Common Room

williamgrogan

This thread is not a thread. Sorry, I’m just getting philosophical.

This is a “general comments thread”. If anything gets beyond a few posts then whoever started the sequence of posts should start a specific thread or stop posting to it.

Maybe posters who are reluctant to start a thread might post their comments & opinions here.

e.g.

“In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution.”

williamgrogan

Christy Moore, the musician, (btw I'm a fan, especially of Moving Hearts) was one of the leading lights of the Irish anti-Nuclear movement 30 years ago. At the time the Irish government and especially Dessie O’Mally was considering building a NP plant in Wexford.

Christy said this the other day, "In the late '70's and early '80's", I was angry. It was fuelled by different things. It was fuelled by what was happening; it was fuelled by alcohol and sometimes by justifiable and unjustifiable anger."

I wonder is he still as opposed to NP?

williamgrogan

Reading the following from an anti-smoking newsletter, I realised that the anti-smoking laws up to now were all protecting middle class workers.

see www.smokefree.net

STUDY FINDS U.S. FOOD SERVICE WORKERS' HEALTH AT RISKFood Service Workers Still Exposed to Carcinogens at WorkBerkeley, CA -- A study released today finds that, of all occupational groups, food service workers are the least protected from secondhand smoke exposure at their workplace. Less than half of the nations 6.6 million food service workers reported having a smokefree place of employment, compared to over 75% of all white collar workers, including 90% of teachers."Smoking was eliminated from all commercial airline flights in the U.S. more than a decade ago because of concern for the health of flight attendants," said Dr. Karen Gerlach, a co-author of the study. "It's time we extend that same level of protection to the nearly seven million food service workers in the country."The study, "Disparities in Smoke-free Workplace Policies Among Food Service Workers," ranked 38 major occupations on the basis of protection from secondhand smoke exposure through smokefree policies. Researchers found that white-collar workers, such as teachers and health care providers, have the greatest protection on the job, while food service workers fall at the other end of the spectrum.Unfortunately, the same laws that provide for smokefree office workplaces and public places often neglect bars and restaurants, leading to a discrepancy in worker exposure to secondhand smoke. Even worse, the study found that the gap is not closing quickly enough. Food service is the fourth largest occupation in the United States, and the sector is growing. Millions of service workers are unnecessarily exposed to secondhand smoke."The tides are shifting," said Cynthia Hallett, Executive Director of Americans focted from secondhand smoke."The trend toward local smokefree air laws is rising. Currently more than 1,700 U.S. communities and several states have passed smokefree workplace laws. Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country, killing 53,000 nonsmokers each year, according to the National Cancer Institute. It is a leading cause of heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illnesses. Subsequent extensive research confirms that there are significant health benefits in communities with strong smokefree laws, including decreased heart attacks and a drop in smoking rates. Exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace is an occupational health issue, and smokefree laws are designed to provide a safe and healthy place of employment for all workers."Workers expect to bring home a paycheck," said Hallett, "not heart disease and lung cancer."The study also found that compliance with smokefree policies was very high; only 3.8% of workers reported that someone violated a smokefree policies. "This makes sense," said Hallett. "It is much easier to understand and comply with a 100% smokefree law rather than one that has sections or makes special exemptions."The study is published in this month's issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Authors include Donald R Shopland, formerly of the U.S. Public Health Service; Christy Anderson and Dr. David Burns of the University of California at San Diego; and Dr. Karen Gerlach of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

davros

Might be worth a smile...

How to debate Creationists without being boring

Make sure to read the comments

williamgrogan

here's a new con.......

http://www.bewellnow.ca/bowen.html

williamgrogan

The Marian F. program has an article on about network selling of a weight loss program. Another double whammy con. Probably illegal.

williamgrogan

Consumer Health Digest #04-16
Your Weekly Update of News and Reviews
April 20, 2004
Current # of subscribers: 9,000

FDA plans to increase enforcement.

Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Lester M. Crawford has announced plans to
step up enforcement actions against improperly marketed herbal and
dietary supplement products. In a recent talk, he stated that during
the past six months, the FDA has inspected 180 domestic dietary
supplement manufacturers; sent 119 warning letters to distributors;
refused entry to 1,171 foreign shipments of supplements; and seized
or supervised voluntary destruction of almost $18 million worth of
mislabeled or adulterated products. In March the FDA ask 23 companies
to stop distributing dietary supplements containing androstenedione,
which are marketed to stimulate testosterone and muscle growth but
have anabolic steroid effects in the body. To support its consumer
protection actions, the agency is developing approaches to
systematically review the evidence about the safety of individual
dietary supplements. FDA expects to evaluate the available
pharmacology, published literature and adverse event information, the
approach that formed the scientific foundation for FDA's recent
ephedra ban. FDA's rulemaking on dietary supplements containing
ephedrine alkaloids became effective on April 12th, shortly after a
federal district court declined to issue a temporary restraining
order sought by some sellers. [Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Lester M.
Crawford outlines science-based plan for dietary supplement
enforcement. FDA news release, April 19, 2004]



Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc.
NCAHF Vice President and Director of Internet Operations
P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105
Telephone: (610) 437-1795

http://www.quackwatch.org (health fraud and quackery) http://www.casewatch.org (legal archive under construction) http://www.chirobase.org (guide to chiropractic) http://www.dentalwatch.org (guide to dental care) http://www.homeowatch.org (guide to homeopathy) http://www.ihealthpilot.org (under construction) http://www.infomercialwatch.org (under construction) http://www.mlmwatch.org (multi-level marketing) http://www.naturowatch.org (naturopathy) -- under construction http://www.nutriwatch.org (nutrition facts and fallacies) http://www.ncahf.org (National Council Against Health Fraud) http://www.chsourcebook.com (consumer health sourcebook)

Editor, Consumer Health Digest http://www.ncahf.org/digest/chd.html
Publisher, Chiropractic News Digest http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/chd.html

Donations to help support Quackwatch can be made conveniently through
PayPal or Amazon via
http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/funding.html

williamgrogan

Here's a "law" I hadn't heard of.......

