Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by BenTheMan, Mar 17, 2007.
See Ben's OP.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The people who sold us the bill of goods that is sometimes called "AIDS" did so by ignoring most of the data, by refusing to listen to any sort of reason whatsoever, and literally, in the person of Robert Gallo, threatening the careers of scientists who opposed that theory. Those who he threatened chose their jobs over the truth, and here we are.
I would have to say that your characterization of dissidents as "cranks" and "science haters" is false, and is more likely to be the consequence of a St. Patrick's Day drinking binge than any straight thinking. That's what happens when you drink during the parade. Your metabolism is royally screwed up by the afternoon and your hangover today must be phenomenal.
So you say that people who oppose one theory of science oppose or hate all science. That shows your arrogance. You are also deliberately misrepresenting their positions. This shows that you are not to be trusted.
How many physicists do you know personally? Or are you just judging this based on physicists' responses to your "XYZ Explained"-type theories?
This is how most cranks like to see scientists who don't appreciate being told how to do their jobs. It's easier for such people than accepting that their ideas are of no substance, and that they simply have no understanding of how science works or even what scientists look for in an "explanation".
People who whine along these lines typically have zero appreciation for how real scientific models are structured. It's the mathematics that makes the difference between a complete and well-defined theory, and a nonsensical string of undefined terms and concepts. This is especially true where models deal with scales and phenomena humans are unfamiliar with, and human intuition never evolved to deal with.
You can always ask why things are the way they are. There's no such thing as a self-evident theory, if that's what you're on about.
Proof that an axiom is "true"? Axioms in scientific theories are judged by the accuracy of the resulting theories' predictions. No axiom or theory can be proven beyond all doubt.
Have you properly studied these theories, or are you dismissing them on the grounds that the conclusions are just too absurd to be true in your personal opinion?
Building what basically amounts to fairy tales around physical theories won't help anyone. If anything, it will mislead. I'd personally love it if more people were interested in physics for the discipline it was, and not for some inaccurate portrayal of what it is or should be.
What problem would that be? It's you and many others who, for whatever reason, have a problem with the standards of objectivity and rigour demanded by physicists.
The crackpots flock to this site for the simple reason that they are cherished here. Threads are sent to the cesspool very reluctantly. Legitimate (non-spammer) users have to work very hard to get banned from this site.
The crackpot is a product of the internet and post-modernistic thought. The internet is the first media in all of history that enables crackpots to disseminate their views widely. Post-modernistic thought teaches that all opinions are valid. It is mean old science, which does not hold that all opinions are equally valid, that is wrong. The crackpot is right and can now shout it out to the world!
The National Geographic channel recently aired a program "Conspiracy Moon Landing" (reshowing this evening and tomorrow at 5PM Eastern) that covered the moon landing hoax conspiracy. Bottom line: The moon landing was real (duh!) and those who promulgate the hoax are "cultural vandals".
And that's wonderful---people interested in physics keeps me in a job. The problem is that when people don't take time to inform themselves, and write things like "Energy Explained" or "Time Explained". The problem is that, in writing these things, you are passing yourself off as some sort of expert, which is clearly (from reading the posts) not the case. The problem is that when you convince other people to take your erroneous views by making a false case. And the problem is when people like that vote and raise childeren.
The problem has already started when people who don't know anything about physics pretend that they do. If there is an unwillingness to be open and rational on our side, it is because there is an unwillingness to become informed on your side.
Always with the Einstein. Why do crackpots love him so much? In 2004, Gross, Politzer, and Wilcek were awarded the Nobel Prize for proving that non Abelian gauge theories were asymptotically free, work that was completed in 1973 if I recall correctly. 21 > 17. Einstein wasn't awarded a Nobel Prize for the discovery of GR because the Nobel Prize has never been awarded to one person twice. The work with the photoelectric effect came first--->that's what he got the Nobel Prize for. Get your story straight.
Right, so this is where the thread dissentigtrates into accusations of conspiracy across all of the sciences.
In vino veritas.
Ahh yes. I am arrogant and not to be trusted, because I have called a spade a spade. I was only using you as an example, as your claims clearly represent a minority opinion with little or no scientific basis. I can't speak about HIV/AIDS research because I don't care about these things. If you ever come up with a theory of time or energy, though, you know where to post it.
I have no problems with people having backwards views on science. The problems come only when those people refuse to acknowledge expert opinion. I can understand how a person can be ignorant---these are difficult things to think about. But I can't understand how people can be ignorant to the point of debating with experts. This just blows my mind.
I would add that the veil of anonimity frees people to say what they want to without any consequences. If I go to a conference and make an outrageous claim, then people will remember me and know that my claims are bullshit. If someone makes the same statement on some discussion board, it's ok. It's all anonymous.
I heartily agree that science should be an aristocracy of sorts, but never a democracy.
This is an excellent term.
Have you seen the statistics that a third of Americans believe that 9-11 was faked?
This thread should be discontinued. It is not that the creator is wrong. I see allot of agreement. It is that this thread is a cesspool of "Look at this idiot". And "Can you believe what this moron said?
No socially public place can work like that. It will destroy this site without question to let this continue.
All such complaints should be directed in the form of rules that are enforced. All enforcement should be privately done. Only when an offense is repeated should it be made public and when this happens, it must not contain opinion but a direct statement of what the offense was and what rule was violated.
This type of thread will attract a different kind of person. One that is not social. One where no one can say anything. Why? Because you will find that you are becoming what you write about. You are based off opinion. You are attacking people that may deserve it, but not public degradation. Only a very limited and degraded personality is attracted to such a thing. Not to mention some people that will be attacked that may not be as wrong as others hope they are. Great minds on this planet are rarely recognized. Why? Because they think differently, and by definition, a great quality can not be gotten by being like all others.
