Are You A Quack?

[Daecon]

Do aliens have ghosts?

 

[Magical Realist]

Do aliens have ghosts?

Do quarks have M-branes?

 

[paddoboy]

The question asked in the OP has most certainly been answered under the headings of Paranoia, Delusion/denial and grandiosity!

 

[paddoboy]

One little aspect of the article that I laughed long and hard at was....
"Note: Long ago a professor of mine told me that he got letters from 2 quacks, so he forwarded each's letter to the other. He got back an angry letter from one saying, "Why did you introduce me to this quack?"
I have made similar inferences myself when suggesting that all our alternative hypothesis pushers, the god bothering denialists, and the nuts and cranks, need get together on this forum, and discuss their beefs. The mind boggles!

The final paragraph is well said.................
"Mental illness is common, but most of the afflicted can still function in today's society (although often this is because they are retired). Most people continue to use computers, even if some deny the science they are based upon. (Quacks are hypocrites as well as ingrates.) The situation is less serious in physics than biology: Some people pass laws to prohibit or restrict the teaching of evolution, but there have been no serious attempts to outlaw special relativity or quantum mechanics since the days of Hitler & Stalin (which failed because nuclear science required them). Fortunately, the world depends on the technology derived from modern physics for its economy, communication, leisure, etc".

 

[Daecon]

Do quarks have M-branes?

You're the one who believes in both ghosts and aliens in flying saucers, how do you reconcile those beliefs?

Do only humans become ghosts, or do aliens become ghosts as well?

 

[Magical Realist]

You're the one who believes in both ghosts and aliens in flying saucers, how do you reconcile those beliefs?

Do only humans become ghosts, or do aliens become ghosts as well?

Study up on it and figure it out. Till then, how do you reconcile quarks and m-branes?

 

[paddoboy]

Study up on it and figure it out.

Sure thing...Firstly no conclusive evidence exists to confidently conclude that Aliens ETL and ETI of various degrees even exist, although I personally believe the numbers and extent guarantee that position, secondly even less conclusive evidence exists to show Aliens have ever visited Earth, kidnapped folk, conduct medical procedures, without ever making their visitations widely known and official.
That belief is based simply on unexplained happenings and scenarios and no firm conclusion can logically and sensibly be drawn.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

PhysBang

So you do think that that there is good evidence from things that are not repeatable.

how can something that repeats throughout history be "not repeatable"??
hell, we still see it today from racism to the killing of innocents and attempted genocide

Sure, but you are relying on the truth of events that were one-time, unique occurrences that we reasonably believe to be true

and again: how can something that repeats throughout history be "not repeatable"?? (or a "one time" event?)
hell, we still see it today from racism to the killing of innocents and attempted genocide

you're not making any sense on that one... and it's not like there isn't evidence from history as well as modern examples to choose from
Hell, that "one time" event also has this little nasty thing called "forensic evidence" to fall back on, BTW...

I was not the person who wrote that the only thing that is true is the repeatable, that was you

you are the one that is ignoring evidence because you want to make a semantic argument to support a crank
it's irritating

I've read quite a lot about scientific methodology. This extensive reading is why I reject your claim that there is a single scientific method.

Even the wikipedia page supports Yazata's claim that there is no single scientific method.

sigh
No, there is only one methodology that is common to all scientific disciplines

you keep misunderstanding that there are different techniques and procedures, but there is one methodology that is consistently common in all, i repeat ALL, scientific disciplines, and that is this (simplified):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scien...e_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg

This claim is not supported by the wikipedia page you use as your citation. The page currently says, "Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them." This is not an endorsement of a single method or one of common features to all scientific procedures.

1- it is supported by the references that you are not reading

2- it is supported by the Wiki page because, as i noted the "identifiable features ... frequently shared in common between them" is the basic scientific method

hell, it then supports my arguments by spelling out the basic method that is in the graph above

of course, that is the part you quoted too, so why ignore that important part in context with the conversation?
why ignore the rest of the paragraph and the graph?

this seems to be a case of:
1- there are none so blind as those who refuse to see
2- baiting and irritating intentionally for a rise (or Trolling)

I hope you take that to heart!

i do
do you?

