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 Jarvamundo » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:55 pm

Thanks for the article, Dave. Well written, and helpful.

I must say having come from the old 'gravity-dark' school, as like many of us, it was very enlightening meet the thoughts presented by minds like Dr Scott and co, at the same time (having actually read the 'electric sky') extremely disappointing to see the pseudo-skeptic, and so obviously pre-jaded exchange from Bridgman n co, more disappointing from an apparently professional scientist.

Most here would've jumped at the chance to be an audience of Dr. Scott, let alone have the opportunities of those at that Goddard forum to explore these 'new' ideas in person.

Unfortunately since the exchanges its hard to bother exploring skeptical works of Bridgman & Nereid, as the obvious suspicions of motive are raised, further made bleedingly apparent by this article. In this regard i agreed with mharra, it's an obstacle to true scientific exchange.

I look forward to EU continuing to collaborate with true skeptics, and researchers as it can only help develop our understandings here. Although a discussion forum comes with obviously less formalism than published exchanges from professional scientists, this article also serves well for us to take on board in developing ideas on the forum (noted).

Bridgeman and Nereid are sincere problems to real science, and kudos to Dave for lending everyone more ammo towards shooting down these kind of obstructions to scientific progress.

I could not agree more. This article serves well for all audiences and participants of any intellectual exchange, inclusive of us.

thanks.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:12 pm

mharratsc wrote:Bridgeman and Nereid are sincere problems to real science, and kudos to Dave for lending everyone more ammo towards shooting down these kind of obstructions to scientific progress. :)

These two (and those like them) are 'spin doctors'... they are 'advertising' people (trained or not) and they are good at it, each in their own way. They have tremendous appeal to that large venue of people whom wish to appear 'scientifically literate' yet are not tremendously educated, and thus they hang on the words of people like these two, whom appear friendly and amicable to them... just so long as you swallow everything they say with no argument. :P

It's almost as if Bridgeman and Nereid are the paid security force for the gravity paradigm- they stand around and make sure that nothing upsets the applecart of their theories... especially rational objections! Sure, it's ok if you come up with some crazy off-the-wall idea like 'Celestial Sheep Grazing Hydrogen Off Nebula'- they will just smile tolerantly and say 'well, you know in Science, you should keep an open mind, but..."

However, provide an actual, rational challenge like EU/PC, and whammo!- the kid gloves come off and they are ready to duke it out to preserve their status quo. :\

*Edit:*
I stumbled upon a quote on Stephen Crother's site that he cites from Bridgeman, regarding Bridgeman himself:
Here is Bridgman's brief description of himself:

W.T."Tom" Bridgman
Maryland, United States
I obtained my doctorate in physics and astronomy in 1994. I currently work in scientific data visualization for the media and public outreach.


Seems I wasn't too far off the mark with my suspicions! ;)

I missed the references to me in this post:

Bridgeman and Nereid are sincere problems to real science, and kudos to Dave for lending everyone more ammo towards shooting down these kind of obstructions to scientific progress. :)

It's almost as if Bridgeman and Nereid are the paid security force for the gravity paradigm- they stand around and make sure that nothing upsets the applecart of their theories... especially rational objections!

mharratsc, may I ask you why you consider me to be a sincere problem to real science?

Also, what did you have in mind when you wrote that I stand around and make sure nothing upsets the applecart of (someone's, or someones') theories?

Finally, what theories do you think are mine?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby MrAmsterdam » Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:22 pm

Nereid, could you give me an example of an empirical experiment where gravity is used to bend light?

This would be helpful for me to understand the gravity based model of the universe.
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. -Nikola Tesla -1934
User avatar
MrAmsterdam
 
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Fri Nov 12, 2010 3:36 pm

MrAmsterdam wrote:Nereid, could you give me an example of an empirical experiment where gravity is used to bend light?

This would be helpful for me to understand the gravity based model of the universe.