Dawkins's Law of the Conservation of Difficulty states that obscurantism in
an academic subject expands to fill the vacuum of its intrinsic simplicity.

davros

Dilbert

Lorddrakul

There's a very interesting theory that was mentioned by someone on the Fortean Times Board based on the work of Andrew Neuberg [spelling?].

Neiberg did the brain scans on various religous people while praying/meditating. He came to the conclusion that there were certain neuro-ganglions which are activated during these periods and these have been labelled (somewhat misleadingly) as the "god nodule". There has been some evidence that those people who have a messianic complex have hyperactivity in this particular area.

Newberg has suggested that religious fervour, though not denying its possibly divine inspiration, may be an evolutionary strategy. Primitive societies tended to reach critical mass at a low population level. To get bigger, greater cooperation was needed and motivation was needed. The evolutionary solution was for a person to be born into such a community that would have a messianic complex. They would preach some unifying idea that would unite and motivate the people into a common effort that would ultimately result in an integrated society with the cooperation levels to sustain a town or city.

Within a certain time, critical mass for this type of society would be reached and another messianic complex person is born. They preach a different idea and a scion develops that wanders off and seeds a new community and the process continues.

The whole thing is suggested as a theory of colonisation.

Now the evidence is thin and the reasoning stretched but I find it one of the most fascinating ideas I have come across lately.

Thoughts?

LD

williamgrogan

I am the only person who thinks these people are missing the point?

From the IT today

The Irish Cigarette Machine Operators' Association, which also said it was not involved in the legal challenge, said members have had to sack staff and cut back working hours due to a reduction in sales.

Obviously everyone wants people who sell carcinogenic products to lose their jobs.

williamgrogan

New York Times comment on RTE's interview of their President

here

Ifyou haven't seen the interview it can be seen on the web. She asked him about his God and to give him his due he ducked the question quite well.

williamgrogan

Here’s a cheeky little wine that you might like to try…..

Some of the most remarkable new Cotes du Rhone wine comes from Domaine les Aphillanthes, home of Daniel and Helene Boulle. They operate a winery in the tiny village of Travaillan, north west of Gigondas.

Daniel Boulle has recently begun biodynamic organic farming (which involves farming to the phases of the moon, night-time harvesting, etc), and he says the results have been dramatic.

”My son had terrible eczema and other problems, and after a lot of doctors we finally found a solution in a natural medicine, in a biodynamic type of approach. So I said, if it is good enough for my son, then I am sure it will help my vines,'' says Boulle.

full article

Myksyk

I know why they're there but does it annoy anyone else that we are subjected to the irony of psychic tarot card reader's ads at the top of this page!!!

Myksyk

By the way ... LOVE the new look Boards Boys!!!!

Myksyk

Came across the website of the Paranormal Research Association of Ireland here. Not terribly interesting as you might expect but was surprised to see in their forum a post from the Boards' science forum moderator, Syke, encouraging them to get a bigger audience at Boards to generate more interest :eek: .

Of course Syke may just be advertising boards.ie but why would a promoter of science be interested in encouraging the spread of pseudoscience? He's obviously free to do anything he wants but it struck me as a tad incongruous. After all the paranormal forum here on boards explicitly disallows any debate, criticism or disagreement with regard to the paranormal. Would that be a good place to discuss 'research' findings?

Anyway, this is just a comment really, stemming from my surprise at that post.

Syth

Well Skye is a moderator of the Paranormal board (you have to look at the bottom of the page... damn vB3), so it would make sense fpr him/her to promote it, but now that you brought it to my attnetion, it does indeed seem strange.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

Of course Syke may just be advertising boards.ie but why would a promoter of science be interested in encouraging the spread of pseudoscience?

What pseudoscience is he encouraging?

Myksyk wrote:

After all the paranormal forum here on boards explicitly disallows any debate, criticism or disagreement with regard to the paranormal. Would that be a good place to discuss 'research' findings?

I think that particular rule may have been prompted by the possibility that 'skeptics' criticising things they disagree with haven't had a good record in terms of presenting a reasonable, sceptical or useful contribution to those subjects. A discussion of the rules could probably take place there to clarify what is and isn't allowed if required.

Myksyk

Syth wrote:

Well Skye is a moderator of the Paranormal board (you have to look at the bottom of the page... damn vB3), so it would make sense fpr him/her to promote it, but now that you brought it to my attnetion, it does indeed seem strange.

Very strange.

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

What pseudoscience is he encouraging?

Research into supposed paranormal activity. Science, by definition, assumes natural causes for all phenomena and most certainly does not begin its enterprise with the express aim of proving that particular phenomena have paranormal or supernatural causes. This is the domain of the pseudoscientist who wants the kudos associated with the scientific method without a committment to even its basic mechanisms or underlying assumptions.

I think that particular rule may have been prompted by the possibility that 'skeptics' criticising things they disagree with haven't had a good record in terms of presenting a reasonable, sceptical or useful contribution to those subjects. A discussion of the rules could probably take place there to clarify what is and isn't allowed if required.

I doubt that very much Ecksor. I think it would be far more accurate to say that that rule was prompted by their being unwilling to engage in a debate or hear the more likely and reasonable explanations for their experiences. If we had a similar rule here (i.e. shut up or get out if you don't agree with us) we would rightly be severly criticised as closed-minded and arrogant.

If you're reference to 'skeptics' here is an allusion to the discussions on this forum then I think you are being unfair and your perception may be influenced by one or two individuals' contributions.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

Research into supposed paranormal activity. Science, by definition, assumes natural causes for all phenomena and most certainly does not begin its enterprise with the express aim of proving that particular phenomena have paranormal or supernatural causes.

Well, I don't know how pseudoscience can apply to something that is paranormal since the definition of paranormal seems to mean something which isn't scientifically explainable. Can pseudoscience clear that particular hurdle? Even if it can, I'm sure it's possible to investigate paranormal activity without claiming to be scientific at all. Also, one person's "paranormal" is another person's "unexplained phenomena". Perhaps "research into supposed paranormal activity" can seek to find a scientific explanation, or did you mean "research into paranormal activity" there?

I think you should ask questions first and jump to conclusions second here. I shall point syke to this thread to get his take on it.

Myksyk wrote:

This is the domain of the pseudoscientist who wants the kudos associated with the scientific method without a committment to even its basic mechanisms or underlying assumptions.

Jumping to this sort of a conclusion straight away will certainly not make you welcome in most places.

Myksyk wrote:

I doubt that very much Ecksor.

Well, I have only a vague recollection of the thread that suggested the paranormal forum, and I can't find that particular thread now, but that's the reason I thought was behind it.

Found it: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=151347

Myksyk wrote:

I think it would be far more accurate to say that that rule was prompted by their being unwilling to engage in a debate or hear the more likely and reasonable explanations for their experiences. If we had a similar rule here (i.e. shut up or get out if you don't agree with us) we would rightly be severly criticised as closed-minded and arrogant.

I'm not familiar with the running of paranormal, like many boards which cover subjects I find uninteresting, I only get involved when there is some trouble to be dealt with. When I went to verify that the rule you mentioned was in place, I found this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=177467

Myksyk wrote:

If you're reference to 'skeptics' here is an allusion to the discussions on this forum then I think you are being unfair and your perception may be influenced by one or two individuals' contributions.

Perhaps. I was thinking of these threads:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=144049

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=149496

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

Well, I don't know how pseudoscience can apply to something that is paranormal since the definition of paranormal seems to mean something which isn't scientifically explainable.

Firstly, pseudoscience alludes to that which has the appearance of science (e.g. research "with advanced technologies" as stated in the website) but is not science. Secondly, paranormal certainly doesn't mean something which is scientifically inexplicable, rather it is implies an assumption (usually unfounded and never dmonstrated) that something has a cause which is not natural. It is a term applied to anomalous phenomena most of which have perfectly 'natural' explanations. When science finds something it cannot yet explain it says 'we don't know', it does not assume that the cause is supernatural.

ecksor wrote:

I'm sure it's possible to investigate paranormal activity without claiming to be scientific at all.

How?

ecksor wrote:

I think you should ask questions first and jump to conclusions second here.

Fair enough. I await with baited breath a description of the research methodology, its results and conclusions.

ecksor wrote:

I'm not familiar with the running of paranormal ... When I went to verify that the rule you mentioned was in place, I found this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=177467

Spooky coincidence that this amendment was posted last night, but it is a welcome change.

Myksyk

By the way, looking at Syke's posting that you referred to, I see the following:

While we in no way want this forum to become a place for flaming or abuse of those who believe in the paranormal or those who have had paranormal experiences, there is always some good in discerning true paranormal experiences from events which may have other explanations.

I think this is an extraordinary statement from the science moderator. What does Syke mean by 'true paranormal experiences'? Are we to believe that someone has proof which categorically allows an experience they have had to be described as a 'true paranormal experience' as opposed to its being explicable in some other way. You see, to say 'those who have had paranormal experiences' is to proffer an explanation for the experience without evidence. You may have had a 'weird' or anomalous experience but to designate it as 'paranormal' means you believe you know why it happened and that supernatural forces played a role. Otherwise, you would just say you had a weird experience you couldn't explain. If Syke does indeed have evidence to back up his statement about 'true paranormal experiences' I think we would all like to see it.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

Secondly, paranormal certainly doesn't mean something which is scientifically inexplicable, rather it is implies an assumption (usually unfounded and never dmonstrated) that something has a cause which is not natural. It is a term applied to anomalous phenomena most of which have perfectly 'natural' explanations.

I was going by http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=paranormal

adjective: not scientifically explainable

Myksyk wrote:

When science finds something it cannot yet explain it says 'we don't know', it does not assume that the cause is supernatural.

I haven't gone through the paranormal websites or fora in detail, are they claiming to use scientific methodologies to prove that something is paranormal or are they merely trying to exhaust the options availalbe for finding scientific explanations? The thread I linked seems to suggest that it is the normal MO to see if science can explain something. There's a difference between doing that and then saying "This is paranormal" and saying "Science says this is paranormal".

Myksyk wrote:

How?

I'd imagine that one could enter into such investigations with all sorts of assumptions which aren't empirically testable and use methods of deduction that wouldn't conform to scientific method, which I thought you were saying anyway. If that's the case it's hardly a stretch to actually state that that is the case. Many/most people don't believe that scientific methods are the be all and end all of investigational techniques. By the same notion, if science fails in an investigation, then it's not standing in the best position to criticise someone for using another method of investigation or conclusion that it disapproves of.

Myksyk wrote:

Spooky coincidence that this amendment was posted last night, but it is a welcome change.

Since syke hasn't responded here I'd say there's a very good chance that he hasn't seen this thread. Spooky indeed. Some might call your coincidence a manifestation of some underlying supernatural influence.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

If Syke does indeed have evidence to back up his statement about 'true paranormal experiences' I think we would all like to see it.

I suspect that you'd require that evidence to stand up to scientific scrutiny, at which point the experiences no longer qualify as paranormal.

Myksyk

Ecksor, your source for a definition of paranormal is sound. However, I think you'll agree that the definition is poor by any standard. It obviously contains an unsupported assumption.

With regard to their methodologies, perhaps I am jumping to conclusions. They do claim they do research using advanced technologies, which appears to me to be using the language and tools of science without being science (i.e. being pseudoscience) but I grant that that is an assumption on my part.

I accept that there those who 'don't believe that scientfic methods are the be all and end all' but for me at least (and I thought for a scientist like Syke, hence my surprise and my original post) the scientific method would be the only reliable investigation technique. If syke is supportive of unscientific investigation of human experiences perhaps he could clarify what these methods might be.

Regarding the change to the paranormal forum ... I'm convinced it's supernatural.

But seriously, I will be interested to see how much respectful disagreement or debate will be allowed.

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

I suspect that you'd require that evidence to stand up to scientific scrutiny, at which point the experiences no longer qualify as paranormal.

The point is that they do not qualify as paranormal at any point unless demonstrated to be so. To say they are paranormal from the off is simply to express an unfounded belief or assumption.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

Ecksor, your source for a definition of paranormal is sound. However, I think you'll agree that the definition is poor by any standard. It obviously contains an unsupported assumption.

I think the definition is fine. What assumption and standards do you mean?

Myksyk wrote:

I accept that there those who 'don't believe that scientfic methods are the be all and end all' but for me at least (and I thought for a scientist like Syke, hence my surprise and my original post) the scientific method would be the only reliable investigation technique. If syke is supportive of unscientific investigation of human experiences perhaps he could clarify what these methods might be.

I hope you realise that I'm not claiming to speak for him here, I don't know what his take on this is. Regarding human experiences, do you use a scientific method for determining who the best available mate to you is? I'm sure you can agree that this is something that most of us investigate with great interest, but I don't know anyone who uses a scientific method (although amusingly I've seen one documented in popular maths books). Has love been explained by science? And if it has, do you agree that many would probably reject a scientific explanation? Perhaps you meant to restrict that to some of the cases under discussion.

Myksyk wrote:

But seriously, I will be interested to see how much respectful disagreement or debate will be allowed.

I'm less interested in that and more interested in whether the critics will be able to criticise in a reasonable and polite manner.

keu

pwshwshwshshshshh.......perhaps it's the beer but is just funny right now

Since syke hasn't responded here I'd say there's a very good chance that he hasn't seen this thread. Spooky indeed. Some might call your coincidence a manifestation of some underlying supernatural influence.

well...either that or its some sort of masonic influence...

anyways..as a regular of the paranormal board, I welcome any and all skeptiscism (particularly scientific analysis). how else are we supposed to discover stuff.

ecksor

Since the investigation methodology is under discussion here I decided to see if I could find any paranormal investigation methodologies and whether the assumptions that Myksyk refers to make any sense, but I drew a blank. What do the folks on the Paranormal board use?

Myksyk: Is there an online source for the practice of starting with the assumption of being paranormal?

keu

speaking from a slightly ineebriated position..I might confirm the methodoligy for investigation is based upon general consenses (senses being the operative word)

edit:although there is an amount of empiricil evidence to support the existance of "paranormal experiences", (experiences which are currently outside the realm of scientific understanding).
much of the evidence is either still being gathered and contemplated or incomplete as of current accepted reasoning. (and therefore fall under the category of "paranormal").....as of yet unexplained.

Syth

(experiences which are currently outside the realm of scientific understanding).

Could you clarify that? One could read from that phrase that (a) there are experiences that aren't currently known to the general body of science, or (b) that there are experience which cannot be explained by the scientific method.

(a) is grand, and quite scientific, as there are many questiosn unanswered and those are the questions we should look at,
(b) is dodgy, as the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world (and there is no other world).

keu

(a) there are experiences that aren't currently known to the general body of science, or (b) that there are experience which cannot be explained by the scientific method.

I would go for both (a) and (b)

remembering (b) is "that there are experience which cannot be explained by the scientific method." (or a=b)
I'm sure every scientist will tell you that is untrue.
(the creation of the universe for example)
There is no unanimous verdict as of yet. (might even be considered paranomal in that sense..and hence the continuous presense of beliefs in "God")

ecksor

Syth wrote:

C(b) is dodgy, as the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world (and there is no other world).

How do you justify that?

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

I think the definition is fine. What assumption and standards do you mean?

The word 'paranormal' is undoudtedly loaded. There are two assumptions entailed in its definition.

Firstly, the assumption is that the experience or event cannot be (note I say 'cannot' not 'is not currently') explained by science...this is an extraordinary claim ... How does one know that?

Secondly, there is an assumption that there probably is a supernatural cause. I think you would agree that this is included in the standard interpretation and use of the word paranormal. It is not, for example, necessarily seen to apply to something which science has not yet answered (for example, we do not say that certain quantum phenomena are paranormal or the activity in black holes is supernatural) but is used as if science can't answer it because it involves variables outside the scope of science; this is an unwarranted and unfounded assumption.

I think the appropriate term to be used is 'anomalous experience' which acknowledges that the experience or event is unusual but does not imply a particular cause.

