Science in the Playground

[Wizard of the Coat]

It seems that in the world of roleplaying magic and the supernatural always seems to take the upperhand. As such I believe it would be interesting to look at things from the rational perspective of science. Similar threads seem to be up for magic and such...so i think us scientists and rationalists should have a go too.

As such here is the threat to do just that, to dicuss about things in a scientific and analyse what seems to be supernatural, myths legends, miracles and turn it into science or give a logical explaination that of what would be needed to make it scientifically plausable.

Also scientific worldviews and problems could be covered, so long as the aim is to get to a greater scientific understanding of the world around us. Don't hesitate to bring in new theories of your own, that's what it's for to go beyond what's in the books.

Please don't bring religion into the treat, unless ofcourse it is to seek a scientific rationale behind miracles you've seen/heard about want to find a scientific explaination for.

----------------

For instance what could be the scientific rational behind ghostly hauntings?

[Shadow]

For instance what could be the scientific rational behind ghostly hauntings?I think the answer to this one is less scientific and much more mundane. creaky old houses
tricks of light on the inattentive
the effects of stress and/or sleep deprivation on a tired mind
overactive imagination
the need for something more after this life
I won't say much about this last one, except to say that man's most basic need is that of survival. Unfortunately we were also born with the knowledge (or learn early on) that we simply will NOT survive. How do we temper the NEED to survive with the knowledge that we will NOT? Simple. We create an afterlife. Whether it be "living on" after death in whatever heaven you (do or do not) believe in, or "living on" in spirit form in our world (ie: ghosts). The end result is the same.
This belief (or thought process) shields us from the realization that we will, one day, die.
This is similar to the psyche of a fractured mind that creates a "dream world" to live in at all times, thus shielding it from the pain of reality.
It's simply widely accepted untruth: an accepted form of the previous idea.

This is in no way an attempt to turn this religious. Quite the contrary. It is simply one man's opinion, using logic to try to explain what has been offered up for debate/explanation.

[BizzaroStormy]

Ok, lets start with people who find the image of jesus on the bottom of their grilled cheese sandwich.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/thenecklacelady/Jesuspan-template1_r2_c1.jpg

[Thes Hunter]

I have suggested that precognition could exist, since natural selection would favor those by whatever mechanism was able to 'sense' imminent danger. Thus there would be a directional selective influence on those members of a species that could in whatever way know something they could not know from their conscious senses.

And like the dinosaurs slowly developed the complex structures known as feathers, a more and more sophisticated pre-cognitive sense could develop.

Not that I necessarily believe that pre-cognition exists, but I have noticed a disturbing number of times that I KNEW that I was about to get into an accident.

[Shadow]

Ok, lets start with people who find the image of jesus on the bottom of their grilled cheese sandwich.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/thenecklacelady/Jesuspan-template1_r2_c1.jpg
This will surely be offensive to some. I'm not even religious and I'm offended that you could be so rude about some people's beliefs.
Posts like that one will get this thought provoking thread locked in record time.
I have suggested that precognition could exist, since natural selection would favor those by whatever mechanism was able to 'sense' imminent danger. Thus there would be a directional selective influence on those members of a species that could in whatever way know something they could not know from their conscious senses.
An interesting connection that I'd never thought of before. And quite possible, in my opinion.
Well, worth consideration, at the very least.

[Wayril]

Well for anyone sincerely interested in this, I would highly recommend reading The 13th Element It's really interesting, a little bit scary and offers rational, or rather possible, explanations for stuff like ghost lights, spontaneous human combustion, etc. They even used to believe that the intelligence of a person was based on the amount of phosphorus in the brain. In addition the writing style is significantly less boring than the other science-related books I have read.

[Wizard of the Coat]

I have suggested that precognition could exist, since natural selection would favor those by whatever mechanism was able to 'sense' imminent danger. Thus there would be a directional selective influence on those members of a species that could in whatever way know something they could not know from their conscious senses.

And like the dinosaurs slowly developed the complex structures known as feathers, a more and more sophisticated pre-cognitive sense could develop.

Not that I necessarily believe that pre-cognition exists, but I have noticed a disturbing number of times that I KNEW that I was about to get into an accident.

True enough afterall there could be many things out there that defy our sensory abilities. In the end we have evolved as a species to be good at chasing Mammoths and other game across open plains. There is no way of knowing if our senses see the world as it is, or that it is merely the way that it is most benificial when chasing Mammoths...

Still another explaination for pre-cognition is taking just part of the word, the 'cognition' part. Essentially the pre-cognition would be recognising certain elements of things occuring, maybe a lingering scent, something in the corner of our eyes...a sleight vibration in the air and then subcontiously connecting the dots and realising what is about to happen.


Well for anyone sincerely interested in this, I would highly recommend reading The 13th Element It's really interesting, a little bit scary and offers rational, or rather possible, explanations for stuff like ghost lights, spontaneous human combustion, etc. They even used to believe that the intelligence of a person was based on the amount of phosphorus in the brain. In addition the writing style is significantly less boring than the other science-related books I have read.

Sounds interesting, but I guess the took the expression 'being bright' a bit too literal...

Still do tell us more...(unless you feel it's to much of a spoiler)

[Mx.Silver]

Yay! A nice science-y thread.


Pre-cognition: Actually, I don't think such a thing is all that mysterious. If someone throws a ball to you, odds you'll be able to guess where it's likely to end up and be able to either catch or dodge it. Simple deterministic prediction. Pre-cognition is probably a mix with this coupled with a dose of confirmation bias and some chance. The reason why it seems a disturbing number of times you've known before getting into an accident is because those are unusual, and are much more likely to be remembered than all the times where you didn't guess what happened.



This will surely be offensive to some. I'm not even religious and I'm offended that you could be so rude about some people's beliefs.
I know a fair few religious people who find the idea of divine signs in grilled sandwiches more than a bit daft, so I think you may be over-reacting a little. Even if I did believe in a God, I'd still be more inclined to chalk those up as just the simple human tendency to see familiar images in places where they aren't (e.g. finding familiar shapes in clouds) than as the result of divine intervention. Still, this really isn't the place for religious discussion.

[Thes Hunter]

True enough afterall there could be many things out there that defy our sensory abilities. In the end we have evolved as a species to be good at chasing Mammoths and other game across open plains.


Are you saying that we humans evolved to become predators more than prey and therefore we would not need a 'danger sense'?


If so, please read below the cut:

Of course, selection for a danger sense ability would not be limited to humans. And I am being purposefully vague to the exact nature of any danger sense/precognition because I could see modes of non-conscious normal perception factoring into this 'extra-sensory' perception.

However as a counter to your point that we as humans are typically predators vs. prey (which is what I am assume you are alluding to by saying we chased mammoths), you must remember that by the time we homo sapien sapiens evolved to the point where we were chasing mammoths across the frozen plains, we had mostly removed ourselves from predatory selective pressure. (Now in this there is in the inherent assumption that you are talking about the current archetype of our ancestors hunting the wholly mammoths during the last ice age, which was only about 11,000 years ago which is rather short evolutionarily speaking.) By 11,000 years ago, humans had enough cultural evolution to combat most dangers from predators.

Now, if we did evolve a danger sense I find it more likely that this evolved in response to predatory selection more so than other pressures. Because predatory selection as the name suggests selects based on traits, while a wild storm and a rock slide selects more randomly amongst the population.

Now, even though I have had a full upper level course dedicated to the study of evolution, I feel like I am venturing into territory better suited for the magazine Modern Jackass.


However, if you were agreeing with me... never mind.:smallredface:

[LightWraith]

My personal view about the supernatural as it relates to science is this.

Who's to say that it's "super"natural at all?

It is insanely arrogant of scientists to believe they have a complete enough view of the universe to accurately portray what could and could not happen.

I mean, look at quantum mechanics... we still have no idea for sure what's going on there.

Then there's the human brain/mind, an immensely complicated machine that we're just coming to understand in any kind of real way.

I mean... How do we know that something resembling Star Wars' "Force" (some kind of all encompassing, seemingly unlimited source of energy) doesn't exist? Sure, we've never detected it, we've never seen in demonstrated in any kind of scientifically viable way, but it could still exist right? Lack of proof of existence is not proof of lack of existence. That would be bad science.

I'm not really looking to get into a debate... this is just a topic that has interested me for a while, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

I'm done rambling now.

[Prophaniti]

Personally, I've always felt that once a species is able to use complex tools, they've largely removed themselves from the typical natural selection process. We didn't evolve to be good at chasing mammoths, we figured out how to make tools that compensated for our lack of natural ability to chase mammoths. If we had evolved so, we would have taken them down as a pack of wolves, biting and clawing. Tool-use, and other cultural and technological revolutions, marginalize the normal evolutionary process, as species members are now able to survive where they would have perished. Personally, I believe this trend will continue indefinitely, as we conquer disease and even aging, and if we manage not to wipe ourselves out of existance (only a slight possibility in my book, but a possibility nonetheless) we will eventually bypass all concepts of Darwinian evolution, and live and die how and when we choose to. That certainly throws a monkey-wrench into things, doesn't it?

'Course, we're talking thousands of years down the road, IMO, but even for the time being, most deaths among us are now caused by disease, accident, or killing by other humans, with disease on the decline. We have already danced around most normal survival concerns a species must contend with, and evolution/natural selection are no longer terms that fully apply to us.

[pendell]

Re: The images of famous people in food items -- what's the name of the
psychological property that allows people to project patterns on things when there are none?

Example 1: Clouds. People look at clouds and see ships, dragons, cars, animals ... but what they are are clouds.

Example 2: Constellations. The Greeks have one set of constellations. The Chinese have another. Again, I suspect the patterns are in the human mind and not in the universe.

Example 3: Rorshach blots. Show a person a random pattern and tell a person to find an image, they will inevitably find an image. What they see may tell you a lot about the person.

I think I scared the stuffing out of my psychologist in high school when I took that test. See, I had just read 'call of the wild' and 'white fang' by Jack London, and I was really excited about what I'd read. So naturally the day of the test I saw wolves or dogs in every blot. They probably think I'm a serial killer or something.

I suspect it's the same thing with whatchamacallits, patterns in food and humorous vegetables.

Make no mistake: I believe in the supernatural and am religious. But I think it's very important to distinguish the truly supernatural from natural phenomena. And thus we supernatural types owe the scientists a debt of thanks. Just because I believe in the supernatural doesn't mean I want to believe in Hogwash.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Lemur]

My personal view about the supernatural as it relates to science is this.

Who's to say that it's "super"natural at all?

It is insanely arrogant of scientists to believe they have a complete enough view of the universe to accurately portray what could and could not happen.

I mean, look at quantum mechanics... we still have no idea for sure what's going on there.

Then there's the human brain/mind, an immensely complicated machine that we're just coming to understand in any kind of real way.

I mean... How do we know that something resembling Star Wars' "Force" (some kind of all encompassing, seemingly unlimited source of energy) doesn't exist? Sure, we've never detected it, we've never seen in demonstrated in any kind of scientifically viable way, but it could still exist right? Lack of proof of existence is not proof of lack of existence. That would be bad science.

I'm not really looking to get into a debate... this is just a topic that has interested me for a while, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

I'm done rambling now.

More or less my thoughts, only I'm going to ramble even more. The idea of the "supernatural" seems flawed to me. If it's something that's real, and can truly occur, it has to be natural. That doesn't mean that we have a scientific explanation for it at hand. Science may be able to provide an explanation eventually, but the truth is that the current state of scientific knowledge, however vast, is still a long, long ways away from a truly complete and comprehensive understanding of the universe.

Such an understanding may be possible and some unforeseen point in the future, but the current state of affairs indicates that science doesn't have all the answers, and may not be able to answer everything in the end, if the uncertainty principle holds true.

The closest you could come to a concept of the "supernatural" would be something like "phenomenon that aren't readily observed." That is, science requires observation, and if a phenomenon exists that can't be observed through any of the five physical senses, it would elude scientific explanation.

Before anyone dismisses this as speculation, there's a very common phenomenon (nearly) everyone experiences that can't be objectively observed. This is commonly called "thought." Thoughts do not have a readily observed physical presence. You can know your own thoughts, because you think them, but at the same time you control your thoughts. An individual may be able to observe their thoughts, but this may be tricky for some to do without training, and in the process of observing, one's own thoughts will certainly be changed. At the current point in time, your thoughts cannot be observed by other people (brain activity can be monitored, but this is a long way from being able to tell exactly what a person is thinking), making it difficult, if not impossible to truly understand the phenomenon of "thought" in a rigorously scientific sense. In the future, technology may be able to observe thoughts in a much more complete sense, but until such a thing can occur, a great deal of the mind will remain a mystery to science.

These limitations of science are not a failing on the part of science. It's important to point this out because all to often people are willing to accept silly notions like "Science can't explain everything, THAT MEANS IT CAN BE SAFELY IGNORED". The philosophy of science readily admits to ignorance, which it then attempts to rectify bit by bit, piece by piece, not all at once. People who claim to have a scientific explanation for everything are deluded, and shouldn't be taken seriously as scientists. Speculation under the guise of science is still speculation. The strength of science is the willingness to leave speculation behind, because as incomplete as science is, it tries a heck of a lot harder than other methods and philosophies of explaining the world, which often resort to "hey I thought this up while I was on the toilet yesterday and it sort of makes sense so it must be true."

In summation, there is no scientific rationale for ghostly hauntings and the like, in general (specific sites of unusual activity may or may not have a known explanation behind them). If unexplained phenomenon are occurring somewhere, it's time to start researching, not making up things that sound science-ish. If unexplainable phenomenon are occurring, perhaps it would behoove you to see if you really do have any more senses than just your physical ones. That doesn't mean you have to accept every wacky idea people say, just that you can't really say you know the truth unless you've truly tried to find it.

[Fri]

Re: The images of famous people in food items -- what's the name of the
psychological property that allows people to project patterns on things when there are none?

It's called Pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia).

Eh, mankind always seen their face in ordinary things. That's how we got cartoons. (How else we see human face in two dots and a curve?)

[Kjata]

I know a fair few religious people who find the idea of divine signs in grilled sandwiches more than a bit daft, so I think you may be over-reacting a little. Even if I did believe in a God, I'd still be more inclined to chalk those up as just the simple human tendency to see familiar images in places where they aren't (e.g. finding familiar shapes in clouds) than as the result of divine intervention. Still, this really isn't the place for religious discussion.

Ya, i thought that picture was funny and im very religious.

[thubby]

science follows the premise that which cannot be proven, isn't. while that may be untrue philosophically, it is impractical to assume something is until proven otherwise. unless you are fully ready to accept I have leprechauns in my shoes, that there in fact IS some strange being(s) attacking our schizophrenic friends, and that aliens abducted that farmer.
for the force, it has not been demonstrated to exist, therefore we have no way to pursue it beyond wild speculation, and no reason to include it in any field or cause.

can something be said to exist if it does nothing, affects nothing, and is perceivable by nothing?

about precognition, the argument it could come from evolution could be applied to any supernatural ability, it would be ridiculously good if I could move objects with my mind, materialize things, or squirt clowns out my nose. there is also the issue of the ability to see the future precluding free will.

[Werewindlefr]

science follows the premise that which cannot be proven, isn't. I do not remember such a premise. Science only cares about what can be experimented on, but that doesn't mean it denies the existence of anything else. "Not caring" would be a very good term to describe science's point of view on what is outside the reach of experimentation.



can something be said to exist if it does nothing, affects nothing, and is perceivable by nothing?Well, is it that interesting to discuss the properties of invisible pink unicorns?

[Shadow]

science follows the premise that which cannot be proven, isn't. while that may be untrue philosophically, it is impractical to assume something is until proven otherwise.

for the force, it has not been demonstrated to exist, therefore we have no way to pursue it beyond wild speculation, and no reason to include it in any field or cause.

can something be said to exist if it does nothing, affects nothing, and is perceivable by nothing?That is, until something strange occurs in an experiment you are running on something else.
Once that happens (as it often does), we then have found a way to affect these "unknowns," which is exactly how these things become known in the first place.
Serendipity, in a scientific sense.

Science only cares about what can be experimented on, but that doesn't mean it denies the existence of anything else. "Not caring" would be a very good term to describe science's point of view on what is outside the reach of experimentation.I agree with this completely.

[Mx.Silver]

My personal view about the supernatural as it relates to science is this.

Who's to say that it's "super"natural at all?

It is insanely arrogant of scientists to believe they have a complete enough view of the universe to accurately portray what could and could not happen.

Actually, from what I've seen the term 'supernatural' isn't much of a scientific one. The scientific world view divides things into two categories. The first: things that can be shown to exist via observation, experimentation etc. The Second: things that cannot be shown to exist. Things in the first category are accepted, things in the second are ignored (as if something cannot be shown to exist then it doesn't make logical sense to assume that it does).

The term supernatural is typically used by people who strongly believe in something which does not fall into the first category but who are unwilling to accept it as part of the latter. Hence they come up with the 'supernatural' which they claim science 'cannot explain' and is therefore above the need for things like empirical evidence and can exist, even if its existence would violate the patterns of observable reality.



I mean, look at quantum mechanics... we still have no idea for sure what's going on there.

We don't have a complete knowledge of quantum mechanics, no. But we do have a knowledge of it.



Then there's the human brain/mind, an immensely complicated machine that we're just coming to understand in any kind of real way.

And how are we coming to understand it? Via experimentation, logical reasoning and empirical observation. Supernatural claims, such as magic and psychic powers are not based on this and when subject to the same tests as psychological and biological theories they have an overwhelming tendency to fail.



I mean... How do we know that something resembling Star Wars' "Force" (some kind of all encompassing, seemingly unlimited source of energy) doesn't exist? Sure, we've never detected it, we've never seen in demonstrated in any kind of scientifically viable way, but it could still exist right? Lack of proof of existence is not proof of lack of existence. That would be bad science.
But there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it does exist. It would not explain anything we can't yet explain and it has no evidence. That's why the notion is ignored: there is simply no logical reason to assume it does exist.

Ignoring the 'supernatural' is not a case of science being 'arrogant' any more than science ignoring the possibility that the gravity is caused by invisible shape-shifting gerbils is 'arrogant'. If a 'supernatural' claim was demonstrably shown to be scientifically viable, if it passed the same kind of rigourous standards of testing all scientific theories must go through to be called such, it would be accepted as scientific fact and added to the overall body of human knowledge and built upon. That is how science works, it adopts new information and corrects itself

To date, not one of these has passed these tests. Not psychic powers, not magic, not ghosts and people have been claiming all these to be real for a very long time. When you factor-in that alternate explanations exist which do not require leaps of faith to accept and are, in fact, fully supported and in accordance with observable, demonstrable reality then there is simply no good reason why we should not simply ignore them until some hard evidence comes before us.

Is that an arrogant viewpoint? Is it arrogant to expect that if these 'supernatural' things exist that they could be scientifically shown to exist in the same manner all other aspects of the natural world can be?
Possibly. But is that any more arrogant than assuming that these fanciful notions are 'special' enough to deserve a free-pass into the body of scientific knowledge, the thing which has given us the technologically advanced society we enjoy, despite failing the basic entry requirements that all other scientific theories have had to go through?

There are an infinite number of unproven and untested notions and fanciful ideas. But without evidence, there is simply no reason to care about them or waste time studying them.

[Werewindlefr]

We don't have a complete knowledge of quantum mechanics, no.
Considering that quantum mechanics, as a theory created to describe and predict some phenomenons, is a human construct, I fail to see how we could have imperfect knowledge of quantum mechanics.

[Mx.Silver]

Considering that quantum mechanics, as a theory created to describe and predict some phenomenons, is a human construct, I fail to see how we could have imperfect knowledge of quantum mechanics.
Point. Although we still lack a quantum explanation of gravity and a way of linking it with General Relativity.

[Werewindlefr]

Point. Although we still lack a quantum explanation of gravity and a way of linking it with General Relativity.We don't lack an explanation (which is something left to philosophers) as much as a description with a theory that conciliate the two. However, that doesn't mean we don't know quantum mechanics, just that the theory called quantum mechanics doesn't include such a description. Actually, "quantum mechanics" in the strict sense don't describe much in the end; interactions, particle creations, and many other things are outside its boundaries (and require the use of its offspring, quantum field theory). It is actually an important point: a theory has a domain of validity, a domain in which is describes and predicts phenomenons with statisfying accuracy. When some new phenomenon is found that isn't explained by the theory, then it's not our knowledge of the theory which is to blame -we created it- but the fact that we need a new theory.

[sktarq]

can something be said to exist if it does nothing, affects nothing, and is perceivable by nothing?


Something that does, affects, or is perceivable by ABSOULTLY nothing may be challenged to its existance to a degree, however it is easy to right off things that interact with others things very rarely or only under exceptional circumstances (by our human/earth centric view) as doing nothing at all.
Sort of how we discovered the neutrino. Mostly by noting a mass/energy loss and wondering what in the bejesus had just messed up our theory conservation of such stuff (

[Fri]

So, instead of arguing and chasing away people from this thread, why not we discuss something interesting (and better if flashy).