Well, now we merely have to say, "Fuck you, too, Truck Capatin Stumpy." If you are merely going to ignore the work of people who actually study scientific methodology for a living, who are actually identified as authors and go with your interpretation of a wikipedia page, then you really aren't cut out for the whole making inferences thing.

except that:
1- philosophy (philo) is NOT a scientific discipline, regardless of the peer review
because
2- philosophy is SUBJECTIVE, whereas science is NOT.
and
3- in order to be considered science there must be strict adherence to the method stated above

i didn't say "fuck you" so much as requested verifiable non-subjective evidence
and non-subjective is not what philo is

but you already knew that one, didn't you, so that is a troll comment

The resounding answer from a thorough study of scientific methodology is that there is not a clear line of demarcation between science and pseudo-science.

1- it is not a thorough study of the scientific methodology, it is a PHILOSOPHICAL study of the methodology
2- it is SUBJECTIVE
3- there is definitely a clear line of demarcation. pseudoscience doesn't adhere strictly to the methodology much the same way that PHILO doesn't

There might be anything in a philosophy journal. In this article, there is nothing subjective about science.

there are none so blind as those who refuse to see

you didn't read the demarcation section, nor the examples

It's good to see that you are as ill informed about philosophical methodology as you are about scientific methodology.

studied both. learned that reality isn't based on philosophy
PHILO is used to justify one's beliefs and make one seem intellectual. you're not. it may ask great questions but the answers don't rely upon evidence and (do i really have to keep repeating this) the answers are entirely dependent upon the perspective of the individual, hence the label "subjective".

there is no possible way that a subjective argument can be scientific.
period
full stop

believe what you want, repeating the same lie isn't going to make it more real, Phys...


PS- subjectivity isn't science. that is one definite line of demarcation between science and pseudoscience
another is repeatability, and yet another is falsification

 

[PhysBang]

PhysBang
how can something that repeats throughout history be "not repeatable"??

How do you know that it repeats? Each event is not repeatable; if you can't trust that these events happened, then you can't trust that there actually is this repetition.

you are the one that is ignoring evidence because you want to make a semantic argument to support a crank
it's irritating

I'm not sorry that you are irritated. Perhaps this will make you think about what you say. Evidence so far indicates that you won't.

I do not like Yazata, do I like the weak epistemological standards he holds to, I do not like his casual support of bigotry. But when Yazata is correct on a point, it is worth pointing out.

sigh
No, there is only one methodology that is common to all scientific disciplines

Your own citation does not support this claim.

1- it is supported by the references that you are not reading

No, it is unsupported by references that you are not reading. I have taken many courses on scientific methodology and read a great deal. I suggest that you do the same if you are interested.
[quote[2- it is supported by the Wiki page because, as i noted the "identifiable features ... frequently shared in common between them" is the basic scientific method[/quote]
A set of features that many different techniques share is not one method. It is a set of features that some sciences have and others do not. Note that there is no claim that any one feature is present in all scientific practice.

this seems to be a case of:
1- there are none so blind as those who refuse to see
2- baiting and irritating intentionally for a rise (or Trolling)

I agree.

except that:
1- philosophy (philo) is NOT a scientific discipline, regardless of the peer review

That doesn't mean that the people who study science do not actually study science.

because
2- philosophy is SUBJECTIVE, whereas science is NOT.

Says you. But since you don't even understand your own wikipedia citation, I think that we can all safely discard your opinion.

and
3- in order to be considered science there must be strict adherence to the method stated above

Please identify one feature that all scientific practices have in common that is not trivial.

i didn't say "fuck you" so much as requested verifiable non-subjective evidence
and non-subjective is not what philo is

If you are merely going to ignore all evidence that might speak against your position, you are telling all of us, "fuck you".

you didn't read the demarcation section, nor the examples

Sure. Sure I didn't. I've never read anything about demarcation, ever.

A fine example of scientism in the service of badgering people. A fine example of a quack.

 

[Yazata]

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Really?
peer reviewed philosophy?
that's like peer reviewed religion, IMHO

You seem to be in danger of turning yourself into the intellectual equivalent of the cranks that Siegel excoriates in the OP (he inexplicably calls them 'quacks'). You aren't alone on Sciforums in doing that.

People go on and on about 'method', 'evidence', 'truth', 'facts', 'belief', 'knowledge', 'observation', 'verification', 'logic', 'reason', 'experiment', 'reality', 'proof', 'objectivity' and the relationship between math, logic, human experience and physical reality... seemingly with no awareness that they are philosophizing. They seem unaware that science and the practice of science are filled with philosophical ideas and that scientists are constantly making philosophical assumptions.

Then after expressing strong and controversial opinions on recondite matters, they will inexplicably turn around and express their contempt for philosophy and their pride in never having studied it.

Isn't that worryingly similar to what Siegel thinks the physics cranks are doing?

 

[sideshowbob]

Right..Call up the ISS next time you see a flaming object falling from the sky. I'm sure they'll return your call.

It's hard to tell whether you're missing the point deliberately or not.

The point is that a flame in the sky is more likely to be a meteor than ISS - but it's also more likely to be ISS than an alien "craft". No matter how many people observe the event, what we know to exist is a better explanation than what we don't know to exist.

 

[Magical Realist]

The point is that a flame in the sky is more likely to be a meteor than ISS - but it's also more likely to be ISS than an alien "craft".

Right..because alien craft rarely catch on fire and fall to earth. But most people will still think meteor before they think ISS. So your point is entirely moot. People know when they see something typical. And they also know when they see something weird.

 

[sideshowbob]

Right..because alien craft rarely catch on fire and fall to earth.

No. Because alien craft are not known to exist.

The Tooth Fairy is not known to exist. There is a better explanation for disappearing teeth than a magical ghoul.

 

[Magical Realist]

No. Because alien craft are not known to exist.

The Tooth Fairy is not known to exist. There is a better explanation for disappearing teeth than a magical ghoul.

There is no better explanation for flying silver discs and hovering triangular craft than alien intelligences. There just isn't. "Alien" in the broad sense of nonhuman.

 

[sideshowbob]

There is no better explanation for flying silver discs and hovering triangular craft than alien intelligences.

There are LOTS of better explanations. But you've already admitted that you don't look for alternatives at all.

"Alien" in the broad sense of nonhuman.

There is no known non-human intelligence capable of building flying craft. Therefore, "aliens" can not be the "best" explanation. They can't be an "explanation" at all. At best they're a speculation.

 

[wegs]

There is no better explanation for flying silver discs and hovering triangular craft than alien intelligences. There just isn't. "Alien" in the broad sense of nonhuman.

If those are what people are truly seeing. That's the challenge with these ''eye witness'' reports. It seems that there are other alternatives to explain what those people were seeing. (And honestly, I think some of those people are lying, we can't rule that out. Some people go to great lengths to get their 15 minutes of fame lol)

But, I don't rule out the possibility of other ''intelligent'' life forms in the universe besides ourselves.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no better explanation for flying silver discs and hovering triangular craft than alien intelligences. There just isn't. "Alien" in the broad sense of nonhuman.

Except that it isn't an explanation at all.

I claim that they are not aliens, but a race of earthly Sasquatch.

You see, this is every bit as valid an explanation as aliens. It has exactly the same support, answers the exact same number of questions and leaves the exact same same number of questions unanswered.

No, I claim that they a tribe of tooth faeries...


There are an infinite number of explanations for UFOs that are exactly as informative as 'aliens'. In other words, they, collectively, are of no use.

 

[Magical Realist]

Except that it isn't an explanation at all.

I claim that they are not aliens, but a race of earthly Sasquatch.

You see, this is every bit as valid an explanation as aliens. It has exactly the same support, answers the exact same number of questions and leaves the exact same same number of questions unanswered.

No, I claim that they a tribe of tooth faeries...


There are an infinite number of explanations for UFOs that are exactly as informative as 'aliens'. In other words, they, collectively, are of no use.

No..there's only a few real explanations that need be taken seriously. Secret military craft. Aliens. Humans from the future. There's just not much beyond that.

 

[Magical Realist]

If those are what people are truly seeing. That's the challenge with these ''eye witness'' reports. It seems that there are other alternatives to explain what those people were seeing.

There really isn't other alternatives when multiple witnesses see a flying disc or black triangle or an oval shaped silver craft land in a field. Weather balloons and swamp gas and the planet Venus notwithstanding.

 

[PhysBang]

There is no better explanation for flying silver discs and hovering triangular craft than alien intelligences. There just isn't. "Alien" in the broad sense of nonhuman.

There is a better explanation for claims of flying silver discs and hovering triangular craft. You constantly confuse claim with reality.

There are many explanations for multiple people making claims of these things and for claims of multiple people seeing these things.