tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post1279681414750687217..comments2023-09-24T00:04:50.665-07:00Comments on Conspiracy Factory: A candle in the darkThe Facticianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09982867322659167014noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-7795988222674958792007-09-10T12:00:00.000-07:002007-09-10T12:00:00.000-07:00The Factician said...If you cannot provide an iron...The Factician said...<BR/><BR/><I>If you cannot provide an iron-clad experiment that demonstrates the point you are trying to make, then you are merely working at conjecture.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm a little disturbed by the implication that the only alternative to science is mysticism. Sagan's book, which I enjoyed, and recommend, seems to be guilty of this also. Ironically, his chapter on skepticism NotPhilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122962844561701510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-46450803173940412552007-09-10T11:22:00.000-07:002007-09-10T11:22:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.NotPhilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122962844561701510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-15381722933627529932007-09-09T20:10:00.000-07:002007-09-09T20:10:00.000-07:00I would imagine the best question a layperson can ...I would imagine the best question a layperson can ask to distinguish a pseudo-scientist from the real deal is, "Where was your idea peer reviewed?" The answer, or lack thereof pretty much tells you all you need to know. Who knows, they could be some science savant. Without the review of their peers, I just have to assume they are not.<BR/><BR/>Not being a scientist, it seems to me that Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-33177919526510574592007-09-09T19:33:00.000-07:002007-09-09T19:33:00.000-07:00Chris2048,But the point is the limits of what you ...Chris2048,<BR/><BR/><I>But the point is the limits of what you can ask of a layperson, not the scientific community. Pseudo-scientists have peers too, so the 'expertese' of which community do we trust?</I><BR/><BR/>That's something I've had a hard time answering. I've had a post stewing for several months on that very topic, but I'm still not satisfied with it.<BR/><BR/>How does a layperson tellThe Facticianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982867322659167014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-66427404948809182102007-09-09T19:16:00.000-07:002007-09-09T19:16:00.000-07:00"Like the scientists who walked out of the room wi..."Like the scientists who walked out of the room with a consensus that the world was flat"<BR/><BR/>At no time in history did this happen - turning to mysticism based on myth is a kind of circular reasoning.<BR/><BR/>"However, there is a peer-review process in science"<BR/><BR/>But the point is the limits of what you can ask of a layperson, not the scientific community. Pseudo-scientists have Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-73526460947096303382007-09-09T18:44:00.000-07:002007-09-09T18:44:00.000-07:00Like the scientists who walked out of the room wit...Like the scientists who walked out of the room with a consensus that the world was flat, the candle they provide is but brief and flickering. Science today is never science tomorrow. <BR/><BR/>I'll take my religion anyday.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-60105437030780261032007-09-09T16:32:00.000-07:002007-09-09T16:32:00.000-07:00I will read Eisenhower's address. Thank you.Subli...I will read Eisenhower's address. Thank you.<BR/><BR/>Subliminal,<BR/><BR/>We do indeed have our work cut out for us. And it can seem rather daunting at times.<BR/><BR/>This is my effort in my own tiny corner of cyberspace. I'll let you know how it goes ;)The Facticianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982867322659167014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-56025071297777105812007-09-09T16:14:00.000-07:002007-09-09T16:14:00.000-07:00Before I begin, please do not think me strange for...Before I begin, please do not think me strange for this comment.<BR/><BR/>I am led to remember an episode of the cartoon "Arthur" called "Prove It." He and his friend Brain went to a science museum while leaving Arthur's sister, D.W. at home. D.W. decides to make her own science museum in their backyard and charges a nickel to get in and the young kids are lined up around the block.<BR/><BR/>HereThe Subliminal Assassinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09239017932558390011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-63675263412033069142007-09-09T16:07:00.000-07:002007-09-09T16:07:00.000-07:00Read Eisenhower's Farewell Address. Not only did ...Read Eisenhower's Farewell Address. Not only did he warn of the military idustrial complex creating conflicts to suite there needs, he also identified the trend of science growing out of the reach of popular understanding leading to a scientific elite. <BR/><BR/>He had no answer for how to protect against this either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-19086824259155251532007-09-09T13:49:00.000-07:002007-09-09T13:49:00.000-07:00For the record, I'm 39 and I work at a Health Rese...For the record, I'm 39 and I work at a Health Research Institute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-30438800477225793242007-09-09T12:35:00.000-07:002007-09-09T12:35:00.000-07:00How about addressing the points rather than pickin...<I>How about addressing the points rather than picking a reason to discredit the person making the comment? </I><BR/><BR/>Here we go!<BR/><BR/><I>this is a rather idealistic view of scientists</I><BR/><BR/>You're absolutely right. It is an idealistic view of scientists. But it is an accurate view of <B>science</B>.<BR/><BR/><I>scientists can be just as obtuse as...</I><BR/><BR/>You're right. The Facticianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982867322659167014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-45095566731153570512007-09-09T12:16:00.000-07:002007-09-09T12:16:00.000-07:00Factician wrote: For someone who starts every para...Factician wrote: For someone who starts every paragraph with lol? I rather doubt it...<BR/><BR/>Now that is funny. You doubt what I know to be true! Might I point out that this is a blog, and not a peer-reviewed journal. <BR/><BR/>How about addressing the points rather than picking a reason to discredit the person making the comment? Isn't that a favourite technique of politicians?<BR/><BR/>Me Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-44510763964060560642007-09-09T12:11:00.001-07:002007-09-09T12:11:00.001-07:00I know, I'm a science editor. For someone who star...<I> I know, I'm a science editor. </I><BR/><BR/>For someone who starts every paragraph with lol? I rather doubt it...The Facticianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982867322659167014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-58883213194882374052007-09-09T12:06:00.000-07:002007-09-09T12:06:00.000-07:00lol...this is a rather idealistic view of scientis...lol...this is a rather idealistic view of scientists, I have to say. Actually, scientists can be just as obtuse as politicians, especially when a lifetime's repututation is tied up in a particular pet theory. <BR/><BR/>lol...and anyone who demands 'proof' from a scientist must have rather naive grasp of what scientific method actually is. There is no such thing as proof in science, but rather oneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-35249947079897021062007-09-09T12:01:00.000-07:002007-09-09T12:01:00.000-07:00To Chris2048You are right that not all proofs are ...To Chris2048<BR/><BR/>You are right that not all proofs are easy for lay people to replicate for themselves. However, there is a peer-review process in science. Any sufficiently interesting or important idea will be looked at by more than one scientist or organisation. You can be confident that something like evolution (for example) is real because so many independent experts have a consensus Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-53805439647036115392007-09-09T10:59:00.000-07:002007-09-09T10:59:00.000-07:00And How would a layperson verify a scientific proo...And How would a layperson verify a scientific proof? They would neither be able to follow it, nor verify its sources.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com