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 » Fri Nov 26, 2010 5:39 am

Jarvamundo wrote:Yes, seems you have much reading to do.

Nereid wrote:In terms of primary sources, what I have learned, so far, about PC/EU ideas is that, in the last half-century or so:
* Hannes Alvén (and some colleagues) published many papers, in relevant, peer-reviewed journals
* Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner have also published some such papers
* Wal Thornhill published one such paper (in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science)

... and that's it, so far as material which has been subject to at least some critical scrutiny by scientific peers (in this case, at least those well-versed in plasma physics) before being published.


If you have actually studied those mentioned names

Actually, I have done this, more than once.

For example, there are ~70 entries in ADS under "Peratt, A."; while many are not published papers (his book "Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology" is there, for example, and several book reviews by him), many are. Only a handful of those papers seem to have been cited by anyone, other than Peratt himself (and co-authors), and Thornhill. Interestingly, some of the paper cites are odd; for example "Implication of Activated Astrocytes in the Development of Drug Dependence", a 2008 paper, seems to cite a 1995 Peratt's paper!).
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: nit-picking explained

Unread postby Grits » Fri Nov 26, 2010 12:26 pm

Nereid wrote:Would you be kind enough to tell me how asking questions comes across to you as nit-picking?


I can help here, maybe it's the way you first suggest the presentation was never given, then you further question it after your suggestion is directly refuted, then you make the suggestion of copyright infringement coupled with requests for the information to be given to you for your review. I think that about sums it up.
Grits
Guest
 

Re: nit-picking explained

Unread postby Nereid » Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:07 am

Grits wrote:
Nereid wrote:Would you be kind enough to tell me how asking questions comes across to you as nit-picking?


I can help here, maybe it's the way you first suggest the presentation was never given, then you further question it after your suggestion is directly refuted, then you make the suggestion of copyright infringement coupled with requests for the information to be given to you for your review. I think that about sums it up.

Thanks Grits.

Do you know where a copy of that 2006 ICOPS Talbott et al. poster may be obtained?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Siggy_G » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:36 pm

Nereid wrote:In terms of primary sources, what I have learned, so far, about PC/EU ideas is that, in the last half-century or so:
* Hannes Alvén (and some colleagues) published many papers, in relevant, peer-reviewed journals
* Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner have also published some such papers
* Wal Thornhill published one such paper ([url=http://ieeexplor[url]http://ieeexplor[url[/url]e.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4287093]in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science[/url])


In addition to the papers by Wall Thornhill as summed up by Dave Smith, there are also a few by Donald E Scott on the topic:

http://tinyurl.com/39hpvp5 A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf Solar Surface Transistor Action
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:39 pm

Siggy_G wrote:In addition to the papers by Wall Thornhill as summed up by Dave Smith, there are also a few by Donald E Scott on the topic:

http://tinyurl.com/39hpvp5 A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf Solar Surface Transistor Action
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos

Thanks Siggy_G.

Do you know where a copy of that 2006 ICOPS Talbott et al. poster may be obtained?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Phorce » Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:01 pm

Wow. I just flicked on NASA TV for a moment. Haven't watched it for months. I distinctly heard the announcer in the docu they had on say "so some light has been shown to be able to go faster than the speed of light" ... then went on to say something about proving new theories of the Universe using Gamma Ray burster observations. All very well and good, progressive sounding ... has NASA TV improved I thought ? Then, faster than a speeding photon, the old chestnut was whisked out and the docu COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED ITSELF. The expert was wheeled out to proclaim that this indeed "proved that some theories about the 'foam' nature of the Universe were indeed incorrect and that in fact Einstein's work was safe and sound and you can all back home and go to sleep now please. What amazed me was the actual Malignant Narcissist like nature of the double bind creating (Bateson) behaviour at work here that throws left and right brain into mind freezing battle. They were saying two things.

1. Observations have shown that the speed of light has been broken.

2. Einsteins theories show this cannot be the case so all the theories based on these Gamma Ray burster observations are false.