I don't really know what you mean by empirical experiment, but if you're thinking of something like how Cavendish "weighed the Earth" - a labtop experiment involving ~100 kg, approximately spherical, balls of solid matter - then there are none that I know of. And the reason why not is easy to appreciate; the expected bending is far, far, far, far too small to measure, with any instruments available today (or expected in the next century or so).

The classical empirical experiment is the bending of the light of a distant star by the Sun, during the total eclipse of 1919. This empirical experiment has been repeated, possibly thousands of times, since. And not only with light, but also electromagnetic radiation with a wide range of frequencies (though x-ray and gamma-ray satellite-based instruments do not, yet, have the angular/astrometric resolution to detect it, in those wavebands, I think). To date, the most accurate measurements are those done with radio telescopes, using quasars instead of stars. If I recall correctly (IIRC), such bending has also been observed with Jupiter, an object with a mass ~1,000 times smaller than the Sun. Analysis of data returned by the highly successful HIPPARCOS mission incorporated the bending of light by the Sun in reductions (done, in fact, by three independent teams, using independently derived methods); without correcting for this, the HIPPARCOS results would have been garbage. The planned GAIA mission aims at an improvement on HIPPARCOS' astrometry of several orders of magnitude, to the point where the bending by the Sun will be detected all over the sky, and where that caused by a mass as small as that of the asteroid Ceres should be detectable.

More generally, this bending of light is an effect predicted by the theory of General Relativity (GR), a theory which has now been tested, in labs, in a great many ways. Perhaps the most interesting of which is one in which Steven Chu (Nobel Prize winner, currently Secretary of Energy in the US Federal government) and some colleagues measured a predicted GR effect, in their lab, at a level several orders of magnitude more accurately than any test before. Vying for the title of most interesting is another recent result, also predicted by GR, that clocks have been unambiguously measured to vary in their recorded times over a vertical distance as small at you height. Are you familiar with Clifford Will's summary of the many tests of GR? It's very interesting.
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby davesmith_au » Sat Nov 13, 2010 5:12 am

As the topic of this thread is what is it, this seems as good a place as any for the following post.

Nereid. If you had come here in good faith to find out more about the Electric Universe, then you would be accorded with as much help as is available from those on the forum.

[EDIT: The following three paragraphs and any subsequent (or previous, if there are any) mention of this incident by me is retracted here: viewtopic.php?p=42279#p42279 ]

I should think that if you wish to participate in our forum you should either retract or support with evidence your statement that Thornhill is a "well-known academic fraud". You made this claim without supplying any reference whatsoever. Such a libelous statement is disingenuous in the least, and without any evidential support is tantamount to fraud in itself, so seems rather hypocritical.

Please show those here where, in the peer-reviewed literature or in mainstream or any bona fide media sources, Thornhill has even been accused of academic fraud, let alone convicted of such an act and received so much attention in this regard as to be a "well-known" academic fraud.

Until you can supply such reference, I see no reason why anyone on this forum should give you even the time of day.

Of course, if you are not "DeiRenDopa" on the JREF forum then I apologize. I personally find the use of pseudonyms curious and unnecessary for those who wish to be taken seriously.

Cheers, Dave.
Last edited by davesmith_au on Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Retraction.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Lucas » Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:29 am

Can I ask if anyone knows if Nereid aka DeiRenDopa is one of the authors or editors of APOD?
"A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?"
Albert Einstein
Lucas
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:10 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:45 am

Nereid wrote:
MrAmsterdam wrote:Nereid, could you give me an example of an empirical experiment where gravity is used to bend light?

This would be helpful for me to understand the gravity based model of the universe.

I don't really know what you mean by empirical experiment, but if you're thinking of something like how Cavendish "weighed the Earth" - a labtop experiment involving ~100 kg, approximately spherical, balls of solid matter - then there are none that I know of. And the reason why not is easy to appreciate; the expected bending is far, far, far, far too small to measure, with any instruments available today (or expected in the next century or so).

