Quantum shight

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

Please provide the evidence for how a thought (this sugar pill will make me better) results in a chemical change in the brain.

Wow. Just. Wow. :eek:

(And I hope the sugar reference was intended ironically)

nagirrac wrote: »

All QM interpretations are speculative, some more so than others. Where is the evidence for MWI for example, or the CI which effectively dodges the question.

The MWI was dreamed up when my mother was a kid. The CI was developed before Ardnacrusha was built, and Gribbin (my own favourite writer on the subject) reckons it has fallen out of favour for more than 30 years. But so what? That's the nature of these things. Our Earth has been around for an astonishingly long time (about what? 4.5 billion years?), yet it is only in the last 100 years or so that anything has lived on the planet that can even begin to grapple with the reality of how the universe came into being. And we are only at the beginning of that process of discovery.

Interpretations of what happened at the outset of the creation of the universe are inevitably speculative, and will remain so for a while yet. Analyses of what happened shortly thereafter are less so. At a point about a hundred billionth of a second afterwards we have a decent sense of what was happening, while by the time the universe was a millionth of a second old we have a very sound picture of what was going on as the formation of the first atomic particles took place. Considering that the events in question took place more or less 13.8 billion years ago and that we have to rely primarily on the equations (for the time being at least), that's not bad - the rest will follow over time.

It's not as romantic a story as the notions peddled in theist literature, but it is nonetheless fascinating. I doubt I will see the full answer in my lifetime, but future generations will. And why should we doubt that they will? It is humans who are putting their minds to work on finding the answer, and humans have the most powerful minds in this part of the universe. They must have - for the human mind is powerful enough to give life to gods, and where would those poor creatures be without us?

nagirrac

Deleted User wrote: »

Interpretations of what happened at the outset of the creation of the universe are inevitably speculative, and will remain so for a while yet. Analyses of what happened shortly thereafter are less so. At a point about a hundred billionth of a second afterwards we have a decent sense of what was happening, while by the time the universe was a millionth of a second old we have a very sound picture of what was going on as the formation of the first atomic particles took place. Considering that the events in question took place more or less 13.8 billion years ago and that we have to rely primarily on the equations (for the time being at least), that's not bad - the rest will follow over time.

It's not as romantic a story as the notions peddled in theist literature, but it is nonetheless fascinating. I doubt I will see the full answer in my lifetime, but future generations will. And why should we doubt that they will? It is humans who are putting their minds to work on finding the answer, and humans have the most powerful minds in this part of the universe. They must have - for the human mind is powerful enough to give life to gods, and where would those poor creatures be without us?

Gribbin is an astrophysicist and what you have described regarding the onset of our universe is astrophysics or cosmology. I agree Gribbin is a decent popular science writer but he is most famous for his "Jupiter Effect" predictions than any original work in Quantum Mechanics. I live on the San Andreas fault so thankfully his predictions proved incorrect, in that regard I have to place him in the same category as Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce, whose predictions also fell by the wayside.

Quantum Mechanics relates more to the here and now than the beginnings of our universe. It resists all experimental efforts to refute it and all intellectual efforts to interpret it. I would not be as confident as you regarding our ability to understand what QM is telling us, it may well be that it is outside our comprehension. Unfortunately for this species of storytelling apes, the limitations of our senses may not allow us see the true nature of reality.

Obliq

After reading all the comments since last night, I'm beginning to think a science book is going to be very specific and possibly not this woman's cup of tea at all at all. It definitely won't be tuned in to the vagueness of connecting the universe and searching for meaning in your life.

HOWEVER help is at hand! A godless philosophy book that helps you to question yourself and everything, and come to terms with "this is it, and then you die". My fella has a copy, and I had a look at it - could be just the thing for this woman, especially if she's into all that mind, body, spirit and the mystery of life and death stuff. I think this is a really nice little book, and very helpful.

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy
by William B. Irvine http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-good-life

One of the great fears many of us face is that despite all our effort and striving, we will discover at the end that we have wasted our life. In A Guide to the Good Life, William B. Irvine plumbs the wisdom of Stoic philosophy, one of the most popular and successful schools of thought in ancient Rome, and shows how its insight and advice are still remarkably applicable to modern lives......................

Readers learn how to minimize worry, how to let go of the past and focus our efforts on the things we can control, and how to deal with insults, grief, old age, and the distracting temptations of fame and fortune. We learn from Marcus Aurelius the importance of prizing only things of true value, and from Epictetus we learn how to be more content with what we have.

Finally, A Guide to the Good Life shows readers how to become thoughtful observers of their own life. If we watch ourselves as we go about our daily business and later reflect on what we saw, we can better identify the sources of distress and eventually avoid that pain in our life. By doing this, the Stoics thought, we can hope to attain a truly joyful life.

Beruthiel

I think everyone should read Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Maybe you could give her a copy?

Zombrex

This is a good, fun easy to read book about mumbo jumbo thinking and particularly the business that have grown up around it to take advantage of the gullible. I think as soon as a lot of people realize someone is making a lot of money of your "harmless" superstition they get a lot more skeptical and critical in their thinking.

It is a lot easier to read than a science book, but deals with the philosophical issues around a lot of pseudo-science and the tactics proponents of said pseudo-science use to justify their belief in it (topical for this forum the "We don't know anything therefore you can't prove me wrong" fallacy is dealt with)

HOW MUMBO-JUMBO CONQUERED THE WORLD: A SHORT HISTORY OF MODERN DELUSIONS

As an introduction to the author you might also want to point her to this Guardian piece he wrote in 2004

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/03/top10s.modern.delusions

Ultimately the most practical lesson anyone can learn is to question the motivations of the person telling you an idea. What do they get out of the idea being true, be it actually money or simply emotional or mental satisfaction or excitement, and could this be clouding their judgement. When you learn to start doing that with others you eventually turn the lens of critical analysis on yourself and start questioning the emotional and mental satisfaction you gain from accepting these ideas, and questioning is that in turn clouding your own judgement and pondering how would you know the difference.

Doctor Strange

This person is clearly seeking knowledge. So whack her over the head with a quantum physics text book until she understands the meaning of the word "quantum". I mean, if she believes stuff travels by energy, she'll sure believe this method will work.

PopePalpatine

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

This person is clearly seeking knowledge. So whack her over the head with a quantum physics text book until she understands the meaning of the word "quantum". I mean, if she believes stuff travels by energy, she'll sure believe this method will work.

Well, technically speaking, there's kinetic energy.

Turtwig

Sometimes it's not about understanding things precisely but just gaining a more appreciative insight to how complicated or nuanced something might be.

How to teach Quantum Physics to your dog is a a very nice one.
Also, you can never go wrong with Quantum Mechanics for dummies. But it's not great either.
There's also another one I can't think of it's a tiny pocket book written like a "Horrible Histories" but gives a reasonably good depiction of QM in a humours hitch hiker like fashion.


There's also the NewScientist Instant Expert series on Quantum Mechanics [Subscriber only]. It ain't half bad at all.

And if anyone wants a more detailed introduction to QM then the Oxford lecture series by Binney is a very good start. The textbook material and lectures are all free.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

<...>
A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy
by William B. Irvine http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-good-life
One of the great fears many of us face is that despite all our effort and striving, we will discover at the end that we have wasted our life. <...>

This is a key issue, well stated. The point is that many different systems will purport to give a worthwhile guide to life, but the problem in choosing between them is (to quote the Dixie Chicks) "I may get to the end of my life, and find out everyone was lying." No-one is an unbiased witness.

That's also why we can never really say the wrong approach is to follow a religion, no matter how loopy. If it keeps someone in a positive frame of mind for most of their life, then it's a good thing.

Beruthiel wrote: »

I think everyone should read Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Maybe you could give her a copy?

I've never read it, but I recall the TV series years ago. I find I'm put off by the quote ascribed to him that "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." That seems exactly wrong to me. If delusion is satisfying and reassuring, then it's worth persisting with. If it isn't satisfying and reassuring, then it will be discarded.

smokingman

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.I've never read it, but I recall the TV series years ago. I find I'm put off by the quote ascribed to him that "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." That seems exactly wrong to me. If delusion is satisfying and reassuring, then it's worth persisting with. If it isn't satisfying and reassuring, then it will be discarded.

....I hear Heroin is the same.

The Browser

See, I think a key problem is that she doesn't know how to recognize a good position from a bad one. It's sort of an "everyone's-opinion-is-valid" kind of problem -- one that is exemplified by a lack awareness of what critical thinking actually is and what it involves. I'm not sure that she'd be able to tell the difference in quality between a peer-reviewed book on quantum mechanics and Chopra's woo-woo.

I don't think Cosmos would perturb her. Maybe The Demon-Haunted World would be a better starting point....

Her problem seems to be a very widespread issue. I'm sure we all know lots of university-educated people who have heard of the concept of critical thinking and who have an idea that they know how to think critically; yet they can't spot a dodgy argument when it hits them over the head and puts its hands inside their pockets.

I don't know whether it's an intellectual problem, an emotional problem, or both. Why is woo-woo so frickin obvious to some people, yet others are completely taken in by it? Is it a case of a little knowledge doing more harm than good? I mean, if someone is educated but not a very deep thinker, and they read something like Chopra's stuff, which is clothed in respectable-sounding language, is it a lack of depth of thought that causes them to be suckered? Is it an intelligence-related problem? I honestly don't know.

18AD

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's also why we can never really say the wrong approach is to follow a religion, no matter how loopy. If it keeps someone in a positive frame of mind for most of their life, then it's a good thing.

Just no.

We can say that the loopy religion is a right appraoch for happiness if it brings about happiness. (Without impinging on others etc etc...)

We can also say that the loopy religion is a wrong approach for knowledge if it is bringing about misinformation and ignorance.

This anything goes idea is ridiculous. Obivously you have the freedom to believe what you want but that doesn't just mean anything goes, because anything simply doesn't go, within the remit of rigorous thinking.

It is both right and wrong in different contexts and for different reasons.

It is a complex issue. Yet I think that thinking correctly (not that there is "a" way to think correctly) is better than being happy at the total expense of accuracy. And I am going to try and help people find this because I think that that's a more ethical appraoch than not discussing anything and just saying you can think whatever you want. But equally I'm not going to start having in depth theological arguments with my grandad in his old age over his beliefs that he is content with. And that's why context is important and there are no easy answers in either direction.

Also, this anything goes idea completely ignores the social nature of thinking and of truth and places it squarely within the realm of the private mind rendering discussion pointless. I don't think that this is how people attain happiness, by retreating into their inner fairground of ideas and whatever they please. It ignores the social aspect of people and of thought. It's the cowards way of not having to face being wrong.

Also, when you say if something makes someone happy that it's fine is somewhat misleading. Much of the time what someone finds to make themselves happy is a distraction and deleterious way of coping or ignoring a sore personal issue and therefore not going through a healthy process of acceptance and grieving.

kylith

The Browser wrote: »

I don't know whether it's an intellectual problem, an emotional problem, or both. Why is woo-woo so frickin obvious to some people, yet others are completely taken in by it? Is it a case of a little knowledge doing more harm than good? I mean, if someone is educated but not a very deep thinker, and they read something like Chopra's stuff, which is clothed in respectable-sounding language, is it a lack of depth of thought that causes them to be suckered? Is it an intelligence-related problem? I honestly don't know.

I know that in some ways it's intelligence related, in that people who consider themselves intelligent will 1) overestimate their actual intelligence and 2) will believe that they are too smart to be taken in by conmen. Perhaps they're just too trusting too; they find it hard to believe that a Doctor (never mind that they could have gotten their doctorate in acoustics*) would lie to them. Some of us are more jaded and cynical, I suppose.

It can be truly depressing though. The other day I had to convince my mother that her microwave can't damage her DNA, thanks to some fecker posting scaremongering nonsense on Facebook.

*Penn. State offers this course, apparently.

nagirrac

kylith wrote: »

It can be truly depressing though. The other day I had to convince my mother that her microwave can't damage her DNA, thanks to some fecker posting scaremongering nonsense on Facebook.

There is a myth that microwave radiation is not harmful as it is non-iodizing radiation (unlike x-rays for example). While a microwave oven should be safe, assuming the radiation is contained by the device, the jury is very much out on what is now a much more common source of microwave radiation i.e. cell phones. Regardless of the conventional wisdom that cell phones are harmless, the reality is that evidence has been growing in the past decade that prolonged cell phone use can be harmful to human health. Based on the evidence the WHO in 2011 clasified radiation emitted by wireless devices as "possibly carcinogenic".

The Economist ran an editorial in 2011 effectively debunking the idea that cell phone usage could be harmful to human health. This is a good example of what Zombrex referred to in his above post regarding the motivations of the person telling you an idea. What motivation could the Economist have in running a piece full of misleading information? Why the lack of any balanced reporting, considering there is mounting evidence of the dangers of prolonged cell phone use? Could it have something to do with the very significant advertising revenue publications like the Economist receive from cell phone companies?

These issues are explored in the attached response piece to the Economist editorial by the non-profit organization called MagneticHealth.Org. It raisies some interesting questions regarding how the media informs public opinion, and how vulnerable the media is to commercially driven bias. As the authors point out; "history is replete with failures to control highly profitable carcinogenic materials, from tobacco, to asbestos, until proof of harm is irrefutable".

http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/the-economist/

Turtwig

The Browser wrote: »

See, I think a key problem is that she doesn't know how to recognize a good position from a bad one. It's sort of an "everyone's-opinion-is-valid" kind of problem -- one that is exemplified by a lack awareness of what critical thinking actually is and what it involves. I'm not sure that she'd be able to tell the difference in quality between a peer-reviewed book on quantum mechanics and Chopra's woo-woo.