All fine and dandy in a way. Admit to real observational data but then be unable to proceed due to attachment to Einstein. However what worries me is the Malignant Narcissistic (Pathological Science, Langmuir) flavour to the arguments. This is very like the office bully hijacking the work of an entire department. This appears to be much more than just ignorance in the context of EU (and other Sciences like health) but the very real hijacking of method by pathological behaviour. I still think that a bridge is needed between astronomy/cosmology and psychology in order to educate people about behaviour such as Malignant Narcissism. Without that education we will continue to be manipulated by a pathology that wants to pass itself off as "ignorant" when really it's playing a very clever psychological game.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:16 pm

Phorce wrote:Wow. I just flicked on NASA TV for a moment.

I've never watched NASA TV; it's not aimed at astronomers and physicists, is it?
I distinctly heard the announcer in the docu they had on say "so some light has been shown to be able to go faster than the speed of light" ... then went on to say something about proving new theories of the Universe using Gamma Ray burster observations.

Did you happen to catch which observations were mentioned? or when (they were made, or the papers based on them published)? or who (which astronomers and/or physicists)? or what (observatories, instruments etc did the observing)?

In terms of the Thunderblog that kicked this thread off, I think it's crucial to distinguish between the science (astronomy and/or physics in this case) and the commentary on it.

Admit to real observational data but then be unable to proceed due to attachment to Einstein.

Maybe it would help if we could get our hands on the actual papers that are (or should be) behind this?
This appears to be much more than just ignorance in the context of EU (and other Sciences like health) but the very real hijacking of method by pathological behaviour. I still think that a bridge is needed between astronomy/cosmology and psychology in order to educate people about behaviour such as Malignant Narcissism. Without that education we will continue to be manipulated by a pathology that wants to pass itself off as "ignorant" when really it's playing a very clever psychological game.

But isn't this about how the scientific results - the observations, the papers addressing those observations within the context of one theory or another - are portrayed in the general media, and not about the science itself?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Phorce » Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:27 am

I was merely using NASA TV as an example. I've been studying the Science. My observations are not based purely on popular Science. Much of the debate may be simply that - a Scientific debate involving Scientists pursuing what they do best regardless of if they subscribe to "EU" theories or not. However I have a lot of experience dealing with debates that are designed to APPEAR to be Scientific and which have on close examination turned out to be pathological. Of course not all EU Scientific debates are like that. I just regard it as critical that more are aware of the behaviour of Malignant Narcissists (Vaknin) who are very clever at hijacking debates and blocking progress. This has high importance at the present time because its paramount that electrical understanding of weather be properly applied due to the increased Sun and electrical phenomena that is driving weather patterns. We are losing people because of what is literally an academic debate blocked by pathological behaviour in some areas.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Kapriel » Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:35 am

The reason no one really wants to rush around digging up that poster presentation at the moment is, I would guess, because you're not trying to learn the material contained in it. That's plain enough, of course. What you're trying to do is discredit Dave Talbott and Wal Thornhill (more the latter than the former, I would hazard to guess). Not that discrediting people can't be fun, it's just that it isn't going to go over too well over here.

You must have a maid, by the way.
Doubt is not proof.
User avatar
Kapriel
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:17 pm

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:01 am

because you're not trying to learn the material contained in it

I invite you, Kapriel, to read my posts in the BAUT thread I referenced in an earlier post in this very thread (it's on page 2).

In particular, start from post #64 in that BAUT thread, and read that and the following ten or so by me (and all the responses to it).
What you're trying to do is discredit Dave Talbott and Wal Thornhill (more the latter than the former, I would hazard to guess).

As to my motives, well, why not post in the Thunderbolts Forum thread entitled Nereid's Motives?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby mharratsc » Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:11 am

Ms. Nereid said:
because you're not trying to learn the material contained in it

I invite you, Kapriel, to read my posts in the BAUT thread I referenced in an earlier post in this very thread (it's on page 2).


I did so read some of your posts at BAUT, ma'am.

Everything seemed essentially concerned with a lack of reference to source material, and lots and lots of bashing on Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott for copyright infringement and 'bad form'.