Like... dunno. *mumbles and check back xkcd and irregular webcomic's archive*

String theory? Possibility of Time Travel? Parallel Universe? Singularity, or... ROBOT UPRISING! Everyone like robot (but not the uprising). Better yet, scientific possibility of... ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!

or how to enact mythbuster's latest explosion in home. I'm actualy an art student, but even I like explosion. It's like one of man's nature.

[SDF]

I get in scientific/philosophical arguments with my roommate all the time. He likes to argue that science keeps finding it was wrong every few years and changing things, and I explain to him that we don't find out that we were wrong, we find more facts that give us a complete understanding of the whole. We amend our previous theories, not throw them out and start over the vast majority of the time. The only ones we completely throw out are almost always soft science (ie anthropological) or theoretical concepts only observed in a lab. Our understanding of the world around us has been so greatly improved this decade, and it explains away superstitious phenomena more and more every day.

If anyone likes sciency books written in layman's terms I've got a few good ones;
The Drunkard's Walk (http://www.amazon.com/Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules-Lives/dp/0375424040): A book about how randomness and statistic play into our everyday lives
Quantum Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Evolution-Weirdest-Explains-Paperback/dp/0393323102/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217922062&sr=1-1): Evolution theory and quantum level physics

[Dave Rapp]

Anyone ever read Hawking's "A Brief History of the Universe"? I hear it was on the best seller list for a while or something. My local library somehow doesn't have it, though, which I find weird since it was written by liek teh smartest d00d evar.

[Dr. Bath]

A brief history of time, do you mean? Yeah, I'm reading it at the moment. Really interesting stuff, although I'd already picked up quite a bit of the early chapters by just being generally interested in science. Good though. If you can get I'd certainly read.

There's also the brief history of everything by Bill Bryson, but that's a bit different.

[DigoDragon]

ROBOT UPRISING! Everyone like robot (but not the uprising).

I theorize that if humans are able to build complex self-aware machines they'd be hard-wired not to rebel against us. Just seems like a common safety feature we'd be putting in, you know?
(I'm also an art person, love the explosions) :smallbiggrin:

One of my favorite sciency topics-- Dragons! Did they exist? Do they still exist? Consider if you will the fact that pretty much every ancient culture had dragons written in their history it just seems like there's something more to it then just myth. Maybe there were dragons long long ago in Earth's history... maybe not as we view them today, but perhaps some long forgotten species that invoked the imagination of the ancient people. We might have dug up partial fossils of them, but either misidentified them as something else or we don't know what we're looking at. To me it seems Paleontology involves a little bit of guess work.

Possible considering we're still digging up evidence of more and more species of animals and plants each day that we never knew about before.

[Fri]

Don't discovery channel got a pretty good show about dragons once? How they fly, breath fire, etc, from realistic pov.

I guess a lot of people agree that people invented dragons when they found dinosaurs bone and they imagined what creatures have those bones.

Or maybe they're just hiding. Waiting. For what reason? No one knows.

[Serpentine]

I think I pretty much agree with a number of people on the nature of the supernatural: It's all just natural stuff we haven't made sense of yet. It might be a while before we do, and it's worth investigating it or we never will, but that doesn't make these things any more mysterious than, say, black holes.

Dragons? Dragons?! I recommend The Flight of Dragons book for a comprehensive, believable but slightly depressing (in terms of the "big, magnificent, majestic creature" idea) theory of how they could have existed.

I recommend Von Danniken's (sp?) work to any scientifically or historically-minded folk in need of a good laugh.

Do pseudosciences count? Cuz I'm a big fan of (legitimate) cryptozoology <.<

[Mx.Silver]

Do pseudosciences count? Cuz I'm a big fan of (legitimate) cryptozoology <.<
Pseudo: adjective; not genuine or sham.

Now, I'm passionately interested in zoology and I get excited at the discovery of new species. That is one of the joys of the field. Cryptozoology though is, by and large, another matter. Pretty much all of it is about people who already believe fantastical beasts exist going to find evidence to back their already-held beliefs. In this regard they're no better than UFO watchers or ghost hunters and what have you. There may be a few who genuinely do follow things in proper scientific manner, and I respect them for that, but a lot of them seem to be just hopped-up on folk myths and local legends or whatever appeared on the last X-Files or similar rather than actually trying to do a zoological study.



I get in scientific/philosophical arguments with my roommate all the time. He likes to argue that science keeps finding it was wrong every few years and changing things, and I explain to him that we don't find out that we were wrong, we find more facts that give us a complete understanding of the whole. We amend our previous theories, not throw them out and start over the vast majority of the time. The only ones we completely throw out are almost always soft science (ie anthropological) or theoretical concepts only observed in a lab. Our understanding of the world around us has been so greatly improved this decade, and it explains away superstitious phenomena more and more every day.
I've never quite understood why some people seem to see science's ability to discover and correct its own mistakes as a bad thing. Surely that would be a preferable attitude than simply saying one thing and just repeating it no matter how clear it became that it was inaccurate.