The classical empirical experiment is the bending of the light of a distant star by the Sun, during the total eclipse of 1919. This empirical experiment has been repeated, possibly thousands of times, since. And not only with light, but also electromagnetic radiation with a wide range of frequencies (though x-ray and gamma-ray satellite-based instruments do not, yet, have the angular/astrometric resolution to detect it, in those wavebands, I think). To date, the most accurate measurements are those done with radio telescopes, using quasars instead of stars. If I recall correctly (IIRC), such bending has also been observed with Jupiter, an object with a mass ~1,000 times smaller than the Sun. Analysis of data returned by the highly successful HIPPARCOS mission incorporated the bending of light by the Sun in reductions (done, in fact, by three independent teams, using independently derived methods); without correcting for this, the HIPPARCOS results would have been garbage. The planned GAIA mission aims at an improvement on HIPPARCOS' astrometry of several orders of magnitude, to the point where the bending by the Sun will be detected all over the sky, and where that caused by a mass as small as that of the asteroid Ceres should be detectable.

More generally, this bending of light is an effect predicted by the theory of General Relativity (GR), a theory which has now been tested, in labs, in a great many ways. Perhaps the most interesting of which is one in which Steven Chu (Nobel Prize winner, currently Secretary of Energy in the US Federal government) and some colleagues measured a predicted GR effect, in their lab, at a level several orders of magnitude more accurately than any test before. Vying for the title of most interesting is another recent result, also predicted by GR, that clocks have been unambiguously measured to vary in their recorded times over a vertical distance as small at you height. Are you familiar with Clifford Will's summary of the many tests of GR? It's very interesting.

Here are some links to the material I referenced:

"Weighing the Earth" (Wikipedia)
Modern analysis of the 1919 total solar eclipse observations (arXiv)
HIPPARCOS (official website)
GAIA (official website)
Steven Chu's experiment (Nature.com, the Nature paper itself)
Clifford Wills' The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment (official site; this contains references to various reported results of "bending" observations)
Bending by Jupiter (Astrophysical Journal paper)
Time dilation measured over a small distance (paper in the journal Science)
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:52 am

davesmith_au wrote:As the topic of this thread is what is it, this seems as good a place as any for the following post.

Nereid. If you had come here in good faith to find out more about the Electric Universe, then you would be accorded with as much help as is available from those on the forum.

I should think that if you wish to participate in our forum you should either retract or support with evidence your statement that Thornhill is a "well-known academic fraud". You made this claim without supplying any reference whatsoever. Such a libelous statement is disingenuous in the least, and without any evidential support is tantamount to fraud in itself, so seems rather hypocritical.

Please show those here where, in the peer-reviewed literature or in mainstream or any bona fide media sources, Thornhill has even been accused of academic fraud, let alone convicted of such an act and received so much attention in this regard as to be a "well-known" academic fraud.

Until you can supply such reference, I see no reason why anyone on this forum should give you even the time of day.

Of course, if you are not "DeiRenDopa" on the JREF forum then I apologize. I personally find the use of pseudonyms curious and unnecessary for those who wish to be taken seriously.

Cheers, Dave.

Dave, may I ask if this post (which I am quoting) was made in your capacity as Forum Administator, or as an ordinary member (or, possibly, both)?

In any case, what was (is) my main purpose in registering, and posting, here?

A few seconds' with Google turns up at least a dozen references to "Nereid" in this forum; several, possibly most, refer to me (or so it seems).

I would like to understand what those who referred to me, in many of those posts, meant. Once that's clear, where there are misunderstandings etc I'd like the opportunity to clarify and address them.

As you say, as the topic of this thread is what it is, it seemed like a good place to start, and to use your own post to ask my first questions:
Nereid wrote:
davesmith_au wrote:Nereid is no better, she just keeps harping on about peer-review. Once you give her some peer-review, she says it is not relevant. Give her something relevant, and she says that publication is not sound. Give her something sound, and she says no-one's cited it...


I do? Where (and when)?

But in the whole fiasco, she doesn't offer anything of substance.


I don't? Can I post some links to posts of mine which (I think) do contain something of substance?


What have I written about Thornhill and academic fraud?

I wrote ~ten posts in a BAUT thread entitled "New research results from the "Stardust" mission"; specifically posts #64 to #73. The last two (#72 and #73) concern apparent, gross, misrepresentations which, if Thornhill had a formal position at a university, would warrant formal investigation by that university (at least, in my opinion; of course, Thornhill is not employed, in an academic position, at any university, as far as I know).

The document I examined, in some detail, can (still) be found here, on this site: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

Here is my post #73, dated March 5th, 2008, in its entirety:
Are Thornhill and Talbott being (intellectually) dishonest? Is there something fraudulent about the "The Electric Comet" document?

There's a prima facie case to say they are, and that there is.

Start with the fact that there's a copyright notice on the bottom of page 2.

The apparent source for at least one of the images in the document explicitly claims copyright for that same image (the one of asteroid Itokawa, see my last post), yet Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott make no mention of this fact. Maybe someone who knows copyright law could pitch in here – is claiming copyright over something that you know is already copyrighted by someone else illegal? Whatever, it sure seems, to me, behaviour worthy of some kind of censure.

"The Electric Comet" document, by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott, has the following at the bottom right of the first page:
POSTER PRESENTATION
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
33rd International Conference on Plasma Sciences (ICOPS)
Traverse City, Michigan
June 4-8, 2006

And here is the complete list of posters at this conference: http://www.icops2006.org/technical_p...ter_order.html.

Notice something(s) odd?

The Thornhill & Talbott document is not listed as one of the 2006 ICOPS Poster Sessions.

Nor does it seem to conform to the standards for posters presented at scientific meetings (including ICOPS).

Click on the link to "ICOPS 2006 Poster", in the following link, for an example of a poster which does seem to have been presented at ICOPS 2006 (it's a > 1MB PDF): http://www.gangolee.com/research.html. Note that the Ombrello et al. poster looks like what you see at scientific meetings, in terms of its format, use of attribution and references, etc.

So, we have a document purporting to be a poster presented at an international plasma physics conference … but it seems it wasn't.

We have a document claiming copyright of all material contained in it … but it seems at least some such material is copyrighted by others.

We have a document sharing the thunderbolts.info website with pages containing the same images (at least one) and where correct attribution (and credit) is given to those images … so Thornhill and Talbott are unlikely to have been ignorant about the need for credits (they are listed as "Executive Editors" of the picture of the day section).

And this prima facie misrepresentation (if not actual fraud) was brought to the attention of persons claiming to be close confidants or colleagues of Thornhill and Talbott some time ago … yet the document is still up on their website.

Once you have had a chance to check what I have posted for yourself ATKINS (and Luxor), I'd like to know if you condone this apparent kind of behaviour.


Subsequently I wrote several other posts on this topic (an example), but I don't think I made any assertions - concerning intellectual dishonesty or academic fraud - beyond what's in the posts in that BAUT thread (and I would welcome any references to posts that I wrote which did go beyond those).
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:58 am

Lucas wrote:Can I ask if anyone knows if Nereid aka DeiRenDopa is one of the authors or editors of APOD?

APOD (Astronomy Picture of the Day) "is originated, written, coordinated, and edited since 1995 by Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell. The APOD archive contains the largest collection of annotated astronomical images on the internet.

In real life, Bob and Jerry are two professional astronomers who spend most of their time researching the universe. Bob is a professor at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Michigan, USA, while Jerry is a scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland USA. They are two married, mild and lazy guys who might appear relatively normal to an unsuspecting guest. Together, they have found new and unusual ways of annoying people such as staging astronomical debates. Most people are surprised to learn that they have developed the perfect random number generator.
"

That's from the About APOD link on its main page.

If you click on the Discuss link, just under any APOD, you arrive at Starship Asterisk*, an internet discussion forum which runs on the same, or similar, phpBB platform as this discussion forum does. I, Nereid, was an administrator of an earlier version of that forum (when it ran using a earlier version of the phpBB platform); I spent the majority of my time dealing with spam and spamsters, but since that entirely voluntary task was completed (about two years' ago now) I have posted little (my last post was in March, 2009), and not even logged on.
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby davesmith_au » Sun Nov 14, 2010 9:13 am

Nereid wrote:What have I written about Thornhill and academic fraud?


I supplied a link directly to a post on the JREF forum, which I believe to be one of yours:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6525214&postcount=604

Quite simply, are you or are you not "DeiRenDopa" on the JREF Forum?

If you are, then you had this to say:

DeiRenDopa wrote:
Quote: [Haig]
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact’s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1 caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?
You might like to check your sources for this claim ... it's been repeated a huge number of times by EU/Electric Sun proponents, but there is no basis for the claim, from analysis of the raw Deep Impact data (AFAIK). Worse, as the original source of the EU/ES claim seems to be Thornhill, and as he is a well-known academic fraud, the constant repetition speaks volumes for EU supporters' critical thinking capabilities.

(My bold and color)

If you come to the opinion that he is an academic fraud due to one incident in megabytes of internet information, that's one thing, but to claim he is a "well-known academic fraud" is tantamount to a libelous claim and should be retracted.

BTW when I post as "Dave" I am posting as myself, when I post as "Dave Smith, Forum Administrator" I am posting in the capacity of Forum Admin.

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:34 am

davesmith_au wrote:
Nereid wrote:What have I written about Thornhill and academic fraud?


I supplied a link directly to a post on the JREF forum, which I believe to be one of yours:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6525214&postcount=604

Quite simply, are you or are you not "DeiRenDopa" on the JREF Forum?

If you are, then you had this to say:

DeiRenDopa wrote:
Quote: [Haig]
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
In 2005 Deep Impact’s 820-pound impactor collision with Comet Tempel 1 caused a flash/spark before actual contact. How was this possible?
You might like to check your sources for this claim ... it's been repeated a huge number of times by EU/Electric Sun proponents, but there is no basis for the claim, from analysis of the raw Deep Impact data (AFAIK). Worse, as the original source of the EU/ES claim seems to be Thornhill, and as he is a well-known academic fraud, the constant repetition speaks volumes for EU supporters' critical thinking capabilities.

(My bold and color)

If you come to the opinion that he is an academic fraud due to one incident in megabytes of internet information, that's one thing, but to claim he is a "well-known academic fraud" is tantamount to a libelous claim and should be retracted.

BTW when I post as "Dave" I am posting as myself, when I post as "Dave Smith, Forum Administrator" I am posting in the capacity of Forum Admin.

Cheers, Dave.

Thanks Dave.

So, who is Nereid?

Before I began posting, to Physics Forums, many years' ago now, I put a fair bit of thought into what I wanted my online persona to be. I'd read, and read of, quite a few horror stories of what happened to some people whose in-real-life (IRL) identities were, or became, and also learned that knowledge of one's IRL identity can shape perceptions of what one posts, big time. I therefore decided to keep my IRL identity private (to the extent that one can, online), and to let my online postings speak entirely for themselves. I carefully checked both the rules and accepted practices of internet discussion fora and blogs before deciding to register and post; a few require - either in their rules or in what the owner said - that one's IRL identity be declared in some way (beyond the declaration, required by US law I think, that one is over the age of 13), and I have not registered for any of these. Nearly all frown on sock puppets - some even make their use grounds for an automatic, lifetime ban - and the only sock puppet identities I have ever used were test accounts I ran, as administrator/moderator, to check on the behaviour or performance of the software (in all cases this was done so that all other admins/mods were aware of it, and agreed to it).

Your sentiment - "I personally find the use of pseudonyms curious and unnecessary for those who wish to be taken seriously" - is not unusual, particularly, I have found, among older people.

However, the internet has long since evolved past the point where a clear, unambiguous linkage exists between online personas and IRL identities ("On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog", Wikipedia ); in general, I have found that the younger one is, the more normal this lack of a clear link between personas seems. Indeed, I expect that quite a few of the Thunderbolts Forum members have several online personas/identities, some of which they wish to keep separate. Further, as you yourself have undoubtedly found in dealing with spam and spamsters, it can be quite difficult to confidently match an account in one forum with one in another, even for system administrators. In fact, Thunderbolts Forum member solrey concluded that JREF's Reality Check is Nereid (Reality Check later disavowed the link, in the same thread).

With this background in hand, the answer to your question is that Nereid is not DeiRenDopa.
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby davesmith_au » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:16 am

Nereid wrote:With this background in hand, the answer to your question is that Nereid is not DeiRenDopa.


In which case I unreservedly and sincerely apologise for any false assertions or offence caused by my thinking you were one and the same. Strangely, a lot of people get the same idea due to the similarities in posting styles. I'm not saying that in a backhanded way, just an observation which may explain why lots of people accuse you of things you may not in fact have done. If I've helped perpetuate the myth of Nereid = DRD (which I may have, having never seen a claim from you to the contrary until now) again, I unreservedly apologise and I thank you for helping to clear the confusion.

I understand the reasoning behing the pseudonym thing, and I wouldn't press anyone to change especially not knowing their personal circumstances, but it's something I still find a little odd. And I'm not THAT old! :lol:

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby mharratsc » Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:45 pm

A rather remarkable coincidence then, Nereid.

I also offer my apology for aiming my ire at DeiRenDopa at you.

Welcome to the Thunderbolts site :)
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: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby David Talbott » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:46 pm

Nereid,

To save yourself from the embarrassment of having made a false accusation, you might have queried me as to the two poster presentations I gave at the 2006 IEEE Plasma Sciences conference (ICOPS) in Travers City, Michigan. The request to give the presentations came from Anthony Peratt, after the official booklet had gone to press. I had just a few days to develop the presentations, but they were received very well.

One good reason to check this out before making the accusation is that no one in his right mind would falsely claim to have made a presentation at the event, particularly when his work is controversial and would naturally invite scrutiny.

As for copyright notices, it's a practice we regularly follow on the Thunderbolts site. Whether a hurried poster presentation falls into that category I'll let others decide. Let's just say it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over.
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Influx » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:33 am

I have just read the article, Dealing with Pseudo-skepticism in Astronomy, a single sentence immediately caught my eye.

"EU theory has nothing at all to say about Creationism, Intelligent Design, Atheism or Calethumpianism!"

Now, you might think this to be true, or even hope, but, IMHO, I think it is not so. Any theory that claims to explain the fucntion/s of the Universe, even if partially, must take a holistic approach to understanding all of our existence. All of humanities ideas, desires, fears and hopes. In all of Human endeavors.

Granted, science needs to be compartmentalized, as it is today, but, only to a certain degree. I think, that it is the present day Academia Elite's stance that science is naturally Anti-God, that has bred the current generation of Deity-phobes.

But, I hope that EU proponents realize, that their theory is not an island onto itself, but, if the evidence for EU is verified, EU will have staggering implication for ALL spheres of human life. Whatever they like it or not. EU, when and if it becomes "mainstream", it will transform, Metaphysics, Religion, Art, all forms of entertainment, especially sci-fi and much more.

The impact on all sciences will be dramatic, to say the least. Indeed the whole nature of human thought will be forever drastically altered.

After all, we are a part of this universe, any new (or old) understanding or insight that scientists gain must have a direct and profound impact on God, god, gods, demons, religion or the flying spaghetti monster. How can it be that we understand the universe, but not ourselves?

It would seem that the pathological dietyphobia of the standard model has carried over to EU a well.

As it stands now, science offers us no hope, as evidenced by the unscientific behavior of those who claim to be unbiased stewards of science.
Today is the yesterday of tomorrow.
User avatar
Influx
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:06 am

PreviousNext

Return to Thunderblogs/Multimedia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest