Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

New threads (topics) in the Thunderblogs/Multimedia forum are only to be initiated by Forum Administrators. This is the place for users to comment on or discuss aspects of any individual Thunderblog or Thunderbolts multimedia post.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:00 am

Goldminer, meet Goldminer:
Goldminer wrote:Plasma filaments are observed in laboratory experiments, and Lightening, to name a couple of observations; unless you think the observations are figments of the observer's minds. Extending them to universal observations then, doesn't seem such a leap, does it now?

Allow me, please, to focus on a different part of the sentence of mine you quoted:

"Unfortunately, it's also the only such nuclide that is both created and destroyed, in significant quantities, by multiple physical processes known to be at work in the post-BBN era"
My point was the difference between "thought" or "maybe" instead of "known" or "for sure."

What's good for the Electric Universe/Goldminer goose (plasma filaments are observed in lightning, not "thought to be") is surely good for the Nereid gander (multiple physical processes [...] at work), is it not?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Goldminer » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:12 am

Nereid wrote:Goldminer, meet Goldminer:
Goldminer wrote:Plasma filaments are observed in laboratory experiments, and Lightening, to name a couple of observations; unless you think the observations are figments of the observer's minds. Extending them to universal observations then, doesn't seem such a leap, does it now?

Allow me, please, to focus on a different part of the sentence of mine you quoted:

"Unfortunately, it's also the only such nuclide that is both created and destroyed, in significant quantities, by multiple physical processes known to be at work in the post-BBN era"
My point was the difference between "thought" or "maybe" instead of "known" or "for sure."

What's good for the Electric Universe/Goldminer goose (plasma filaments are observed in lightning, not "thought to be") is surely good for the Nereid gander (multiple physical processes [...] at work), is it not?


How about I be the Gander? I'm not much into cross dressing!

If you can't see the filament nature of lightening, you most probably are blind to the filaments easily observed at all scales of the cosmos. Are you questioning the electrical nature of lightening? (Which usually connects to altitudes far above the stratosphere simultaneously with its grounding at Earth!)

You are pursuing a niggling argument here, I've already pointed out that the EU paradigm does not preclude "(multiple physical processes [...] at work)." They are not just exclusive to the "BBN" fantasy.

The "post-BBN era" is looking ever more clearly to be the Electric Universe Paradigm Era.

Back on my original point; Dave Smith, for example in the TPODS, is quite careful to use ""thought" or "maybe" instead of "known" or "for sure," as the quotes he uses from consensus astronomers are wont to proclaim. So feel free to state you mind however you wish. I'll feel free to point out your closed mindedness. Let the goose eggs be goose eggs.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Tina » Mon May 02, 2011 3:37 am

davesmith_au wrote:October 22, 2010 ~ Dave Smith

Whilst a degree of well-informed skepticism is essential in the assessment of any scientific theory, pseudoskepticism has become rife on the internet, and in the popular media. It is practiced by many who pass themselves off as the voice of authority on a given topic, when in fact they are self-appointed 'debunkers' of anything which challenges their own, often limited, views. [More ...]


Dave,

Recently I stumbled upon this thread on PhysicsForums. I dared not post a comment - it would start WW3 :o . Nevertheless the following is a real object lesson in the "pseudo-skepticism"

OP April 28 2011
intrinsic red shift
I came across this Wikipedia article ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift, that describes the idea of intrinsic red shift but the references seem old. What is the status of this idea today?


Pseudo-skeptic No.1 Replies:
Re: intrinsic red shift
Its regarded as a fringe (quack) idea in the field. Even at that, it has very little following and interest... It isn't really a coherent theory of anything, just kind of a general statement of disagreement.



Pseudo-skeptic No.2 jumps on the bandwagon:
Re: intrinsic red shift
"What is the status of this idea today?"
Dead outside of a fringe that most people consider crackpot.
Much more popular in the 1970's when we had no clue what was causing quasars, but since we have a good model for how quasars work, handwaving an intrinsic red shift isn't very popular.


http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=494333 for more of the same.
User avatar
Tina
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: NSW Australia

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby mharratsc » Mon May 02, 2011 10:27 am

Need a cute little nickname for kids like that, whom take all the stuff shoveled down their throats at face value and don't bat an eyelash, and whom display absolutely no scientific curiousity:

How about "astro-zombies"? o.O

I kind of like that... I think it's catchy! :)

Oh umm... before any 'orthodox' people decide to grief me about name-calling... read the quotes. :x

If they were real scientists, with a real philosophy, they would be able to argue the merits of each model and then go back to say why they think one is rubbish or applaud the merits of the other. THAT would be Science.

They (the two posters) were nothing more than human parrots... :P
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Maplewood, MN

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Goldminer » Mon May 02, 2011 11:56 am

Likewise this Blog: Galactic Interactions
Galactic Interactions wrote:" Su Min Tang and Shuang Nan Zhang did a careful statistical analysis of SDSS data to look for the effects of periodic redshifts in quasars, and for correlations between quasars and galaxies. In other words, they took the predictions of Arp and his followers seriously, at least for purposes of performing the analysis. I've already stated the result above: no effects observed.


Naturally they didn't find intrinsic red shift; they used a computer program to "find" the Mother galaxies. If you don't start with the ejecting galaxy, the intrinsic QUASAR red shifts are not going to be found. It takes an experience eye such as that of Arp himself to locate the active ejecting galaxy that is spawning the Quasi stellar objects that will exhibit the intrinsic red shift. Once you have the right initial galaxy, everything falls into place. Just any old galaxy "found" "close" to a QUASAR isn't going to do.

"In other words, they took the predictions of Arp and his followers seriously, at least for purposes of performing the analysis," sounds a bit like they were expecting not to find any intrinsic red shift.

.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Tina » Tue May 03, 2011 2:28 am

mharratsc wrote:.... "astro-zombies"?


I know the inclination is to form the above subjective conclusions...but we must remain objective or we are no better than those who call us crackpots.

The catch-cry today is : ASK QUESTIONS! Wonder if the OP will continue asking questions now that they realize that they have entertained a heresy. Probably not. :cry: So they'll never discover the pertinent facts about intrinsic red shift research such as Goldminer points out:

Naturally they didn't find intrinsic red shift; they used a computer program to "find" the Mother galaxies. If you don't start with the ejecting galaxy, the intrinsic QUASAR red shifts are not going to be found.
User avatar
Tina
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: NSW Australia

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Sparky » Tue May 03, 2011 10:51 am

mharratsc wrote:They (the two posters) were nothing more than human parrots.


That is a highly speculative assumption! Those posts could have come from a poorly programed robot , with a distorted and skimpy data base.


:D
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby tholden » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:06 am

davesmith_au wrote:October 22, 2010 ~ Dave Smith

Whilst a degree of well-informed skepticism is essential in the assessment of any scientific theory, pseudoskepticism has become rife on the internet, and in the popular media. It is practiced by many who pass themselves off as the voice of authority on a given topic, when in fact they are self-appointed 'debunkers' of anything which challenges their own, often limited, views. [More ...]


The term I'd seen was 'professional skeptic' but your 'pseudoskepticism' is better, good article.

I once noted on talk.origins and sci.skeptic that Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine appeared to be trying to CREATE skeptics by abandoning his fiduciary duty to his readers in sending Ellenberger to that 94 conference in Partland knowing he was personna-non-grata and would not be allowed into the lectures... Needless to say I view Shermer and his ilk as idiots and the claim they make to having the knowledge to 'debunk' every new idea which comes down the road as being similar to a claim of omniscience.

As to Wikipedia, you have to comprehend what you're dealing with. Wiki is a fabulous resource for any topic under the sun for which no controversy could plausibly exist and there are an ocean of such topics; for anything else, Wiki is worse than worthless. The nature of Wiki dictates that for any controversial topic, you will read exactly one side of the controversy as if that were the only side there was and anybody trying to break through the system to challenge such an item will be banned.
tholden
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby knomegnome » Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:07 pm

Goldminer wrote:Likewise this Blog: Galactic Interactions
Galactic Interactions wrote:" Su Min Tang and Shuang Nan Zhang did a careful statistical analysis of SDSS data to look for the effects of periodic redshifts in quasars, and for correlations between quasars and galaxies. In other words, they took the predictions of Arp and his followers seriously, at least for purposes of performing the analysis. I've already stated the result above: no effects observed.


Naturally they didn't find intrinsic red shift; they used a computer program to "find" the Mother galaxies. If you don't start with the ejecting galaxy, the intrinsic QUASAR red shifts are not going to be found. It takes an experience eye such as that of Arp himself to locate the active ejecting galaxy that is spawning the Quasi stellar objects that will exhibit the intrinsic red shift. Once you have the right initial galaxy, everything falls into place. Just any old galaxy "found" "close" to a QUASAR isn't going to do.

"In other words, they took the predictions of Arp and his followers seriously, at least for purposes of performing the analysis," sounds a bit like they were expecting not to find any intrinsic red shift.

.


Ah! I thought someone must have thought of this besides myself :) Yes, I too found it disturbing when I actually read through the paper and found they were doing exactly that.. they called the quantization found by Arp due to 'selection bias'.

Now, that's nonsense. What if you HAVE to select the parent to FIND the quantization? Did they do reverse analysis, that is.. find quasars in pairs with similar redshifts and try to locate the galaxy between them, then do the calculation? Etc etc.

Plus they smoothed out their results.. I haven't gone into it in too much detail.. that will take quite some time.. but I am smelling a statistical rat.
knomegnome
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:24 pm

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby jone dae » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:25 pm

Hello Scientists,
I don't know if this belongs here in this thread (or not), and have been frustrated by the administrators in starting my own thread. I sent messages to one or more of them asking how to start a thread or topic, and received no reply; so I want to share something here. Relevance: anyone can pretend skepticism to hide the fact that they just don't believe you (plural), or your data, experiments, results, and so on.
And I still see some of us saying, did we tip? That is, after reaching a tipping point, isn't something then supposed to fall one way or the other? And some still feel that it didn't work. I'm saying, they're wrong, it did work: with NASA. The far bigger problem/obstacle is and will be two things: the GP (general public), and the educational system. The public still gets told by their TV that asteroids are "icy balls" which nevertheless slew all the dinosaurs on the planet in the past, and that all kinds of strange things go into or come out of black holes, the very black holes that no one has ever seen, including with the HST. And the teachers still teach that, and the students still accept it unquestioningly. So, those are by far the two biggest hurdles facing us.

In the news from the various NASA sites, are there are many of them, I have noticed a gradual change in what they consider newsworthy... and worthy of building hardware for. NASA has at least a dozen satellites in orbit now, that are obviously, that is, clearly there to determine if the "claims" of the EU/Plasma scientists are testable, and worth testing for. And to see which ones they can prove or disprove with the results from those satellites.

In other words, the change is already here. NASA is avoiding awkward and silly public debates this way, by quietly putting satellite after satellite up in the sky somewhere in our solar system, to gather data which will give us much more information and knowledge about how the solar system works, the sun and all its planets, from an electric universe perspective. They have tacitly admitted our correctness on those points simply by building and launching those kinds of satellites at all, and so many of them.

Dr. Jone Dae.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby nick c » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:45 pm

and have been frustrated by the administrators in starting my own thread. I sent messages to one or more of them asking how to start a thread or topic, and received no reply
Hi Jone,
The administrators do not necessarily check into the forum on a regular basis.
anyway:
-Go to the appropriate board for your subject. example: Electric Universe - Planetary Science, New Insights and Mad Ideas, etc. etc.
-There should be a 'button' that reads "New Topic".
-click on it and that should bring the appropriate screen
-be sure to type in a title in the 'subject' heading as that will be the title of the new thread
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby jone dae » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:30 am

Thank you, Nick. As time allows, I'll use that option.

Jone Dae
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby jone dae » Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:47 pm

Hello Nick and everyone,
Since my previous post, I have noticed more evidence that we, all of us, really did succeed in tipping something over, as we wanted to. It is, the increased return of old posts, papers, and articles, by which the mainstream astronomers and the journalists who use them previously captured the imagination of the public, the subset of the public who reads and studies and watches videos about science and can understand science. Not surprisingly, since humans are persuaeded most by images, they have included 'period' photos so that people can believe in them again. For example, a photo of the big antenna horn which Penzias & Wilson used for their discovery of microwaves, which shortly later a different set of experimenters decided was the "cosmic background radiation" in their publications.
Have any of you seen the recent - this year - increase in the number of mainstream repeat posts, articles and videos which have appeared? Seems to me that they are afraid of losing believers.

-Jone
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Oct 15, 2014 9:06 am

Maybe it's just nostalgia? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby jone dae » Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:31 pm

Sparky, funny. Perhaps they are that sound asleep, that they're dreaming, isn't that what nostalgia is? But to this observer, it seems that they know their hold on the public mind is challenged, and are, as it were, firing back.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

PreviousNext

Return to Thunderblogs/Multimedia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests