Over the so-called "genius" threshhold. Some people can't seem to figure out that the 132 IQ Mensa requirement (Stanford-Binet) is a floor, not a ceiling.

Is there a point to trying to debate someone like this? IQ comparison is the kind of thing done by the loser populations at school and is roughly the equivalent of other guys comparing the size of a particular organ in a locker room and just as valuable an insight into their persona.

Quote

Why do you hate socialism?
Because it is an economic absurdity built on a false premise of value, an ideological monstrosity constructed upon the worst aspects of human nature, and a form of societal organization that is both intrinsically inefficient from an economic perspective and reliably dangerous from a political one.

Keep in mind this guy moved to Italy of all places. (cough)Hypocrite.

No interest in discussions with this guy. At the risk of being offensive beating this guy would be participating in the Special Olympics. Even if I win I'm retarded by definition for competing.

Edited by The Nehor, 24 April 2012 - 08:05 PM.

[Log]

Well, that's disappointing.  I was so hoping you'd tell him he was wrong - the only thing is, when he says something like "Even the best, 'gold standard' science has been reported to be 89 percent unreliable, as a matter of fact," he can, and will, back it up.

I liked this post of his- directly on topic, even:

Quote

What is clear from all of this is that the scientists and science fetishists fantasizing of a technocratic dictatorship that will usher in the shiny, sexy, science fiction, seculatopia of their dreams haven't realized is that their totalitarian vision will ultimately be a dictatorship of the IT department.

Edited by Log, 24 April 2012 - 08:16 PM.

[calmoriah]

Quote

there was no speed limit that we knew of and it is down right weird that there should be one

You are right on that one.

[The Nehor]

Log, on 24 April 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Well, that's disappointing.  I was so hoping you'd tell him he was wrong - the only thing is, when he says something like "Even the best, 'gold standard' science has been reported to be 89 percent unreliable, as a matter of fact," he can, and will, back it up.

How clever. He knew he'd never be able to support that crazy 89% assertion with physics or chemistry or engineering experiments so he of course picked medicine which is nowhere near as exact and everyone involved knows that.

This is also why people with medical and psychological conditions often have to work with their doctor to develop an effective treatment plan. Each human is different with different reactions to medicine and medical treatments. Of course they aren't 100% reliable. Medicine that will cure me might kill you. People are not all the same.

When you perform a physics experiment you can control almost all the factors so there is a much lower margin of error. With medicine your controls are much looser and the experimenters know that and most do all they can to account for that.

Rule of thumb, the more to the right you are the more you can control for errors:

Quote

What is clear from all of this is that the scientists and science fetishists fantasizing of a technocratic dictatorship that will usher in the shiny, sexy, science fiction, seculatopia of their dreams haven't realized is that their totalitarian vision will ultimately be a dictatorship of the IT department.

Which is something crazy he made up that has nothing to do with the article he quoted.

Article says:

There was an error. We thought there might be but it took a while to track down. We fixed it and everything is working okay now.

This guy's comment on the article:

See!?!? They're fallible!!!! When they take over the government and enslave us all they'll screw up then too!!!!

Yep this guy is:

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

I don't depend on science to be right or wrong when it comes to my religion. I am perfectly comfortable in both worlds. To me truth is truth no matter where I find it.

[Stargazer]

The Nehor, on 24 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

I expected it would be a minor error but hoped it wouldn't be.

I tried to do this:

What a lovely idea!  Too bad most LDS won't bet real money.

[Stargazer]

Tarski, on 24 April 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

I like weird too (and relativity is plenty weird) but there is something even better than  "weird" and that is the brilliant light that breaks in thanks to one monumental insight.  The conceptual clarity afforded by Lorentz invariance and other closely related symmetry principles (spin etc) cannot be overstated. Millions of pieces of the puzzle suddenly made sense at a higher level and that light keeps shinning into new corners everyday.

I had one of those the other week.  I was about to drop off to sleep when all of a sudden this crazy and insightful idea popped into my head and it was like the whole room lit up.  My wife said, why did you turn that light on?  Well, actually, there wasn't any literal light, but my shouting "Oh, my gosh!" into the night and sitting bolt upright had to be a bit bothersome to her.

Anyway, I explained to her what had just occurred to me, despite her telling me that she didn't want to hear it, and then I compounded this by getting up and going to the computer to "write a brief note" about it, so I didn't forget by the morning.  I finally went to bed at 3 am.  I remember that I told her that I was going to get a Nobel Prize in Physics or Chemistry or something once I was able to get my doctorate and write a paper that appeared in Nature or wherever crazy insightful ideas show up for official notice.  I was going to go chortling to 44Foxtrot and rub his "Mormons can't do science" face into the goo.  Gosh, sometimes I wish he hadn't been banned.

Anyway, I can't tell you my insight.  Not until I copyright it or something.

Actually, I am afraid it will turn out to be a figment of my imagination.  But it was (and remains) pretty exciting to me.  Unfortunately, I can't tell if it is completely nuts or not, and unless you're very very smart I'm afraid that you will merely pooh pooh it because you don't know enough to recognize a genius idea.  And I'm not a genius, so I can't tell if the insight holds water or not.

This is very frustrating.

[shalamabobbi]

Stargazer, on 25 April 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

I was going to go chortling to 44Foxtrot and rub his "Mormons can't do science" face into the goo.

No, of course we can't..

Then we get it from the other ridiculous end of the spectrum as well. If we are doing science, then we aren't true LDS, we're apostates..

[calmoriah]

Poor Stargazer.  

Quote

Which is something crazy he made up that has nothing to do with the article he quoted.

But it sounds all shiny and sexy the way he says it so what's your problem?

[The Nehor]

calmoriah, on 25 April 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

But it sounds all shiny and sexy the way he says it so what's your problem?

Definitely the work of a genius level IQ.

[mfbukowski]

How many people here know their IQ?   I have taken tests but never actually seen the results.   How come supposed geniuses are the only ones who know their IQ?

I suppose you wouldn't tell someone their IQ was 87 because they might feel dumb.   On the other hand why cripple someone, making them think it actually is significant that they have a high IQ, when in most cases hard work and a good attitude will get you farther than sitting on your laurels being a "genius"?

Does everyone but me know their IQ?

[Log]

The Nehor, on 25 April 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

How clever. He knew he'd never be able to support that crazy 89% assertion with physics or chemistry or engineering experiments so he of course picked medicine which is nowhere near as exact and everyone involved knows that.

I'm remembering that you're intentionally ignorant with regards to Vox's writings on this subject.

Quote

Remember, experiment-backed science is only about 11% reliable according to the scientific method itself, so you can safely expect that whenever scientists make a new public announcement, they're going to be wrong around 90 percent of the time.

The rule of thumb is that if you can't make a physical object or machine based on the scientific principles involved, the scientists are wrong. One can reasonably trust engineers, engineering, and technology, one cannot reasonably place any confidence in scientists, science, or the current scientific consensus.

Edited by Log, 26 April 2012 - 08:29 AM.

[Log]

mfbukowski, on 26 April 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

How many people here know their IQ?   I have taken tests but never actually seen the results.   How come supposed geniuses are the only ones who know their IQ?

I suppose you wouldn't tell someone their IQ was 87 because they might feel dumb.   On the other hand why cripple someone, making them think it actually is significant that they have a high IQ, when in most cases hard work and a good attitude will get you farther than sitting on your laurels being a "genius"?

Does everyone but me know their IQ?

This guy knows his IQ...

[The Nehor]

Log, on 26 April 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

I'm remembering that you're intentionally ignorant with regards to Vox's writings on this subject.

[/color]

Yes, and I intend to stay ignorant of most of what he writes. I only have an estimated 50-60 years left on this planet and I don't intend to spend any time reading the confused and intentionally misleading ravings of a nutter. His statement that the scientific method is right 11% of the time is based on one article written by one person about one specific field of science. He is an idiot to suggest that his sample size is sufficient to establish his point. He is especially insane to do so when his one source is a Yahoo news article. Do you know what kind of half-baked drivel makes it into Yahoo news articles?

[KevinG]

mfbukowski, on 24 April 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Aw come on dude!

Religion gives us all purpose in life-  What would you do with your time if you couldn't come here and tell us all how dumb we are??

Its Tarski's religion.

[Log]

The Nehor, on 26 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Yes, and I intend to stay ignorant of most of what he writes.

Then, you really ought to forbear from commenting on what he writes, since you have nothing substantive to add, or, have the courage of your (mistaken) convictions and take it up with him.

[The Nehor]

Log, on 26 April 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Then, you really ought to forbear from commenting on what he writes, since you have nothing substantive to add, or, have the courage of your (mistaken) convictions and take it up with him.

I commented on the parts I did read. I didn't know I had to read everything the guy has ever written before I could say anything. In which case I have a reading list for you to go through before you will understand me well enough to comment intelligently on anything I say. It's pretty large. I'm a technical writer for a living. You'll also have to steal some proprietary documents I've written. Good luck.

Seriously, why do you want people to pick fights with your hero here? Is it akin to what I did as a kid when I mentally egged on the villain to attack the hero in Saturday morning cartoons?

Tell you what though. If you bring him here I will chat with him about his scientific method 89% failure rate theory. Sound good? Of course if he doesn't have the courage of his convictions he will like a coward refuse to take it up with me.

[Log]

The Nehor, on 26 April 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

If you bring him here I will chat with him about his scientific method 89% failure rate theory. ... Of course if he doesn't have the courage of his convictions he will like a coward refuse to take it up with me.

Go issue the challenge yourself.  Here's his blog:  voxday.blogspot.com.  You can post your challenge freely there.  Here's his email address: [email protected]  

I will be all ears to hear the results of this one!

Edited by Log, 26 April 2012 - 11:42 AM.