These experiences are genuinely fascinating and there are many psychology departments who seek to explain these unusual human experiences rationally and scientifically. The Irish Skeptics recently had Professor Chris French from Goldsmith's college over to discuss 'anomalistic psychology'. Their research is fascinating and shows how unusual experiences are explicable from a naturalistic and scientific point of view.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

Firstly, the assumption is that the experience or event cannot be (note I say 'cannot' not 'is not currently') explained by science...this is an extraordinary claim ... How does one know that?

Is that not why they try to explain it by science, to test the claim?

Now, that would validate rather than verify the claim in my view, but what conclusion one ends up with is up to themselves to defend. I've seen the no less extraordinary claim that science can explain anything on these forums a few times.

Myksyk wrote:

Secondly, there is an assumption that there probably is a supernatural cause. I think you would agree that this is included in the standard interpretation and use of the word paranormal.

No argument here, after all if I'd pasted in a little bit more of that site I quoted earlier it would have said adjective: not scientifically explainable : SUPERNATURAL

However, I don't see the methods documented whereby one must necessarily enter an investigate with that assumption. Have you got a link for that?

Myksyk wrote:

It is not, for example, necessarily seen to apply to something which science has not yet answered (for example, we do not say that certain quantum phenomena are paranormal or the activity in black holes is supernatural) but is used as if science can't answer it because it involves variables outside the scope of science; this is an unwarranted and unfounded assumption.

I haven't actually seen a black hole or quantum phenomena myself or met anyone who has so I couldn't possibly comment on whether they are paranormal or not.

Why are you sticking to talking about what science would do when the argument should naturally be about the limits of science? I think this reveals your bias.

Myksyk wrote:

These experiences are genuinely fascinating and there are many psychology departments who seek to explain these unusual human experiences rationally and scientifically.

Are they promoting pseudoscience when they interact with paranormal groups or attempt to research their claims?

Syth

How do you justify that?

Right a defintion: The Scientific Method: A procedure for coming to conclusions. It is built up of theories and experiments. Experiements are when you trry to measure a thing. Theories are ideas about how to explain a thing, why did something happen, theories must be provable and falseifable, and they must be able to make prediction. Occams razor comes into play there. Plus if they require the existance of other things, then the theory must try to explain them. (ie "God did it", isn't a very good theory).

Now what other methods are there for discovering how our world works? Not many. (I'm actually drawing a blank here, can anyone provide any?)

Why do I think "the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world"? Firstly imagine there are things that the scientific method can't explain. In order for that to happen the phenomena must not be measureable (because if it's mesaureable then one can create an experiment to mesaure properties about it, and eventually start putting together a theory), so this phenomena is unmeasureable, so can it exits? If it exists there is no way to prove that it exists (since it's impossible to 'see' it), so occams razor comes into play, and it doesn't exist. Thus everything that exists can be explained by the scientific method.

Why do I think "(and there is no other world)". Firstly I don't mean world as in planet, more world as in universe/type of reality. Can there there be a 'world' seperate from our own? If so it either does or doesn't interact with our 'world'. If it does then one can expand our definition of world to include this new world, thus resulting in only one world. If it doesn't/cannot interact with our world, then it's a good as not existing.

ecksor

Syth wrote:

Why do I think "the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world"? Firstly imagine there are things that the scientific method can't explain. In order for that to happen the phenomena must not be measureable (because if it's mesaureable then one can create an experiment to mesaure properties about it, and eventually start putting together a theory), so this phenomena is unmeasureable, so can it exits? If it exists there is no way to prove that it exists (since it's impossible to 'see' it), so occams razor comes into play, and it doesn't exist. Thus everything that exists can be explained by the scientific method.

Well, can you tell me how the scientific method can be used to discover whether the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world? Up to here you seem to have used a philosophical argument to justify that, but since science either can or can't explain something then it would appear as if we have something that we can measure its success by.

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

Is that not why they try to explain it by science, to test the claim?

No. This is what scientists, anomalistic psychology and skeptic's groups do. Paranormal followers are often just hoping to document strange experiences which they then claim to be of supernatural origin.

ecksor wrote:

I've seen the no less extraordinary claim that science can explain anything on these forums a few times.

Yes. A position I have argued against myself. But this was in relation to particular issues. However, to say that science has difficulty explaining something is not an admission that a supernatural as opposed to a natural explanation is required. In other words, the other pserson is not right just because you may be wrong. In any event, the paranormalists, like the creationists, have no explanatory mechanism for these experiences except to say they are supernatural. Science, on the other hand, offers explanations for these phenomena consistent across huge bodies of accepted knowledge including physics, neurology, psychology, biology, sociology, etc. Science may or may not be able to explain everything but it at least explains a lot.

ecksor wrote:

However, I don't see the methods documented whereby one must necessarily enter an investigate with that assumption. Have you got a link for that?

It is the general position of parapsychologists that they believe in the existence of supernatural/paranormal phenomena and they are out to prove it, exactly like the PRI. Nothing wrong with that per se but they have produced no solid, replicable evidence to back up their claims.

ecksor wrote:

Why are you sticking to talking about what science would do when the argument should naturally be about the limits of science? I think this reveals your bias.

This is indeed my bias although I prefer to say it is my position, and one which I am happy to stand over and defend. Science is extraordinarily more successful than any other method of investigating our world. The argument is certainly not about the limits of science, it is about the extraordinary claims of paranormalists ... it is they who must convince me of their position, it is not my duty to prove they are wrong. Ever since Darwin's Brother-in-law Mr. Wedgewood set up the Society for Psychical Research in the last century they have singularly failed to come up with anything remotely convincing. In the meantime science has come up with reasonable and convincing explanations for any number of supposedly paranormal phenomena such as Out of Body Experiences, mediumship, hauntings, psychic 'ability' etc etc.

ecksor wrote:

Are they promoting pseudoscience when they interact with paranormal groups or attempt to research their claims?

No. If you are attempting to draw a parallel with this sort of activity and Syke's involvement then there is none to be found. Scientists believe that all phenomena have natural explanations. Syke did not express an interest in scientifically challenging the claims made. He apparently believes in 'true paranormal experiences' and wanted to encourage (until recently) unchalleged discussion in his forum.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

No. This is what scientists, anomalistic psychology and skeptic's groups do. Paranormal followers are often just hoping to document strange experiences which they then claim to be of supernatural origin.

I don't doubt that many or most do that, but the little I've found about investigators and indeed the thread on the paranormal forum indicating a change of policy suggests otherwise.

When I'm asking for links, there are none coming. Are you reading this offline or can I get a look at your sources, I feel like I'm at a disadvantage.

Myksyk wrote:

However, to say that science has difficulty explaining something is not an admission that a supernatural as opposed to a natural explanation is required. In other words, the other pserson is not right just because you may be wrong.

I thought I had more or less said that.

Myksyk wrote:

This is indeed my bias although I prefer to say it is my position, and one which I am happy to stand over and defend. Science is extraordinarily more successful than any other method of investigating our world.

I've not been as clear as I'd have liked on that point. I thought you were building up a case of the promotion of pseudoscience. You can't build a case of pseudoscience without showing that they're trying to be or claiming to be scientific, but you appear to be assuming that they're trying to be scientific and working from there. Now, I'm sure you can find examples and build that case, but then you'd have to answer the question I put to you in the initial post that asked where syke was promoting pseudoscience.

Myksyk wrote:

No. If you are attempting to draw a parallel with this sort of activity and Syke's involvement then there is none to be found. Scientists believe that all phenomena have natural explanations.

You're speaking on behalf of all scientists there? How do you know that they all believe that?

Myksyk wrote:

Syke did not express an interest in scientifically challenging the claims made.

I read and post on the star trek forum, I don't challenge the pseudoscience that gets discussed and I take a dim view of those who do, what does that say about me? By the way, I moderate the Mustard forum, you should check it out.

Myksyk wrote:

He apparently believes in 'true paranormal experiences' and wanted to encourage (until recently) unchalleged discussion in his forum.

syke wasn't a moderator of that forum until very recently, so the policy that the forum was set up with is hardly his fault if that's what you mean.

keu

... it is they who must convince me of their position, it is not my duty to prove they are wrong.

I personally don't feel I have to convince ayone of anything, if someone is seeking proof, let them find it themselves. (the reason why many attend PRAI investigations is to see for themselves, perhaps you might like to join them sometime)

Ever since Darwin's Brother-in-law Mr. Wedgewood set up the Society for Psychical Research in the last century they have singularly failed to come up with anything remotely convincing. In the meantime science has come up with reasonable and convincing explanations for any number of supposedly paranormal phenomena such as Out of Body Experiences, mediumship, hauntings, psychic 'ability' etc etc.

This is just untrue. There are as many institutes and scientific bodies still studying particular phenomena and many have achieved interesting results (remote viewing studies seem to be the most valid currently)
I would also add that the area of quantum science has grown at a pace in sync with the growth of understanding in areas of "quantum understanding" (psychic awareness)

[edit:is difficult to discuss this with a ten year old talking in my ear continuosly, but I think what I meant to suggest is that many "psychic experiences" can and will be explained under the quantum science platform.
I believe psychic awareness is quantum understanding in practice.

As for results of studies, I've already posted several at the paranormal board before, but I'll take a look later for some more if anyone would like to discuss the results.

GuanYin

Right, I've just come across this thread now and while I'm flatered to have 2 pages of spew dedicated to me and my moderating skills I feel obliged to respond and set a few things straight.

Of course Syke may just be advertising boards.ie but why would a promoter of science be interested in encouraging the spread of pseudoscience? He's obviously free to do anything he wants but it struck me as a tad incongruous.

First off, what and where I post has nothing to do with my moderating of science, least of all outside of boards.ie. In fact the only place that has any relevance to my moderating of the science forums is on the boards.ie science forums themsleves.

Secondly, that post was made around the time of the opening of paranormal forum and I wasn't mod then. I was trying to give the Paranormal community somewhere to discuss and boards more members. Enhancing both communities. I think it worked rather nicely

Thirdly, I and many other science professionals have a great interest in the supernatual. It usually comes with a desire to find meaning and explanation to things that have none. I have consulted with professional paranormal agencies on matters of science relating to their investigations and even have one informal publication linking our ancestors poor understanding infectious disease with recordings of lycanthropy and vampirism.

Science is about learning and understanding. There is obviously something going on when many people claim to have witnessed events that they cannot understand, and this has occured in a frequent similar pattern over the ages. Merely suggesting it is not what it seems is inadequate. Learning the how and why is ALWAYS a worthwhile pursuit.

This is the domain of the pseudoscientist who wants the kudos associated with the scientific method without a committment to even its basic mechanisms or underlying assumptions.

Simply going "thats pseudoscience, I don't deal with that" is an attitude that advances nothing and sets REAL science back.

The big difference between my pointof view and the attitudes expressed here, is that I am respectful enough not to lambast someone elses beliefs until I have a suitably plausable alternative myself.

Spooky coincidence that this amendment was posted last night, but it is a welcome change.

I have only recently inherited the paranormal mod-ship. I originally suggested paranormal as an alternative to Irish Skeptics which, with all due respect to Davros, is not somewhere I think is condusive to worthwhile scientific discussion.

I was trying to catch up with the goings on in a quite busy forum, when Simu, who is someone whose opinion I respect, pointed out to me over beers the other week, that debate was discouraged.

I consulted with T4TF before making the change, which is now in place. I hadn't seen this thread until about an hour ago, when ecksor, true to his word here, linked me.

I think this is an extraordinary statement from the science moderator. What does Syke mean by 'true paranormal experiences'? Are we to believe that someone has proof which categorically allows an experience they have had to be described as a 'true paranormal experience' as opposed to its being explicable in some other way. You see, to say 'those who have had paranormal experiences' is to proffer an explanation for the experience without evidence. You may have had a 'weird' or anomalous experience but to designate it as 'paranormal' means you believe you know why it happened and that supernatural forces played a role. Otherwise, you would just say you had a weird experience you couldn't explain. If Syke does indeed have evidence to back up his statement about 'true paranormal experiences' I think we would all like to see it.

*If* there are supernatural events, the way to confirm them, like all good scientific theories, is to try and debunk the original assumption first. When one exhausts all attempts at this and cannot debunk the original assumption, one must start taking the assumption with more credability.

I'm taking the positive approach in that statement because from the paranormal forums point of view, that is what is required. However, whether you take the negative or positve slant, the reasoning and methodology is the same. A closed mind is the worst thing any true scientist can have, and I see padlocks on some of the minds here.

Some might call your coincidence a manifestation of some underlying supernatural influence.

Strange but truely a coincidence.

accept that there those who 'don't believe that scientfic methods are the be all and end all' but for me at least (and I thought for a scientist like Syke, hence my surprise and my original post) the scientific method would be the only reliable investigation technique. If syke is supportive of unscientific investigation of human experiences perhaps he could clarify what these methods might be.

And it seems to me that the naivity here about who scientific method should be correctly applied shows that you don't know as much as you think. See my answer above about how it should be applied in the case of paranormal.

Firstly, pseudoscience alludes to that which has the appearance of science (e.g. research "with advanced technologies" as stated in the website) but is not science. Secondly, paranormal certainly doesn't mean something which is scientifically inexplicable, rather it is implies an assumption (usually unfounded and never dmonstrated) that something has a cause which is not natural. It is a term applied to anomalous phenomena most of which have perfectly 'natural' explanations. When science finds something it cannot yet explain it says 'we don't know', it does not assume that the cause is supernatural.

I think you are confusing the supernatural and the preternatural. The trick is to define if the supernatural truely exists or whether it is all preternatural. This can only be achieved (if ever) one case at a time on a case by case basis.

well...either that or its some sort of masonic influence...anyways..as a regular of the paranormal board, I welcome any and all skeptiscism (particularly scientific analysis). how else are we supposed to discover stuff.

Good, and so do I, but I warn you, the type of remarks and comments I see widely on this forum, and especially on this thread, with result in an immediate, lifetime, no questions asked ban on paranormal. You can debate and debunk with reference to the facts at hand without giving your opinions on the area, the poster or anything else that isn't part of the "scientific debate".

No. If you are attempting to draw a parallel with this sort of activity and Syke's involvement then there is none to be found. Scientists believe that all phenomena have natural explanations. Syke did not express an interest in scientifically challenging the claims made. He apparently believes in 'true paranormal experiences' and wanted to encourage (until recently)
unchalleged discussion in his forum.

What an incredible deduction you have drawn with out any facts or basis at all. I hope your scientific reasoning is slightly better. See points above. I though that this would be self evident to unbiased minds. They seem of scant ability here. (see the point below before apologising to me)

syke wasn't a moderator of that forum until very recently, so the policy that the forum was set up with is hardly his fault if that's what you mean.

Indeed.

GuanYin

Syth wrote:

Could you clarify that? One could read from that phrase that (b) that there are experience which cannot be explained by the scientific method.


(b) is dodgy, as the scientific method can be used to discover just about everything in the real world (and there is no other world).

This, I believe, is a common misconception. Science can narrow down explanations and eliminate many aspects of an assumption, but it is naive to think it can discover or prove everything.

Many of the greatest held beliefs in science haven't been proved at all. Theories and Assumptions made by science (often in physics, an area you have no small understanding of) are often incorrectly portrayed as facts.

As it stands, science's best hope is the sherlock holmes approach. It eliminates the impossible and holds whatever remains to be the truth.

Myksyk

What an appalling post.

The big difference between my point of view and the attitudes expressed here, is that I am respectful enough not to lambast someone elses beliefs...

Really Syke? Let's see what you say then.

1.

syke wrote:

...2 pages of spew...

2.

syke wrote:

A closed mind is the worst thing any true scientist can have, and I see padlocks on some of the minds here.

3..

syke wrote:

the naivity here about who scientific method

4.

syke wrote:

you don't know as much as you think

5.

syke wrote:

I though that this would be self evident to unbiased minds. They seem of scant ability here.

So, to paraphrase, you think we are naive, closed-minded, biased and scant of ability with a tendency to pour out spew!! ...oh yes and you want an apology!!!!!

I'm sorry but this is not respectful and I think I'm right in saying that you would ban anybody coming on to the paranormal site who used such ad hominem attacks and posed them as rational arguments. These are accusations about people's abilities and characteristics and are entirely unaccepatable and inappropriate. Before your contribution this thread contained no such arguments. It questioned people's ideas while accepting they had every right to do as they wished.

But to clarify, is this the case. If I go on the paranormal forum tomorrow and say that the people there are offering nothing but spew and are naive, closed-minded, biased and scant of ability. will you be perfectly happy with that contribution? I guess the following answers my question:

syke wrote:

...I warn you, the type of remarks and comments I see widely on this forum, and especially on this thread, with result in an immediate, lifetime, no questions asked ban on paranormal. You can debate and debunk with reference to the facts at hand without giving your opinions on the area, the poster or anything else that isn't part of the "scientific debate".

I would suggest starting by following your own advice. In the meantime I would ask Davros to have a careful look at this "respectful" contribution.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

These are accusations about people's abilities and characteristics and are entirely unaccepatable and inappropriate.

What exactly did you expect when you started to question the incongruity of his actions and suggest that he was promoting pseudoscience and judging him based upon what "scientists believe" ? Are you really that naive that you don't realise why this sort of uninformed and overopinionated arrogance and nonsense gives the ISS a bad name and makes people want ye to stay as far away from them as possible?

Asok

From what I can see Myksyk you have not been able to refute anything syke has said and instead are attempting to pick holes in his arguement by highlighting this "Abusive" opinions he is sharing on the content of this thread. I would have to agree with his statements and can understand him being a tad annoyed at two pages of people claiming he is a poster boy of pseudoscience all for trying to get a bit of traffic to a forum.

GuanYin

Myksyk wrote:

But to clarify, is this the case. If I go on the paranormal forum tomorrow and say that the people there are offering nothing but spew and are naive, closed-minded, biased and scant of ability. will you be perfectly happy with that contribution? I

Excuse me, but your whole contribution to this thread has been a personal attack on me and my ability as a mod, a scientist and my portrayal as a pseudoscientist. Without and justificantion or provocation.

Merely because I posted on a non-boards related website.

This is not the first time you have made comments about me, accusing me of being drunk while posting previously.

My responses, were not directed at one person but at the general level of conversation in this thread.

1. Spew: This is in reference to the illogical leap in judgement that because I promoted boards I am a "pseudoscientist" who isn't a fit mod (or so the implication went) for science.

2. Padlocks: I'm sorry, but the criticism had started on this thread about science role in paranormal investigation before anyone even made an argument. If thats not a closed mind, then what is?

3&4 Naivity: I saw at least three misinterpretations of the scientific method posted. I would suggest that that was naivity.

5. This is in relation to the portrayal in my role on Paranormal policy which has been soley to allow debate and discussion.

You basically came along and started a flame, all because I posted somewhere you don't like. Considering your past histroy in abusive personal attacks (you had a go at Meatproduct before which Davros similarly showed to be totally irrelevant to what you were suggesting) I sincerely hope that Davros actually takes the proper action here.

davros

I read this thread last night, starting with the one where Syke was mentioned. I had noted before that Syke is a practising scientist and had also proposed the Paranormal forum (hey, stranger things have happened). But I certainly didn't think it appropriate to discuss it around here. And I did notice that he has left this forum to its own devices (until being dragged back in) and I respect that.

However Syke had already seen the post and responded himself, including a few of the usual slurs against posters in these parts. But I let that slide since he was not here by choice.

Anyway, now I've been asked to step in and I have to agree with Syke. This is the second time an individual's beliefs have been raised for discussion by Myksyk. Last time I awarded a yellow card so this time it's a banning. Period to be determined.

Calibos

And on a completely unrelated subject.......http://www.hairloss.ie :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I wonder did 'Dr.' Carmody use this product for his cancer 'cure'.

GuanYin

davros wrote:

Anyway, now I've been asked to step in and I have to agree with Syke. This is the second time an individual's beliefs have been raised for discussion by Myksyk. Last time I awarded a yellow card so this time it's a banning. Period to be determined.

While my post my have slurs, I did relate them to the baseless and unfounded accusations and thinking present on this thread.

I see no way anyone who actualy took 10 minutesto look at the situation, could find any area where I took part in pseudoscience (I've made about 6-7 paranormal posts, most have been mod related, 2 were about a picture on ebay where I offered no personal opinion and the rest have been factual have been science jargon.) or where I stopped debating or scientific arguement on the paranormal forum, seeing as my 2-3rd post as th emod was to redefine the charter.

This aside, while I have no interest in posting in Irish Skeptics while threads like this and those cited by myself and ecksor are allowed to manifest unchecked, and the general consensus of reply is to attack the fine points and ignore the posters rationale (which any regular here has to admit is the case), I don't want to see one ofthe forums main posters banned if it can be prevented.

I asked for an apology by MykSyk and if he is willing to publically post an apology and full and detailed retraction of all is comments and statements above, that will suffice for me.

For those who actually think science and paranormal are conflicts, I ask two things. Who says that ones interest in paranormal has to be one of unfounded belief? And secondly, did noone among you watch the X-files with interest?

bug

well its all my fault.
The original idea behind the paranormal forum as far as I was concerned was to have a forum purely for believers or the paranormal. Those that didnt believe and wanted to contest views could bring up their debates in skeptics which was the basis for the forum. A haven for believers in the paranormal. I thought it would make some light reading and be boards.ie own little late night ghost story reading forum. I also originally wanted the forum to be private. I didnt see the problem with it not being centred around debunking "believers" opinions/sightings/experiences, as there is a boards platform for those views called skeptics, so its hardly not allowing people to voice their views really.
Anyhow I gave up trying to explain to people that the forum was for believers and gave up modding it for that reason and also because I didnt have the time to do it properly or indeed to put the effort into it.
As far as Syke is concerned I am also a scientist, a bad one, but by definition I have all the qualifications. Who is anyone to say what hobbies or beliefs are in contradiction, or to make a judgement on that. Its like saying a bank manager cant be into bondage, doesnt mean he isnt a good bank manager. It makes about as much sense to me. Even though you might find it "strange" that a suit wearing professional might wear scanty leather straps in another function. LMAO at this whole thread tbh.