Moderation of Pseudoscience Forum

I just don't understand how some here can put OUR technological limitations on any and all possible life in the Billions of Universes out there.
Click to expand...

To me, this is no different than the smug cockiness of the old days where WE were the center of the universe and the like. Because humans here on earth are the most advanced, that must mean we're the most advanced, period, lol. Because most religions say that God created us and we're God's children, we must be the best. How dare he play around elsewhere and create other more advanced life! Selfishness at it's finest. I love my lil Godie-pooh and I want him allll to myself, hmph!


Look, it's simple, the woowoo argument is circular. Aliens are here, they say. For aliens to be here, they must have a way of circumventing the obstacles as we understand them. So aliens have done this, because they are here. Around they go.

But there is no evidence for any of it. But there is evidence for relativity being sound. Overturn that first, eh? So of course Skeptics chirp up at this point. If woowoos are just blowing smoke out of their nether regions and postulating, then fine, state that in the opening post. Don't make any claims without some proof that stands up to scrutiny without expecting a sound debunking.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't get me wrong, there are a loooooooot of crackpot claims, but not all of them are. You have to realize though that this is a "pseudo" science forum, not a science one. So ANY evidence (note: not "proof") towards something "unexplainable" is in favor to the pseudo's theory vs a scientists. However, when something IS explainable, then the scientist can trample all over the person's ideas.

Oh, and by the way, yes, there is evidence towards aliens and the like. Evidence comes in many forms, not just mathematical forumlas. Various things point to relativity being sound and various things point to UFOs and the like being true. But neither of us know if relativity or aliens are true regardless of how much or how good our evidence may be because it is not proof. Relativity and aliens are no different when it comes down to it. Relativity is just more favorable to scientists because it speaks their language, but again, both are unproven. A person that comes up with an as-of-yet unproven idea that has some evidence pointing towards it gets highly criticized, but the one blantantly calling it impossible is the fool.

But yeah, like I said in an earlier post, that's the thing that bugs me, people consider this pseudo section to be a regular science forum. Here, muuuuuuuuuch leeway should be given, as absurd as an idea may be. Remember, if something can't be proven right or wrong, (yes, even flying pink elephants) let those that agree with the idea have their fun because constantly trolling against it is annoying as hell. Go ahead and be a skeptic, but don't be an ass using absolutes over and over again when it comes to something unexplainable. The tie goes to the presenter of the idea. If you don't like the thread, DON'T READ IT. A whacky idea can speak for itself so others don't need help in calling it a stupid idea. Just let those "stupid" people have their fun and just read the "pseudo" theories/threads that are more to your liking. Common sense really isn't so common anymore. Darn egos.

Even i get annoyed with that, people only consider our limitations, its like what faces all scientists, they are told it cant be done, but they still try and sometimes find a way to make something happen everyone said wasnt possible, until its proved some form of FTL travel is possible most wont believe in it, though the possibility of FTL travel still doesnt make a very convincing case for aliens visiting us.
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who finds all the "science fiction" ideas that have come true or close to coming true fascinating? My saying is that everything imaginable is possible. If it doesn't exist, we just haven't yet found a way of making it possible. God help us in 15-100+ years when we get really advanced with DNA manipulation and ARE able to create flying pink elephants (if we wanted to, that is.. and once blinded religious folk get over the whole "moral issues" of us "playing god"), heh.

- N
 
i agree totally also.

i would also like to say that the moderators are part of the group of people WHO DO NOT LIKE THE PSEUDOSCIENCE ideals and thoughts.

it is shown they are hostile towards us discussing our unorthodox ideas and theories. they have deleted entire posts, closed threads claiming they were useless.
its not my fault that some asshole keeps talking shit, is it ?
i wish they would go elsewhere, yet they are attracted to us in the subconscious yet their conscious struggles to understand why. i guess its ok, albeit a bit sad, really.

perhaps this isnt the forum for people to bring PSEUDOSCIENCE. it doesnt seem to be friendly to UNPROVEN SCIENTIFICAL DISCUSSIONS, not unless you have a 100-page report signed by the president and stamped by all the scientific organizations.

.

i think all moderators should try to see how honest we psuedoscientists are in our attempts to bring new ideas and theories to the table.

its the opposers that destroy ouy threads. we cannot do anything about that, can we?

o well, enough of this semi-plead for justice.
 
zonabi said:
i think all moderators should try to see how honest we psuedoscientists are in our attempts to bring new ideas and theories to the table.
Click to expand...

Theories are formed from one or more tested hypotheses and can be replicated by others. I think what you wanted to say was "speculation."

Also, why would you expect that any or all of the members or moderators of a "Science Forum" that has a Pseudoscience section would not be biased against pseudoscience in the first place? It seems logical to me that this would be the place where pseudoscience is exposed rather than embraced.
 
quote:
"Theories are formed from one or more tested hypotheses and can be replicated by others."
========================================================

The Special Theory of Relativity postulates, 1905.
(1) The speed of light 'c' is a universal constant, the same in any inertial frame.
(2) The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame, regardless of position or
velocity.
 
VRob said:
No, around you go. I have never stated such a thing. I don't know where, or how they might be travelling.
Click to expand...

Being uncertain and not daring to make a claim doesn't add credence to your hypothesis. It merely adds to the number of holes in it. My post wasn't aimed directly at you, I said the woowoo argument is circular, not your argument.

It is you who are doing the reaching here. You are refuting the entire idea simply because WE can't traverse through space at the necessary speeds to reach other galaxies in a timely fashion.
Click to expand...

Data? The data as it stands holds up relativity! What data do you have that actually counters this? NONE! Just the cyclical argument to fall back on.



I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO PROVIDE PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROOF & EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Not when you have neither, there isn't.
 
SkinWalker said:
It seems logical to me that this would be the place where pseudoscience is exposed rather than embraced.
Click to expand...

Wow, and you say you have no preconceived conclusions. I can't imagine a worse candidate to monitor this site.
Click to expand...
 
As one so apparently expert, VRob, I am surprised you did not nominate yourself.

:rolleyes: Peace.
 
VRob said:
phlog,

Why do you even bother to discuss a topic that you obviously know nothing about?
Click to expand...

There being no real evidence, I know as much as anybody.

Of course, if you have any evidence that will stand up to scrutiny, please provide some.
 
Theories are formed from one or more tested hypotheses and can be replicated by others. I think what you wanted to say was "speculation."
Click to expand...
Actually my dictionary defines theory as something that is speculative as opposed to practical, so theres no need for a tested hypotheses, of course theories alone prove absolutely nothing, its the tested hypotheses that is the proof, both are independant of each other.
The reason the pseudoscience forum seems overmoderated is because whats offered up is offered as proof not as a theory, i would hope theories are acceptable if they are offered up that way, but proof is a different matter.
 
goofyfish said:
As one so apparently expert, VRob, I am surprised you did not nominate yourself.

:rolleyes: Peace.
Click to expand...

First of all, I am no expert. I have a keen interest in certain areas of the subject, but I have more questions than answers. However, I do think it's worthy of serious discussion. Free from the ridicue stigma that is attached to it.

I haven't been around the site often lately, and I didn't see the thread to nominate candidates. I may have done so if I was aware of the process.
 
phlogistician said:
There being no real evidence, I know as much as anybody.

Of course, if you have any evidence that will stand up to scrutiny, please provide some.
Click to expand...

And what scrutiny might that be? A test tube in some lab?

I'm not getting into this discussion with you again Phlog. There IS Evidence. 10's of thousands of pieces of evidence. Much of it collaborates other pieces of evidence. But it appears to me that because this evidence can't be put into a test tub in some lab, you don't consider it evidence.
 
Lemming3k said:
Actually my dictionary defines theory as something that is speculative as opposed to practical, so theres no need for a tested hypotheses,
Click to expand...

Ahh.. yes. But this is a "scienceforum" and therefore the definition used by the scientific community would be the relevant one. And in any first year science text (chemistry, geology, biology, anthropology) one can find that the consistent theme for the definition uses the one I indicated.
 
SkinWalker said:
Ahh.. yes. But this is a "scienceforum" and therefore the definition used by the scientific community would be the relevant one. And in any first year science text (chemistry, geology, biology, anthropology) one can find that the consistent theme for the definition uses the one I indicated.
Click to expand...

Then what's the point in even having the Pseudoscience section?

I'm serious. If you're unwilling to even discuss topics that don't hold up to the current methods(test tubes in a lab) of scientific scrutiny, why even have this section in here?
 
i would also like to say that the moderators are part of the group of people WHO DO NOT LIKE THE PSEUDOSCIENCE ideals and thoughts.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting comment.

In science, it doesn't matter whether you like an idea. If it turns out to be supported by evidence, then it becomes part of science, like it or not.

But pseudoscience is much more often about "like". UFOs sound cool. ESP and telekinesis would be fun. Cold fusion and free energy devices would be really neat. What's not to like?

Maybe "like" takes precedence over evidence among the pseudoscientists. What do you think?
 
Ahh.. yes. But this is a "scienceforum" and therefore the definition used by the scientific community would be the relevant one. And in any first year science text (chemistry, geology, biology, anthropology) one can find that the consistent theme for the definition uses the one I indicated.
Click to expand...
My opinion is that in a pseudoscience forum it would make more sense to use the dictionary definition as a lot of what is put forward is fine in theory but cannot be tested or proved, though it doesnt really matter so long as people understand the difference between something that can be tested and something that cant. So long as its clear what category the discussion falls into a discussion should be easy enough, just my opinion though.
 
Then what's the point in even having the Pseudoscience section?

Quite simple. Kooks, cranks and nutters will always be a scourge to science, so it makes sense to keep them corralled in one place rather then having them run rampant through the science forums.
 
Quite simple. Kooks, cranks and nutters will always be a scourge to science, so it makes sense to keep them corralled in one place rather then having them run rampant through the science forums.
Click to expand...

Then there's obviously no reason for the more intellectual scientist-types to ever come into the subculture section of these forums.

Don't let the door hit ya on the way out,

- N
 
lemming3k:

Actually my dictionary defines theory as something that is speculative as opposed to practical...
Click to expand...

There are two different usages of the word "theory". In the general community, the word is used to mean something like "speculative guess", as you say. In science, though, a theory is a well-established explanation of a scientific fact. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity, Darwin's theory of evolution etc. A speculative guess in science is usually called a "tentative hypothesis"; mathematicians like the word "conjecture".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top