Plz note that this thread serves a function of Justice. And Justice is important. You cannot function without it, but not by using it in this way.
Put yourself in their mind (yes, its a very small space and full of cobwebs, but do try). Why should they believe a supposed "expert" when they already know the supposed "experts" are wrong?
Never. Journal editors, conference chairs, and the like get a whole lot more votes than others. Crackpots: There is indeed something called "scientific consensus" that conspires to shoot down your elevated ideas. Unfortunately for you, the scientific consensus is ruled by fact.
Crackpots always like to bring up Einstein. They forget that Einstein's ideas were accepted so rapidly because the scientific consensus in physics at the turn of the 20th century was "our science has some very large outstanding problems". Classical physics could not explain the phenomena being observed by our improved ability to see the very big and very small. The scientific consensus today is that science is not f*ed up. Scientists today are primarily fine-tuning the science developed in the previous two hundred years. Doing so requires knowldge of the science developed in the previous two hundred years, and that in turn takes hard work and intelligence. Crackpots don't want to do the former and lack the latter.
I have seen high numbers, but never close to this high. Very scary if true. This one statistic captures the threat crackpots represent to society in a nutshell. Even worse, this one statistic captures the lack of critical thinking in America in a nutshell.
But not the crackpot threads?
This is post-modernistic thought run amok. Science is brutal; it is run by fact, not opinion. In science, all opinions are not equally valid.
Did you not read what I said? Take another look and you will kind my answer. I did not believe it would be complete without one.
Did you ever ask yourself why people had to be so brutal to each other? Sure the hard truth is the hard truth, but when did public slamming enter the learning process? Also, I never said all opinions are equal, they are not! But whether someone is talking about the next big power supply of the world or how to make a better pencil sharpener, there is a point where this forum is serving it's purpose and where this forum is being abused. These points can be recognized and pointed out so that they don't have to pollute this forum. Most people will abandon something when they see it is made up of crazy lies. So why permit people to be brutal? That looks more like a justified cave-man think. Welcome to the club of crazy nut jobs, do you feel any better? I doubt you learned a thing or even realize you are just like the crazy people you accuse. This is the product of this kind of this thread, nothing, nothing but public slamming. Thus why this tread is damaging to this forum.
No they're not. At least one of the moderators does this just go get on my nerves.
No they don't.
No, "crackpot" is an epithet used to deny any non-mainstream idea.
I take it you've never heard of the "book."
I think you're a bit off the beam here.
The "crackpot" is often right.
It is certainly not my intention to be anti-social or brutal with this thread, however, I do feel that there is a general reluctance by many here in this forum and in America to acknowledge the opinions of experts. I also see absolutely no harm in exposing anti-scientific thought for what it is.
This is an actual exchange in this forum. Me:"Your theory won't work for the following reason, and I have no reason to believe you unless you show me where my claim is wrong." Crank:"Well, my theory does this." Me: "That is probably a coincidence, because your theory doesn't describe reality, for the above reason." Lather. Rinse. Repeat. This conversation, as well as many others, show the utter disconnect between some posters here and anything that can be considered logic.
If someone wants to have an honest debate about, say, the successes and failings of general relativity, I have absolutely no problems. But if someone wants to start a thread with a title like "All of Science for the past 100 years is wrong and I am the only one with the insight to see this", I have a tremendous problem. Not only do these threads trivialize something that I have worked a significant part of my adult life to understand, they have a habit of festering and breeding ignorance.
I certainly don't expect anything to change just by me posting something that pisses a few people off. I just want to make the point that there are a lot of crackpots here, who are unparalleled in their ignorance of science. And the fact that someone could, for example, think that general relativity was wrong, but that global warming was right, completely blows my mind.
The word "cultural vandal" is an excellent term to describe the effect of these people. It's not that they necessarily destroy anything, but they just make the whole thing look bad.
Ben, to be honest, I don't have a thing wrong with what you are saying. I don't have a problem with you or what you are saying. This forum would be better off if you could have your way and most of the people on this forum would be grateful for it.
It is not you that makes this thread problematic. It is the fact that this thread runs like a line between sane and insane that many cannot see. I believe you can but this thread is filling with those that can't.
And since you mentioned me as a derogatory example, I am fitting you for a shoe up your ass. I hope you don't mind.
Size 12 hoss. And you better not come alone.
That's all you are, is a pair of big shoes and no brain, Mr. Man.
Having looked over what MetaKron was referring to, I will comment that he is within reason and the attack on him, however logical it may seem to you, is not right.
For ages, the official statement has been "HIV is believed to be the cause of AIDS" Thus there is nothing to place his claim as wrong. If you think he is wrong, then that is not fact, it is an opinion on the same level as MetaKron's opinion. And nothing will be gained in bad mouthing each other on a public site.
Well, Scott, I am all out of patience and tolerance with Ben's type. I have a limited supply of facts which are quite sufficient to disprove the HIV hypothesis on a level playing field, and this can't match the unlimited supply of deception, deflection, obstructionism, pettifoggery, bullshit, disruption, arrogance, and every other negative thing that the believers use. They have used their bullying methods so consistently that people don't even see what is wrong with it anymore. AIDS isn't the only thing affected by this, either. Good is inherently stronger than evil but evil can turn good's strength against itself. That's part of what Ben is doing.
Ben is just another type of crackpot.
well, you would think Ben has never been wrong.
Separate names with a comma.