This saddens me- you seemed to be a curious skeptic, versus being a hostile one. :(

I have to chime in agreement with one of your acquiantances on the BAUT forum- where do you get the time to make such laborious efforts such as that particular thread? Do you engage in pursuits such as this professionally? Do you receive payment for this sort of work? o.O
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 Nereid » Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:09 pm

mharratsc wrote:I did so read some of your posts at BAUT, ma'am.

Glad to hear it.
Everything seemed essentially concerned with a lack of reference to source material,

If that's truly so, then you missed at least one key aspect; namely, that in the absence of sources, the only way to understand the document is as a stand-alone work (at least if you treat it at its face value, i.e. as a poster at an international scientific conference).

What happens when you try to do that? Well, I think I showed that it has essentially no legs.

and lots and lots of bashing on Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott for copyright infringement and 'bad form'

How else should - could - the document be judged?

Plagiarism is one of the worst 'sins' a scientist can commit, something any author of a poster at an international scientific conference should know. Do the copyright infringements etc amount to plagiarism? Taken at face value, they sure seemed so to me (at the time; I hope I don't need to stress "taken at face value" and "seemed").

This saddens me- you seemed to be a curious skeptic, versus being a hostile one. :(

You may have noticed that here, in the Thunderbolts Forum, I have been a stickler for accuracy in quoting, and in asking for (and/or suggesting) relevant source material.

There's some discussion in the Nature of astrophysics (4) - physics and reality thread on math and heavier than air flight; Kelvin's name has been mentioned, rather unfavorably (see pages 3 and 4 of that thread). In that case I am merely curious about what he actually said (what he thought, but didn't say, we cannot know), but certainly skeptical; if I were more familiar with the topic, "hostile" may well be (or have been) a better word to use.
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby mharratsc » Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:54 pm

So, after the aforementioned thread has ben locked down and it stands forever as it currently is- do you feel any differently now? Now that you've been here, had a chance to dialogue with others, and perhaps see things from a different perspective? Do you still think Mr. Thornhill and Mr. Talbott are plagiarists?

Has anything at all changed for you?
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 Kapriel » Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:18 am

As to my motives, well, why not post in the Thunderbolts Forum thread entitled Nereid's Motives?


No thanks. I won't involve myself in a bicker-fest with lay-persons of uncertain credential. If you were an expert in your field, that would be different. (No offense intended).
Doubt is not proof.
User avatar
Kapriel
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:17 pm

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Solar » Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:02 am

Nereid wrote:There's some discussion in the Nature of astrophysics (4) - physics and reality thread on math and heavier than air flight; Kelvin's name has been mentioned, rather unfavorably (see pages 3 and 4 of that thread). In that case I am merely curious about what he actually said (what he thought, but didn't say, we cannot know), but certainly skeptical; if I were more familiar with the topic, "hostile" may well be (or have been) a better word to use.


This is disingenuous and misleading at best.

I re-read what I wrote and Kelvin's quote stems from the internet. I did not utilize it to induce any "unfavorable" characterizations of the man nor his statement.

The purpose for using it was simply to highlight the general consensus of those who did not think the feat could be achieved. Said quote is also accompanied by a reference to Newcomb - in context - in order to also highlight the fact that it was not necessarily the case that maths 'disproved' heavier than air flight but that for its time far too many unknown variables of aerodynamics had yet to be discovered in order for the maths to be successful at predicting, or justifying, the possibility. That is the more relevant aspect of the situation in my humble opinion and thus quotes from Newcomb were used to reveal his constructive default to future discoveries in order to balance the context within which the overall subject needed to be considered imho. That is also why there is a link provided to a brief historical account of the progress of aerodynamics i.e. for context.

You are mischaracterizing what I wrote and why. I would also note that in a post subsequent to mine you ALSO came to the exact same conclusion that I , apparently only tried to demonstrate; by saying:

Nereid wrote:... it is most likely the physics-based models they used which is the cuprit, possibly the intricacies of airflow, wing shape, and so on ...


This is precisely what I tried to demonstrate - in a historical context - all of which starts on page four here. If you could please refrain from misrepresenting what I said I would greatly appreciate it. You could've simply asked, in the appropriate thread, instead.

I thank you for your time.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

PreviousNext

Return to Thunderblogs/Multimedia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests