Why Science is Awesome

hak · Feb 23, 2011

Angelo,
I wasn't making a cometary on you or your cats, or your love for Carl Sagan.. and his billions.. Rather the last line "Which is a really interesting thing to try." is a reflection on my own reality. As (as stated before) i was in a world of denile... ( not The Nile).

EVP's are a measurement of a phenomenon.. a "whacky" paranormal phenomenon.. which has been attributed to ghosts.. or something that has not been named. Is there a difference between this evidence and the evidence that has led scientist to believe there is a planet beyond pluto? Why is one acceptable and the other isn't?

Are you saying EVP's are falsified, or are you saying that ghosts don't make EVP's? Cause I'm not following. What in your mind is causing these recordings?

Angel of Ioren · Feb 23, 2011

I mentioned my "reality" just so that you got a sense of where I'm coming from.
With regards to EVPs, that's not what this thread is about but they're recordings of something. Some people think that they are voices of the dead. There's really no evidence to support that.

NTS · Feb 23, 2011

A couple of points, in addition to the excellent ones made by Stephen Dedalus.

Science and religion do not necessarily conflict, any more than science and poetry necessarily do. If scientists insisted that we can't talk about "Dawn with Her rosy fingers" because it's "really" just sunlight shining through atmospheric dust, or poets insisted that "Dawn with Her rosy fingers" was a physical description, then there'd be a conflict. Neither group does that. Unfortunately some people use science as a Trojan Horse for what are really philosophical and religious views, and some religions think books like Genesis are biology texts. Hence the conflict.

Religions do change over time, as well as old ones dying out and new ones appearing. The "truth" or usefulness of a religion is judged not by how well it describes physical reality (that's science's job), but by how well it enables its followers to deal with their perceived reality and/or rise above it. Many people's realities are awful, and often there is next to nothing they can do about them. And even the best human life ends in death.

jimp · Feb 23, 2011

EVP is very interesting. And I think that it IS observed phenomena that can be used in scientific study. But where does it go from there? How can you right away make the leap from the phenomena to a conclusion that they are ghostly voices? First you must reduce the chances that the phenomena is not something else -- especially something that has a more prosaic explanation. For instance random electromagnetic activity that is being filtered through the human ability to recognize patterns (especially in faces and voices -- important evolutionary stuff) -- simulacra. So how do you test out for these variables? Just a thought: record EVP in "dry areas", locations with little electromagnetic activity. And record in areas that aren't already assumed to be haunted. Ask people to guess what the EVP is "saying" without knowing the question beforehand. This is all scientific methodology.

Actually, I have had the idea that techinques for detecting "ghosts" should be used to detect what would be described as UFO activity. It is said that the reason why we can't study UFOs is because we can't predict where they will be. Perhaps there aren't really UFO hotspots, only hotspots for observation, for whatever reason. So I would like to see long-term monitoring in random remote locations. Not just video, but all the other recording devices for phenomena outside the ability for humans to detect on their own. I know Chris O'Brian is doing a long-term monitoring project in the San Luis Valley. What sort of monitoring is he doing?

hak · Feb 23, 2011

With regards to EVPs, that's not what this thread is about but they're recordings of something. Some people think that they are voices of the dead. There's really no evidence to support that.

I thought EVP's were associated with ghosts, I could be watching too much junk, I don't know, though, I have heard very distinct EVP's that answered people's questions.. so.. of course it all goes to source. And do you believe the source.
However, your comment helps me understand your own belief system, and perhaps your belief system is riddled with bias. Ghosts, however you define them, are not part of your belief system.

My cat has Epilepsy.. he just had a seizure.. so I KNOW he has epilepsy.. but no one knows why, the vet's don't, I don't. But the symptoms of the phenomenon (in this case epilepsy) are there.. even if his disease didn't have a name, he would still have the symptoms which have a cause.

In this case I think you have a belief system... largely based on science, but not completely.

Angel of Ioren · Feb 23, 2011

hak said:
I thought EVP's were associated with ghosts, I could be watching too much junk, I don't know, though, I have heard very distinct EVP's that answered people's questions.. so.. of course it all goes to source. And do you believe the source.
However, your comment helps me understand your own belief system, and perhaps your belief system is riddled with bias. Ghosts, however you define them, are not part of your belief system.

My cat has Epilepsy.. he just had a seizure.. so I KNOW he has epilepsy.. but no one knows why, the vet's don't, I don't. But the symptoms of the phenomenon (in this case epilepsy) are there.. even if his disease didn't have a name, he would still have the symptoms which have a cause.

In this case I think you have a belief system... largely based on science, but not completely.

Your poor cat. It's so hard when there is something wrong with a pet.

As to my belief system, I try to base it on logic and reason as much as possible. I'm also a firm believer in living the way that makes one happy as long as you aren't hurting anyone.

mike · Feb 23, 2011

Ive done some personal experiments with EVP, and while i did record some sounds that might have been words, the conclusion i came to was that it was pure chance that some of these sound bytes resembled words.
Pareidolia , was also a factor imo. For example i heard the words "captain scarlet", but i had ordered the box set of gerry andersons TV series of the same name that week.
I think i "heard" those words because of this association

tyder001 · Feb 24, 2011

I've been trying some to catch an EVP. So far I have not been able to. I don't do it very often and I use a simple Ipod touch or a MP3 player (although the Ipod lately) I'm, "skeptical" and like Mike :-)

I would more than likely look for a mundane explanation if I ever caught one. So, I try to be specific in the questions I ask. I find that although I have my own worldview and I believe in the soul I also am very skeptical of paranormal phenomena.

plumbbob12 · Feb 25, 2011

Trained observer-no offense, but I take it, that you do not work in the physical sciences? Don't be that guy. Science is just a tool that uses deductive and inductive thinking in the form called "the scientific method" or "scientific methodology".　 Humans are humans, and I have found small, petty, foul, child molesting scientist just as I have found the same in religion. Don’t get me wrong, I think that science is a great tool, but then again so is art, and music, and just about any human endeavor that makes us look at the world from different angles, and think outside the octahedra

The Pair of Cats · Feb 25, 2011

plumbbob12 said:
Trained observer-no offense, but I take it, that you do not work in the physical sciences? Don't be that guy. Science is just a tool that uses deductive and inductive thinking in the form called "the scientific method" or "scientific methodology".　 Humans are humans, and I have found small, petty, foul, child molesting scientist just as I have found the same in religion. Don’t get me wrong, I think that science is a great tool, but then again so is art, and music, and just about any human endeavor that makes us look at the world from different angles, and think outside the octahedra

I agree. Science is a great tool. It is limited to what its human users are prepared to put into it by way of money and effort. Don't get me wrong, science is responsible for some of the greatest achievements in Human history but it is also responsible for some of its worst.

hak · Feb 25, 2011

Science IS awesome.
No question about it.
However, science is a construct of man.
Man is flawed... man's questions and interpretations, can be and often are flawed. Funding of science is highly suspect in this day of the all-mighty dollar.
That's the sucky part about science, man's lack of vision. :frown:
But at the same time.. look at all the cool things we have due to the constant quest of knowledge. Like my apple computer. ♥

stephen dedalus · Feb 25, 2011

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Previously in this thread I’ve discussed the interim period between the first observation of a phenomenon and the mainstream recognition of that phenomenon. I’ve also discussed the difficult position in which interim-period witnesses to such phenomena find themselves, especially when mainstream paradigms refuse to recognize anomalous data.

Here’s a 60 Minutes segment on a topic that has been "junk science" for decades--cold fusion:

Watch Richard Garwin carefully. He is bound by his paradigm to dismiss any data that does not confirm the paradigm. He has no choice but to attribute anomalous data to observational error. His faith in his paradigm is so absolute that he knows the claims of Fleischmann and Pons are pseudoscience, despite the growing body of evidence to the contrary.

Watch Fleischmann at the end of the segment. This is a man who was tarred and feathered by the scientific establishment. He left the States in disgrace to essentially live in exile in England. He’s a joke to his peers, a junk scientist. He’s an interim casualty. Even if science gets around to self-correcting here (if in fact there turns out to be something to it), it will be too late for him.

Recently there have been claims from Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna and his partner Andrea Rossi that have further reinvigorated the debate about cold fusion:

Rossi and Focardi LENR Device: Probably Real, With Credit to Piantelli |

A hoax? Quite possibly. Observational error? Could be. But if not, will science self-correct, or will the a priori categorization of their claims as impossible preclude any authentic consideration of their work? They had to self-publish their findings online because no peer-reviewed physics journal would touch it. Will anyone give this enough of a chance to determine whether there’s anything to it?

Angel of Ioren · Feb 25, 2011

hak said:
Science IS awesome.
No question about it.
However, science is a construct of man.
Man is flawed... man's questions and interpretations, can be and often are flawed. Funding of science is highly suspect in this day of the all-mighty dollar.
That's the sucky part about science, man's lack of vision. :frown:
But at the same time.. look at all the cool things we have due to the constant quest of knowledge. Like my apple computer. ♥

I do see the point that you are getting at here, but observations of the physical world are not constructs of man. We figured out what gravity is and how it's caused, through science, but it would exist none the less.
Also, I take your Apple computer and raise you an iPhone. Not to sound like an Apple fanboy, but man do they make cool shit.

stephen dedalus · Feb 25, 2011

Angel of Ioren said:
We figured out what gravity is and how it's caused, through science . . . .

What causes gravity?
Isaac Newton first figured out the fundamental nature of gravity in the late 1600s. By unraveling the mysteries of planetary movement and Earth’s pull on its inhabitants, he described modern physics. But more than three centuries later, that’s still all we have: an understanding of the effect, with almost no grasp of the cause. Is gravity carried by an elementary particle? Is it some fundamental feature of spacetime we don’t understand? Why can’t gravity be reconciled with the better-understood quantum forces? All these questions remain unanswered. Many scientists think gravity must be generated by a massless particle, and have even dubbed it the graviton. But experiments to detect this entity (using a super-collider, for example) can’t be performed with current technology. “To generate the energy required to investigate a gravity particle, we believe, would produce a black hole,” says Harvard physicist Lisa Randall. “Space itself just breaks down.” Right now, mathematics is the best investigative tool for getting gravity to square with subatomic forces like electromagnetism. But making the math work requires dealing with exotic string theory notions like invisible 10-dimensional space. “We’ve always understood that gravity was different,” Randall says. “If we figure out why in the next 30 years, there will be another big, new question. I guarantee it.”
- John Hockenberry

from Wired 15.02: What We Don't Know

jimp · Feb 25, 2011

When scientists are having too much trouble getting their theories to square with their observations -- when complicated formulae requiring 10-dimensional string theory is necessary -- it's time for a paradigm shift to sweep all the old theories aside and replace them with a simpler theory that explains more observations better. The classic case of this is the Copernican versus the Ptolemaic solar system. Ptolemy had it worked out where he could account for the motion of the planets while maintaining the Earth at the center. But it was very complex and required retrograde motions which seemed anti-intuitive about how objects should move in space.

I have read about Plasma physics and cosmology -- and it seems to me that these theories account for more phenomena in the universe (both big and small, having the same properties at the atomic as well as at the galactic level). It presents an alternative to the Big Bang theory (which seems deficient when you read these Plasma guys). Plasma physics may very well explain gravity as well -- seeing it as an electromagnetic phenomenon. The problem is that these Plasma guys find it hard to get funded -- can't get telescope time -- can't build expensive apparatus needed to study it. There is a paradigm in place in cosmology, and pretty much until the big names in the field die, nothing new will take its place.

The Pair of Cats · Feb 25, 2011

Angel of Ioren said:
Also, I take your Apple computer and raise you an iPhone. Not to sound like an Apple fanboy, but man do they make cool shit.

Imagine where we'd be in the realms of universal, renewable energy if the same amount of effort, time and dollars were to be spent on it as that which is spent on the aforesaid Computers and iPhones or that which is spent on war.

Angel of Ioren · Feb 25, 2011

stephen dedalus said:
What causes gravity?
Isaac Newton first figured out the fundamental nature of gravity in the late 1600s. By unraveling the mysteries of planetary movement and Earth’s pull on its inhabitants, he described modern physics. But more than three centuries later, that’s still all we have: an understanding of the effect, with almost no grasp of the cause. Is gravity carried by an elementary particle? Is it some fundamental feature of spacetime we don’t understand? Why can’t gravity be reconciled with the better-understood quantum forces? All these questions remain unanswered. Many scientists think gravity must be generated by a massless particle, and have even dubbed it the graviton. But experiments to detect this entity (using a super-collider, for example) can’t be performed with current technology. “To generate the energy required to investigate a gravity particle, we believe, would produce a black hole,” says Harvard physicist Lisa Randall. “Space itself just breaks down.” Right now, mathematics is the best investigative tool for getting gravity to square with subatomic forces like electromagnetism. But making the math work requires dealing with exotic string theory notions like invisible 10-dimensional space. “We’ve always understood that gravity was different,” Randall says. “If we figure out why in the next 30 years, there will be another big, new question. I guarantee it.”
- John Hockenberry

from Wired 15.02: What We Don't Know

That's a great and really funny article. John Hodgman is fantastic and I totally recommend his podcast "Judge John Hodgman." However, you're totally missing my point. You're getting into the nitty gritty of gravity where I was only talking about the basics. We may not completely understand everything, but without science, we would not understand it at all. I was trying to point out that it exists regardless of us. It's not a construct of man. That's not what science is trying to do - it tries to understand the world around us.
I really don't get why so many people on this forum try to bring it down. There really seems to be an "us vs. them" attitude with some people that feel that something they believe in is considered pseudoscience.
If you know that something is real and it works, you don't have to care what science thinks. I do, but you don't have to.

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

The Pair of Cats said:
Imagine where we'd be in the realms of universal, renewable energy if the same amount of effort, time and dollars were to be spent on it as that which is spent on the aforesaid Computers and iPhones or that which is spent on war.

I agree with you on the war thing. Consumer electronics is another thing all together. Apple is a tech company and that's what they do. They make computers, they don't create fuel. That's something that the car manufacturers need to address. Apple, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc have their own purpose.

stephen dedalus · Feb 25, 2011

Angel of Ioren said:
That's a great and really funny article. John Hodgman is fantastic and I totally recommend his podcast "Judge John Hodgman." However, you're totally missing my point. You're getting into the nitty gritty of gravity where I was only talking about the basics.

I was just being mischievous, Angelo. I understand and concede the point that gravity's existence is not contingent upon human beings. But I also understand that we have no access to the whole, unmediated truth of what gravity is and that we have to settle for a tentative theory of gravity. That theory is a construct of human beings: it is assembled from observational data conducted through the use of man-made instrumentation, followed by the filtering of that data through the lens of an interpretive paradigm.

Angel of Ioren said:
If you know that something is real and it works, you don't have to care what science thinks.

You do if you're interested in the social or political implications of the fact that scientists are the cultural arbiters of truth, and that policy gets written and funds get distributed based on what they accept as real and what they reject as fiction.

Angel of Ioren said:
I really don't get why so many people on this forum try to bring it [science] down.

I don't think there's much to be accomplished by trying to bring science down, but I do think it's prudent to delineate the limits of any system of knowledge production, including science.

NTS · Feb 25, 2011

IIRC (I'm open to correction) Newton's main contribution was recognizing that a single force could account both for the motions of planets and the behavior of objects near the Earth, and describing that force mathematically. Earlier science thought these things were the result of separate phenomena. Newton may actually have been helped by his occult interests ("as above, so below") to thinking that a single force could be responsible.

trainedobserver · Feb 25, 2011

plumbbob12 said:
Trained observer-no offense, but I take it, that you do not work in the physical sciences? Don't be that guy. Science is just a tool that uses deductive and inductive thinking in the form called "the scientific method" or "scientific methodology"

How many times have I said the same thing in this forum? I just got through saying pretty much the same thing in posting #4 above

me said:
People often confuse the shortcomings of the human beings involved with science with science itself. Another absolutely fantastic thing about science is that it transcends the frailties of the individuals contributing to it through its capacity to reject, revise, and compensate for the human frailty of the individual scientist.

plumbbob12 said:
Humans are humans, and I have found small, petty, foul, child molesting scientist just as I have found the same in religion.

Moral failings aren't the point here. How in the hell did child molestation get in the conversation?

plumbbob12 said:
Don’t get me wrong, I think that science is a great tool, but then again so is art, and music, and just about any human endeavor that makes us look at the world from different angles, and think outside the octahedra

Science is about acquiring reliable knowledge. I thought the conversation is about the superiority of science as a means for understanding the world and constructing reliable world-views not its affect on the individual human's behavior involved in it. To my limited knowledge neither religious faith, revealed knowledge, nor superstition has produced a single vaccine, power source, or life saving device. Alternately through the application of the scientific method humanity has cured numerous diseases, saved countless lives, and relieved untold human suffering through the science of medicine and engineering,

Why Science is Awesome

Free episodes:

Skilled Investigator

Friendly Skeptic

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Friendly Skeptic

Paranormal Adept

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

a.k.a Philip Deane

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Friendly Skeptic

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

a.k.a Philip Deane

Friendly Skeptic

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Paranormally Disenchanted