I don't think Cosmos would perturb her. Maybe The Demon-Haunted World would be a better starting point....

Her problem seems to be a very widespread issue. I'm sure we all know lots of university-educated people who have heard of the concept of critical thinking and who have an idea that they know how to think critically; yet they can't spot a dodgy argument when it hits them over the head and puts its hands inside their pockets.

I don't know whether it's an intellectual problem, an emotional problem, or both. Why is woo-woo so frickin obvious to some people, yet others are completely taken in by it? Is it a case of a little knowledge doing more harm than good? I mean, if someone is educated but not a very deep thinker, and they read something like Chopra's stuff, which is clothed in respectable-sounding language, is it a lack of depth of thought that causes them to be suckered? Is it an intelligence-related problem? I honestly don't know.

There are several reasons, but the general one that applies to everything is that none of us want to accept or believe that we're being irrational about something. There is an automatic assumption that once you become an adult your opinion somehow carries a lot a weight. That if something makes sense to you, it's unlikely the people who wrote the piece are being dishonest, mistaken or ignorant about the facts. This is why con victims can remain in denial about being conned.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

This is a good example of what Zombrex referred to in his above post regarding the motivations of the person telling you an idea. What motivation could the Economist have in running a piece full of misleading information? Why the lack of any balanced reporting, considering there is mounting evidence of the dangers of prolonged cell phone use?
...
These issues are explored in the attached response piece to the Economist editorial by the non-profit organization called MagneticHealth.Org. It raisies some interesting questions regarding how the media informs public opinion, and how vulnerable the media is to commercially driven bias. As the authors point out; "history is replete with failures to control highly profitable carcinogenic materials, from tobacco, to asbestos, until proof of harm is irrefutable".

http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/the-economist/

First of all the jury is not out in relation to cell phones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/apr/26/health-mobilephones

The worst scientists can say about cell phones is that since wide spread use has only be occurring for 15 years they cannot say what the long term effects are. Not that there are long term effects, but simply that they don't know because they haven't been around long enough.

Now on to exactly the type of stuff that I was talking about.

As a general rule if you are refuting a well regarded international newspaper with quotes from a website that looks like it was designed by a grandmother taking her first course in HTML (back in 1996), there is probably something wrong.

You link to a web site that was created by Camilla Rees, who really likes putting "MBA" after her name when talking about the health risks of electromagnetic fields despite the fact that her training is in business management, not anything to do with medicine. I guess she is hoping that the people she is selling to think MBA sounds impressive but don't actually know what it stands for.

She runs Wide Angle Health, a "patient advocacy group" apparently and her current career choice seems to be going around America giving lectures about the dangers of "electromagnetic sensitivity" and then selling books about this to the people she has scared senseless, along with others who also sell information and "cures" to people who believe they suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (probably because she told them they do).

Or in other words, someone who makes a lot of money scaring people into buying her books and listening to her. And some what unsurprisingly the website you link to subtly brings you around to a page to buy her latest book.

Again just like the supposed link between cell phones and cancer, no one has been able to find a link between EMF radiation and the symptoms associated with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (which is basically a non-medical made up diagnosis)

That of course doesn't stop lots of "health advocates" making a lot of money peddling information to people who are genuinely suffering from undiagnosed symptoms and are desperate to know what is wrong with them.

* just read that Ms Rees believes she herself suffers from electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which adds another bias to her book.

nagirrac

I think there is a great distinction to be made between beliefs that are benign and beliefs that are dangerous, both at the individual and group level. I do think atheists tend to overstate the dangers of traditional religion, especially in today's day and age when materialism is the new religion. The whole question of spirituality and religion to me is a purely personal issue, actually a personal freedom issue. I am lucky to live in a country (US) which has a secular constitution and where freedom of religion and freedom from religion are protected. I always find it amusing when English "intellectuals" for example berate the US for its fundamentalism, while they live in a country which has a state religion, where the head of state is mandated to be a certain religion, and where religious leaders are undemocratically appointed to legislative positions.

The amount of "woo" we are subjected to from all quarters is staggering, with advertising in media by far the most significant and dangerous. I tend to view "New Age woo" as generally fairly benign, whether someone sleeps with a crystal under their pillow or reads a book by Chopra or Tolle is hardly going to do them much harm, and maybe some good. There's a lot to be said for living a healthy lifestyle as Chopra recommends and letting go of the past and not dwelling on the future as Tolle recommends.

Far more insideous and potentially dangerous to me are the beliefs that are foisted on people by large corporations and by the state, both of whom effectively control the media. At the end the day whose interest do they have at heart? People were told for decades that cigarette smoking was beneficial, and tobacco companies hid every bit of internal research and campaigned to suppress reports that highligted health risks. How many millions have died of lung cancer? The amount of dishonest labelling and advertising in the food industry for example is staggering, products full of preservatives, carcinogenic colorants, fructose, etc. are presented as having beneficial health value. How many millions are dying because of cancers brought on by crap food?

Broadly speaking we have far more woo to worry about coming from the sources that people tend to trust the most i.e. governments and the corporations that control them. Anyone who thinks such belief is a conspiracy theory needs to have a long hard think about it. Who was in control when the banking crisis hit Ireland? Who is in control now in Europe which is on the verge of another financial cliff? Who will end up as always picking up the tab for the reckless gambling of banks whose primary function in society is supposed to be a safe source of capital preservation and providing credit to credit worthy customers. An interesting belief / myth to question is "a bank is the safest place for your money", given the recent "solution" imposed on Cyprus. Is anyone so naive to believe the same solution would not be administered elsewhere?

We have to question all beliefs, regardless of personal bias. Everyone, whether they admit it or not, has a significant dose of personal bias.

Turtwig

Zombrex wrote: »

First of all the jury is not out in relation to cell phones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/apr/26/health-mobilephones

The worst scientists can say about cell phones is that since wide spread use has only be occurring for 15 years they cannot say what the long term effects are. Not that there are long term effects, but simply that they don't know because they haven't been around long enough.

Agree with all this, it's the next bit I'm a bit at odds with.

Now on to exactly the type of stuff that I was talking about.

As a general rule if you are refuting a well regarded international newspaper with quotes from a website that looks like it was designed by a grandmother taking her first course in HTML (back in 1996), there is probably something wrong.

You link to a web site that was created by Camilla Rees, who really likes putting "MBA" after her name when talking about the health risks of electromagnetic fields despite the fact that her training is in business management, not anything to do with medicine. I guess she is hoping that the people she is selling to think MBA sounds impressive but don't actually know what it stands for.

She runs Wide Angle Health, a "patient advocacy group" apparently and her current career choice seems to be going around America giving lectures about the dangers of "electromagnetic sensitivity" and then selling books about this to the people she has scared senseless, along with others who also sell information and "cures" to people who believe they suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (probably because she told them they do).

Or in other words, someone who makes a lot of money scaring people into buying her books and listening to her. And some what unsurprisingly the website you link to subtly brings you around to a page to buy her latest book.

Again just like the supposed link between cell phones and cancer, no one has been able to find a link between EMF radiation and the symptoms associated with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (which is basically a non-medical made up diagnosis)

That of course doesn't stop lots of "health advocates" making a lot of money peddling information to people who are genuinely suffering from undiagnosed symptoms and are desperate to know what is wrong with them.

This to me, smacks of poisoning the well.(See also this link.) You didn't really refute or even discuss any of the points made in Nagirrac's post. You just went on to go "Well this person associated with the website looks dodgy ergo the entire argument presented must be dodgy." She may very well be dodgy in more ways than we can imagine, or she might not be, either way none of it has any bearing on if what was said is accurate or inaccurate.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I think there is a great distinction to be made between beliefs that are benign and beliefs that are dangerous, both at the individual and group level. I do think atheists tend to overstate the dangers of traditional religion, especially in today's day and age when materialism is the new religion. The whole question of spirituality and religion to me is a purely personal issue, actually a personal freedom issue. I am lucky to live in a country (US) which has a secular constitution and where freedom of religion and freedom from religion are protected. I always find it amusing when English "intellectuals" for example berate the US for its fundamentalism, while they live in a country which has a state religion, where the head of state is mandated to be a certain religion, and where religious leaders are undemocratically appointed to legislative positions.

The amount of "woo" we are subjected to from all quarters is staggering, with advertising in media by far the most significant and dangerous. I tend to view "New Age woo" as generally fairly benign, whether someone sleeps with a crystal under their pillow or reads a book by Chopra or Tolle is hardly going to do them much harm, and maybe some good. There's a lot to be said for living a healthy lifestyle as Chopra recommends and letting go of the past and not dwelling on the future as Tolle recommends.

Far more insideous and potentially dangerous to me are the beliefs that are foisted on people by large corporations and by the state, both of whom effectively control the media. At the end the day whose interest do they have at heart? People were told for decades that cigarette smoking was beneficial, and tobacco companies hid every bit of internal research and campaigned to suppress reports that highligted health risks. How many millions have died of lung cancer? The amount of dishonest labelling and advertising in the food industry for example is staggering, products full of preservatives, carcinogenic colorants, fructose, etc. are presented as having beneficial health value. How many millions are dying because of cancers brought on by crap food?

Broadly speaking we have far more woo to worry about coming from the sources that people tend to trust the most i.e. governments and the corporations that control them. Anyone who thinks such belief is a conspiracy theory needs to have a long hard think about it. Who was in control when the banking crisis hit Ireland? Who is in control now in Europe which is on the verge of another financial cliff? Who will end up as always picking up the tab for the reckless gambling of banks whose primary function in society is supposed to be a safe source of capital preservation and providing credit to credit worthy customers. An interesting belief / myth to question is "a bank is the safest place for your money", given the recent "solution" imposed on Cyprus. Is anyone so naive to believe the same solution would not be administered elsewhere?

We have to question all beliefs, regardless of personal bias. Everyone, whether they admit it or not, has a significant dose of personal bias.

Any "woo" related to health is dangerous, as people often ignore or don't even look for serious medical diagnosis when they have a "it makes perfect sense" pseudo-science diagnosis.

Taking the topic from the above post, electromagnetic hypersensitivity would be a good example. Doctors agree that these people are actually suffering from real symptoms, but there has never been any evidence that they are caused by EMF radiation.

The link was made by people who came down with these symptoms and then looked for patterns to explain them. Or in the case of Ms Rees, who describes in an interview with the LA Times that she came down with symptoms after a new neighbor moved in and her "radiation monitor" spiked, panicking when you believe you are being exposed to something.

All of this self diagnosis and peddling of pseudo-science prevents people from seeking actual serious medical advice or treatment, and also contributes to them becoming stressed and panicked about the apparent health effects of these things.

Zombrex

Jernal wrote: »

You didn't really refute or even discuss any of the points made in Nagirrac's post. You just went on to go "Well this person associated with the website looks dodgy ergo the entire argument presented must be dodgy." She may very well be dodgy in more ways than we can imagine, or she might not be, either way none of it has any bearing on if what was said is accurate or inaccurate.

The link to the Guardian refuted it, though refuting it wasn't the central point. I then moved on to the motivations she might have for presenting a narrative contrary to the evidence. And unsurprisingly it turns out she has a strong interest in presenting the dangers of EMF radiation as a real thing. The idea that the biased Economist was being refuted by this balanced website was silly.

King Mob

Zombrex wrote: »

The link to the Guardian refuted it. I then moved on to the motivations she might have for presenting a narrative contrary to the evidence. And unsurprisingly it turns out she has a strong interest in presenting the dangers of EMF radiation as a real thing.

Which are the same reasons that nagirrac says we should reject stuff from actual science.
The main difference is that actual science has stuff like peer review and oversight while the quackery and junk science he likes to latch onto does not.

Zombrex

King Mob wrote: »

Which are the same reasons that nagirrac says we should reject stuff from actual science.
The main difference is that actual science has stuff like peer review and oversight while the quackery and junk science he likes to latch onto does not.

And the actual science is required to both try and avoid and declare conflicts of interest. For example funding to science should, and mostly is, independent of the results of the scientific research.

It would be very correct for you, me, nagirrac, the Economist, the government, etc to be very skeptical of research into the safety of mobile phones funded by Motorola or HTC. I work in IT and I am constantly sent reports from made up groups about how amazing such and such product is, or how damaging such and such software is. You always have to dig around to find out what this group is and who funds it (and 90% of the time it turns out to be Microsoft )

There is this narrative that has crept into pseudo-science circles of the lone advocate/scientist/maverick fighting the good fight against evil powerful business and interests. Big Business/Big Science/Big Pharma says he is wrong, but what do they have to hide!

Occasionally this actually turns out to be the case. But the majority of the time what is actually happening is people are playing on this narrative to self-promote themselves under the idea that people instinctively trust and route for the "little-guy", even if what the little guy is saying cannot be supported by evidence or research (which of course is because all contrary evidence is produced by the biased corporations and governments).

The point isn't that these people are wrong (though it turns out mostly that they are), it is that they have as much self interest in promoting a particular concept or narrative as the corporations they complain about. People should be as skeptical, if not more skeptical, of these people than businesses (as businesses at least have to abide by industry regulations).

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

First of all the jury is not out in relation to cell phones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/apr/26/health-mobilephones

The worst scientists can say about cell phones is that since wide spread use has only be occurring for 15 years they cannot say what the long term effects are. Not that there are long term effects, but simply that they don't know because they haven't been around long enough.


That of course doesn't stop lots of "health advocates" making a lot of money peddling information to people who are genuinely suffering from undiagnosed symptoms and are desperate to know what is wrong with them.

So, your argument is that Polly from the Guardian is a more credible source? Hilarious. The Guardian article discusses one potential issue, brain tumors, where I agree there is little conclusive data, although a few studies are very worrying (Dr. Hardell, Orebro University, Sweden). As always it takes considerable time for conclusive data to emerge.

What does the quality of the website have to do with anything? This has to do with how much funding the organization has and how much they can afford to spend in getting their message out. Should we just believe those that have more glossy pictures and better software engineers? Your response is basically an attack piece against the organization in question.

Do you honestly trust corporations and governments when billions in profits are at stake to always tell you the truth? Personally I do not, and am thankful we have people who are willing to do the hard slog to protect consumers.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

So, your argument is that Polly from the Guardian is a more credible source?

Well yes, obviously. "Polly from the Guardian" writes for an international paper, she has editors and fact checkers and an entire legal team behind her.

Ms Rees has a personal webpage that is primarily designed to sell her book about the thing she is warning you about.

nagirrac wrote: »

What does the quality of the website have to do with anything?

It speaks to the seriousness of the group presenting the information.

nagirrac wrote: »

This has to do with how much funding the organization has and how much they can afford to spend in getting their message out. Should we just believe those that have more glossy pictures and better software engineers?

You shouldn't just believe anyone. You should though be a bit more skeptical than you are being of information you came across on the Internet. The mere fact that it exists on the Internet means nothing, anyone can make a web page and anyone can present anything they like on it.

nagirrac wrote: »

Your response is basically an attack piece against the organization in question.

Weren't you just attacking the Economist and the Guardian, preferring to get your information from the personal website of a woman self publishing her own book?

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you honestly trust corporations and governments when billions in profits are at stake to always tell you the truth?

No.

Do you honestly trust individuals when thousands in profits are at stake to always tell you the truth?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you honestly trust individuals when thousands in profits are at stake to always tell you the truth?

No.. and you have completly misrepresented what I posted and the reasons for posting it. If this was one individual, yes, I would be highly skeptical, but if you had bothered to check the site rather than just how poor it looks to an IT professional, you would have seen quite a number of scientists and medical professionals involved with the organization and many more who had signed the article in question. In your haste to rubbish the author, with her inferior MBA no less, you missed that.

I posted the article to highlight all sources of information are questionable, in particular the popular media which is controlled by vested interests. Yes, you have to sift through the garbage but the great benefit of the internet is the flow of information from multiple sources.

I actually have no strong opinion on the potential harmful effects (not just brain cancer) of long term exposure to RF radiation from cell phones, but based on my own research (not just from that one website) I believe the jury is out based on the scientific data. There simply have not been enough studies done as yet to be conclusive, but there are enough indicators to me for concern. Part of that concern is the popular media's acceptance of studies that show no harmful effects, but find reasons to discount studies that suggest harmful effects. Unfortunately we have been down that road too many times before which in my mind justifies my skepticism of the "don't worry about it" line.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

.... you would have seen quite a number of scientists and medical professionals involved with the organization and many more who had signed the article in question.

nagirrac wrote: »

I posted the article to highlight all sources of information are questionable, in particular the popular media which is controlled by vested interests.

It seems that what you determine to be garbage and what isn't is based purely on what you think the horrible monolithic atheist/skeptic movement disagree with.
I fully suspect had someone here posted the links you did, you would be ranting on about how terrible the evidence was and what fools we all were for believing it.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

No.. and you have completly misrepresented what I posted and the reasons for posting it. If this was one individual, yes, I would be highly skeptical, but if you had bothered to check the site rather than just how poor it looks to an IT professional, you would have seen quite a number of scientists and medical professionals involved with the organization and many more who had signed the article in question. In your haste to rubbish the author, with her inferior MBA no less, you missed that.

Oh god, you really aren't getting this are you.

How do you know any of these people actually signed anything? How do you know any of those people actually exist? What, you read it on the Internet, so it must be true?

You are criticizing the Economist and the Guardian, who actually have fact checkers, and to support his you are presenting a list of names you found on someone's personal website?

You don't see the issue here? You accept this information because it fits a point you had already decided to make.

nagirrac wrote: »

I posted the article to highlight all sources of information are questionable, in particular the popular media which is controlled by vested interests.

Apparently not this website thought ...

nagirrac wrote: »

There simply have not been enough studies done as yet to be conclusive, but there are enough indicators to me for concern.

What would you consider "enough studies" in order to reach a conclusive conclusion?

You appreciate I hope that the more studies they do the more times they will find cases where someone using a cell phone did actually get cancer? Just by the way sampling works.

nagirrac wrote: »

Part of that concern is the popular media's acceptance of studies that show no harmful effects, but find reasons to discount studies that suggest harmful effects.

Like I said, this is all about narrative.

You are in fact discounting the studies that show no harmful effects (of which the vast majority are), under the better-safe-than-sorry narrative, e.g. 98 reports come out saying they found not correlation between cell phones and cancer and 2 reports comes out saying they did. Which do you accept as accurate?

Of course that speaks nothing as to which studies are actually correct or not.

You are also presenting the narrative that those warning us of dangers are honest, while those presenting safety are dishonest.

If you believe that there are vested interests trying to present a case that cell phones are safe, why do you not also think there are vested interests trying to present a case that they are not?

Obliq

The Browser wrote: »

See, I think a key problem is that she doesn't know how to recognize a good position from a bad one. It's sort of an "everyone's-opinion-is-valid" kind of problem --

I don't know whether it's an intellectual problem, an emotional problem, or both. Why is woo-woo so frickin obvious to some people, yet others are completely taken in by it? Is it a case of a little knowledge doing more harm than good? I mean, if someone is educated but not a very deep thinker, and they read something like Chopra's stuff, which is clothed in respectable-sounding language, is it a lack of depth of thought that causes them to be suckered? Is it an intelligence-related problem? I honestly don't know.

I think you just said it yourself there Browser. I would say it's less an intellectual or emotional problem, and more of a methodological problem. If I was to come at Chopra's stuff, with a smattering of science and even LESS of religion, the main problem I'd have with believing it is that there are no peer reviewed scientific studies proving one single thing he says (I might get abuse for that blanket statement - just illustrating a point Chopra fans!). Without that need for proof, I'm sure I'd think myself around in circles trying to understand how the philosophy might fit my world view.

I have a need for empirical proof because I was brought up by two atheists to always look for that. It's not something I learned in school. Most people aren't educated to regard something as untrue before proven - afterall, most people are brought up to a religion I know there are a large number of folks up here who managed to think themselves out of religion and into logical questioning all by themselves, but in my experience most people (around me here at home) exist just fine without questioning anything. They just go along with their religious upbringing because it's the path of least resistance. At least your friend is trying to make another kind of sense of things, eh?! Did she come from a religious background originally?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

How do you know any of these people actually signed anything? How do you know any of those people actually exist? What, you read it on the Internet, so it must be true?

You are criticizing the Economist and the Guardian, who actually have fact checkers, and to support his you are presenting a list of names you found on someone's personal website?

So, you are now claiming that Camilla Rees is a fraud and is making up sources to support her claims? I am frankly astounded that you don't bother to do any research before making such outrageous allegations.

It is not just a list of names, there are interviews on the site with >10 scientists and medical professionals who are identified not just by name, but by organization. Are you seriously suggesting all this is fraudulent?

Have a listen to some of the testimony, you might actually learn something.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

smokingman wrote: »

....I hear Heroin is the same.

So the Sage has told us. "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."

18AD wrote: »

It's the cowards way of not having to face being wrong.

I'm afraid this is all a bit idealistic for me. At the same time, is there any conflict in seeing rationality as something people should be shamed into doing?

18AD wrote: »

It is a complex issue. Yet I think that thinking correctly (not that there is "a" way to think correctly) is better than being happy at the total expense of accuracy. And I am going to try and help people find this because I think that that's a more ethical appraoch than not discussing anything and just saying you can think whatever you want. But equally I'm not going to start having in depth theological arguments with my grandad in his old age over his beliefs that he is content with. And that's why context is important and there are no easy answers in either direction.

Grand, which also means you can't say "Just no".

Look, I'd guess we all understand what we're driving at. It's just hard to set it down straight. I'd suggest three strands to this.

There's the practical level, where if your home heating breaks down you don't send for someone to say prayers over your boiler.

There's the formal "rational" level, which we sort of know is built on sand (notwithstanding its apparent value when fixing boliers). "Rational" thinking doesn't live up to its sales pitch - whether we point to the wierdness in quantum theory, or Hume's problem or the Black Swan or Godel's incompleteness theorem.

There's the human motivation level. If your heating breaks down on Christmas Eve, and its minus 10, and you know you're fecked, being rationally aware of this doesn't necessarily help you get through the holiday period with any degree of happiness. Maybe religious faith would. If it does, it's doing folk a service.

And the motivation level isn't necessarily about delusion. Conceivably, your faith in Jesus will motivate you to phone every 24/7 plumber in the belief that God's not going to let your pipes freeze on his birthday. A rational atheist might give up after a half-dozen, illustrating the problem of induction.

I feel most of the debate is around the motivation level. That's what I think theists really mean when they talk about the problem of a life without purpose. They're not really making statements about how to fix a boiler, or about the extent to which humans can ever understand the physical world. They're making statements about what ethics (in the sense of motivational goals) will support a happy life.