[Werewindlefr]

I get in scientific/philosophical arguments with my roommate all the time. He likes to argue that science keeps finding it was wrong every few years and changing things, and I explain to him that we don't find out that we were wrong, we find more facts that give us a complete understanding of the whole. We amend our previous theories, not throw them out and start over the vast majority of the time.Actually, ever since we entered the modern era and have become more used to doing science, we've realized that science cannot be "wrong". Wrong about what? It's not trying to explain the world, it's trying to give models to describe and predict its behavior in certain circumstances with a satisfying accuracy. The models are just that, models; they're not wrong or right, they are satisfying or not depending on the circumstances. What science does is trying to improve its models so that they can describe and predict more. The electromagnetic theory, for instance, hasn't become "wrong" when QED (quantum electrodynamics, which is, to stay simple, the quantum equivalent) was formulated. Newtonian mechanics aren't "wrong" either.

As soon as we get rid of the idea that science tries to explain or understand the "nature of the universe", there are a lot of preconceived ideas that fall.



I've never quite understood why some people seem to see science's ability to discover and correct its own mistakes as a bad thing.I guess they're annoyed at science's success, and thus try to convince themselves -and the rest of the world- that it's a failure. But doing so, they totally misunderstand what science really is. But science doesn't make "mistakes", except when actually giving Albert Einstein superstar status. Or, if you think that creating a model that doesn't describe reality with perfect accuracy, then it ONLY makes mistake :p. But since it's not its goal, well, I guess it doesn't.


Do pseudosciences count? Cuz I'm a big fan of (legitimate) cryptozoology <.<The fail at 2 of the conditions required to qualify something as science, so I guess they can't really count. At least according to Popper.
Edit: oh, I've spoken too far here. What do you mean by "legitimate"?

[Serpentine]

Legitimate cryptozoology as in the people and methods that discovered the giant panda, okapi, Vietnamese deer, etc. and who are using scientific and... socialogical? methods to discover other unofficially "discovered" creatures - from new species of lemur in Madagascar to Nessie - and explain the origins of those known to be fanciful - were unicorns misidentified antelope or distorted descriptions of hairy rhinoceros? In this case, "pseudo" does not (usually) mean "sham" but... "half" or "incomplete". But yeah, it's not strictly speaking science. It's more like archaeology in that regard :smallwink:

The thing about science being "wrong" is that... every idea or theory or model that is shown to be incorrect brings us a step closer to the one that is. The advancement of science depends on the mistakes of the past.

[Ranna]

Personally, I've always felt that once a species is able to use complex tools, they've largely removed themselves from the typical natural selection process. <Snippy>

I agree with that but I think that the only part of our body that we don't yet understand is brain and the reason we don't yet understand it is because it is changing or is the only part of us left that is capable of change... we just invent machines for the rest of our bodily failures... bad heart? Not a problem, you sir shall live on to reproduce offspring that could potentially have bad hearts. All thanks to this handy dandy pacemaker!!

But then I was always more interested in plants...




The fail at 2 of the conditions required to qualify something as science, so I guess they can't really count. At least according to Popper.


Not Popper Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

Pseudo sciences is where the theories can only ever be proved... like Freud and his earlier behavior theories where his hypotheses were all encompassing and had an answer for every type of behavior combination... Or so I remember.

[ghost_warlock]

I've never quite understood why some people seem to see science's ability to discover and correct its own mistakes as a bad thing. Surely that would be a preferable attitude than simply saying one thing and just repeating it no matter how clear it became that it was inaccurate.

This may be the case because many people want a simple, snappy answer they can apply and then forget/stop thinking about the topic. People really don't like it when you change a previous answer, even in light of new evidence, because it means they've probably been following the wrong advice.

It also may have something to do with politics, where candidates who change their mind about something are villified by their opponents for being wishy-washy. Science may suffer from some of the same villification.

It also may have something to do with cherished beliefs from childhood. People are taught certain things as children (e.g., Pluto is a planet) and they don't like other people to 'retcon' those beliefs, no matter if they don't really make sense according to current evidence/classifications.

Authority figures can say innaccurate things repeatedly for a long time before the general opinion finally breaks under the strain of maintaining a paradox. Appeal to authority may be a horrible thing in a debate or philosophy, but it's unfortunately the rule of law for many people and much of society.

[DigoDragon]

Do pseudosciences count? Cuz I'm a big fan of (legitimate) cryptozoology <.<

Label it as Social Science then? :smallsmile: I like cryptozoology too. And it's true that even wrong things in science can be helpful. Think of how many failed experiments Edison had before completing his lightbulb. Each failure helped him refine his process until he got it right.

[Serpentine]

I found a (rather awful) site that claimed that because scientists gave one date for the origin of platypuses, then changed that date when they found an older fossil, science is therefore untrustworthy... Methinks someone doesn't get the point? 'course, this is the same site that claimed that platypuses are demons and "Care Bears are the source of all evil" <.< :smallconfused:

[Fri]

But.. but carebears ARE the source of all evil. Along with teletubbies.

[AKA_Bait]

I think I pretty much agree with a number of people on the nature of the supernatural: It's all just natural stuff we haven't made sense of yet. It might be a while before we do, and it's worth investigating it or we never will, but that doesn't make these things any more mysterious than, say, black holes.

I'm pretty much on board with this too.

Another interesting idea regarding magic comes out of Peter Caroll and Aleister Crowley (his early writings before he huffed too much ether and went crazy). This is that reality is a collective consentual structure at base and that each individual can effect. The problem is that each individual does, and that the vast vast majority are projecting for the status quo. It's an interesting notion when considered alongside some of the unconnected movement results and other wonky light and quantam phenomina.

[Mx.Silver]

Pseudo sciences is where the theories can only ever be proved... like Freud and his earlier behavior theories where his hypotheses were all encompassing and had an answer for every type of behavior combination... Or so I remember.
They're unfalsifiable yes. It's not so much that they 'have an answer for everything' it's more that the hypothesis does not show how it could potentially be proved wrong. With most cryptozoology, not finding any evidence at all of the mysterious beast is automatically interpreted as proof of how good it is at hiding. Not finding anything that a beast of that description could use as a food source is automatically construed as evidence of how cunning the creature is.

With Freudian psychology, which argues that all psychological problems are the result of traumatic experiences of unresolved issue from childhood the problem arises when a patient does not appear to have had such an experience. According to Freud's hypothesis, such people had had an experience like this, and they'd just repressed the memory of it. Any claims to the contrary were dismissed as further repression.

Neither one is, therefore, regarded as scientific. This is mainly why many of Freud's ideas don't carry a lot of weight in modern psychological circles.

[Werewindlefr]

Change of subject, the LHC will be put online in roughly 30 hours. Although I doubt there will be any data to gnaw on at first, I can say we're pretty excited :D.

[Gem Flower]

Read a bit of the first page. This thread is...depressing me.

[Mx.Silver]

Change of subject, the LHC will be put online in roughly 30 hours. Although I doubt there will be any data to gnaw on at first, I can say we're pretty excited :D.

Cool, I've been kind of looking forward to this as well.



Read a bit of the first page. This thread is...depressing me.
Umm okay. Any particular reason why?

[Rebonack]

I was hoping this thread would be about, y'know, talking about nifty concepts in science. Maybe a bit of talk of cutting edge physics 'n the like. And to my dismay I come in and find a thread about kicking supernatural beliefs and then laughing at them.

That makes me a sad panda.

Debate/I'm right! threads aren't any fun at all.

So in the spirit of talking about neat science *ahem*.

Who here is familiar with the concept of a 'loaf' universe? Or put in other terms, that the universe simply exists at all times. That it does not happen, rather that it's simply here. It has a number of interesting consequences and happens to be the more commonly accepted explanation of how time works.

'course, being based on GR and SR it fundamentally conflicts with quantum mechanics. And it has the problem of being unable to explain why we can experiance the universe if it doesn't actually happen.

[Werewindlefr]

'course, being based on GR and SR it fundamentally conflicts with quantum mechanics. And it has the problem of being unable to explain why we can experiance the universe if it doesn't actually happen.Quantum mechanics as the most advanced theory didn't last a decade, so it's okay. SR doesn't conflict with the most advanced verified theories.


Cool, I've been kind of looking forward to this as well.
I just hope the data doesn't start flowing too fast. I'm not ready yet :/. But yeah, that's pretty much cutting edge :D.
I wish they would keep funding the RHIC as well.

[Wizard of the Coat]

I was hoping this thread would be about, y'know, talking about nifty concepts in science. Maybe a bit of talk of cutting edge physics 'n the like. And to my dismay I come in and find a thread about kicking supernatural beliefs and then laughing at them.

Well It was intended for both purposes (see excerpt of post 1 below), but being a roleplaying/comics forum I believed that the supernatural was an issue that could not be ignored.



Also scientific worldviews and problems could be covered, so long as the aim is to get to a greater scientific understanding of the world around us. Don't hesitate to bring in new theories of your own, that's what it's for to go beyond what's in the books.




Who here is familiar with the concept of a 'loaf' universe? Or put in other terms, that the universe simply exists at all times. That it does not happen, rather that it's simply here. It has a number of interesting consequences and happens to be the more commonly accepted explanation of how time works.

'course, being based on GR and SR it fundamentally conflicts with quantum mechanics. And it has the problem of being unable to explain why we can experiance the universe if it doesn't actually happen.

Am I correct to assume you're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space?

Perhaps you could explain how it conficts with QM in your opinion, myself having only taken basic course in it (being a physical chemist in specialisation).

Or are you talking about time being like any other dimention, more like a vast tapistry with threads merging and splitting representing particles splitting and merging?

[Serpentine]

They're unfalsifiable yes. It's not so much that they 'have an answer for everything' it's more that the hypothesis does not show how it could potentially be proved wrong. With most cryptozoology, not finding any evidence at all of the mysterious beast is automatically interpreted as proof of how good it is at hiding. Not finding anything that a beast of that description could use as a food source is automatically construed as evidence of how cunning the creature is.Not so. Cryptozoology, at least as I understand it, has two goals:
1. To gather evidence regarding the likelihood that a cryptid sighted or described in legend or hearsay could be based on a true creature and find and formally identify the creature itself.
2. To examine the possible origins of a cryptid described in legend or hearsay.

Obviously, in a field like this there's gonna be a whole lot of cranks and whackos who will refuse to believe that something doesn't exist even in the face of overwhelming evidence, but it's not fair to say that "most cryptozoology" works like this. Legitimate, serious cryptozoologists need to know when it's time to go from goal 1 to goal 2.
Oooo, is that a cryptid thread...?

I once had a long-running argument with a (law student) friend over the cause of wind. He insisted, for weeks, that wind was created by trees. Later he switched to clouds :smallsigh: :smallfurious:

[WalkingTarget]

I once had a long-running argument with a (law student) friend over the cause of wind. He insisted, for weeks, that wind was created by trees. Later he switched to clouds :smallsigh: :smallfurious:

Ahhh... Calvin and Hobbes memories.

Calvin: Where does wind come from.
Dad: Trees sneezing.
Calvin: Really?
Dad: No, but the truth is much more complicated.
*scene change to C & H walking into a stiff breeze*
Calvin: Man, the trees are really sneezing today.
Hobbes: :smallconfused:

[Mx.Silver]

Not so. Cryptozoology, at least as I understand it, has two goals:
1. To gather evidence regarding the likelihood that a cryptid sighted or described in legend or hearsay could be based on a true creature and find and formally identify the creature itself.
2. To examine the possible origins of a cryptid described in legend or hearsay.

Obviously, in a field like this there's gonna be a whole lot of cranks and whackos who will refuse to believe that something doesn't exist even in the face of overwhelming evidence, but it's not fair to say that "most cryptozoology" works like this. Legitimate, serious cryptozoologists need to know when it's time to go from goal 1 to goal 2.
Oooo, is that a cryptid thread...?

Sorry, your probably right it's just that the wackos seem to be the only ones who ever appear in the public eye. AKA the 'loud loony' phenomenon.



I once had a long-running argument with a (law student) friend over the cause of wind. He insisted, for weeks, that wind was created by trees. Later he switched to clouds :smallsigh: :smallfurious:
Buh? Wuh?

That's just...

I don't know.

[phoenixineohp]

For instance what could be the scientific rational behind ghostly hauntings?

I'm currently reading Spook by Mary Roach (http://www.amazon.com/Spook-Science-Afterlife-Mary-Roach/dp/0393059626). Deals with that subject in depth.

[Wizard of the Coat]

Read the exerpt...could be a good read

[SDF]

Cryptozoology isn't science if it takes claims of people and attempts to find the creature these claims are based off of. A scientific approach would look at the claim and attempt to determine what the reason for the claim could be, weather balloons, known animals in the area, mental illness, ect. You can't go looking for an answer, you have to explore all possible plausible possibilities.

I think psychology goes into lots of "psychic" phenomenon. I was watching a show on "psychic" children where they went to a camp to explore their "powers." (The concept bothered me, because it just appeared to feed the delusion of constantly seeing ghosts, ect) At one point in the show the director of this so called camp decided to have an experiment where the child would try to guess a number the adult was thinking of. He said to pick a number one, two, or three. Then he said for the child to grab the adults hand, then he said to grab two hands. "Ah," I thought, "The number is going to be two, the adult will think that, and the child will guess it."
"Is it two?"
"Yes! It is two! Amazing!"
During his explanation of the exercise he emphasized the word two, and then said the word two again during the exercise. Of course they both thought of that number.

Does anyone think that the Microbiologist that was implicated in the anthrax attacks after killing himself seemed like some batman villain? He released the deadly spores to test his vaccine after the government cut his funding. I've seen that in at least two comic books before.

[Killersquid]

Science! (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/08/10/6407801-ap.html)

Would love one of those.

[Serpentine]

What is... Science? (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/science/)

Cryptozoology isn't science if it takes claims of people and attempts to find the creature these claims are based off of. A scientific approach would look at the claim and attempt to determine what the reason for the claim could be, weather balloons, known animals in the area, mental illness, ect. You can't go looking for an answer, you have to explore all possible plausible possibilities.Well, first of all, I acknowledged that it's not a science but a pseudoscience, an off-shoot or assistant to zoology if you will. Secondly, some quick excerpts from the beginning of one of two books on cryptozoology my dad got me for my birthday:

What is cryptozoology? In short, it is a targeted-search methodology for zoological discovery... Practically, it is a lengthy process of collecting and analyzing data to determine which mystery animals may be unknown biological species, and then searching for conclusive physical evidence... We know that there are millions of species that are not yet scientifically described... Ethnoknown species are those for which some prior contact with man has been communicated to others... Rather than relying upon chance or random collection, a zoologist may investigate reports of an animal which suggest a species unknown to science... the scientist develops a specific procedure to locate and obtain physical evidence of the animal. Once accomplished, morphological and genetic examinations determine whether it is in fact a new species. This methodology is used in mainstream zoology, but its potential is seldom admitted... Popular interest in mysterious phenomena is high, creating an image problem for cryptozoology. Cryptids are often sandwiched between ghosts and UFOs within documentary-style programming, creating the perception that they are unearthly or paranormal... The need for entertaining or suspenseful devices creates the false impression that cryptozoology is just about hunting monsters or any supposed creature that bumps along in the night... Paranormal theorizing regurgitates the same questions which experienced cryptozoological investigators have answered time and time again... Honest inquiry leads to rational answers, which have been published repeatedly in cryptozoological texts.It goes on to discuss "A Scientific Foundation for an Investigative Methodology" and so on.

On a more irrefutably scientific note, isn't it nice when scientists are able to get in as soon as a crisis arises and actually take steps to prevent it? I'm thinking of the Tasmanian devils. There's this really nasty viral facial tumor burning through them and it's so bad it's threatening to kill them off completely. Ecologists, however, have already taken steps to set up quarantined breeding populations, and there's even talk of the development of a vaccine. It seems that there's two main populations of devils, on different sides of Tasmania. One side is quite inbred and so especially susceptible to the disease. The other side has much greater genetic diversity, and it seems that many individuals have some resistance to the disease. Scientists are currently looking at these animals and trying to develop a vaccine. I was really worried for a bit, but it's nice to know that there is hope...