Advertisement
<<<This one seems to relate more directly to the subject matter of this tribe. It also does't pass my smell test. I don't have to have a Doctorate in Astrophysics to know horsedookie when I see it. It really starts about 5 minutes in. I don't have the patience to watch it all. Somebody needs to get up and refute this stuff, and all psuedoscience everywhere. It's rotting the brains of everybody. They throw in a smattering of techno-jargon, scientific mumbo-jumbo, cosmo-terminology, and galacto-wordage, then all of a sudden ordinary people(why!!?) are taken in by this stuff.
Maybe I'M full of it. I should have watched more of it to be sure. I just couldn't do it. Anyway, I'm on sattelite inet so I can't just download stuff for hours. It costs more if I run over.
video.google.com/videosearch
I apologize for being a little rough around the edges. I should be able to express myself a little more eloquently, and I will try harder to do so in the future- especially without resorting to cursing . I should be able to get my point across without ranting ( who doesn't like an occasional rant, tho?). I don't have a higher education like most folks, so I can't understand why people like me aren't more skeptical. Yet they continually fall for stuff like the looming disaster of 2012. Especially since there is the REAL danger, albiet a minor chance of impact, from the asteroid Apophis. You don't hear about that in average-joe circles.
Thanks for the help.
Maybe I'M full of it. I should have watched more of it to be sure. I just couldn't do it. Anyway, I'm on sattelite inet so I can't just download stuff for hours. It costs more if I run over.
video.google.com/videosearch
I apologize for being a little rough around the edges. I should be able to express myself a little more eloquently, and I will try harder to do so in the future- especially without resorting to cursing . I should be able to get my point across without ranting ( who doesn't like an occasional rant, tho?). I don't have a higher education like most folks, so I can't understand why people like me aren't more skeptical. Yet they continually fall for stuff like the looming disaster of 2012. Especially since there is the REAL danger, albiet a minor chance of impact, from the asteroid Apophis. You don't hear about that in average-joe circles.
Thanks for the help.
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Link
Mon, October 5, 2009 - 5:00 PM -
-
Re: Link
Mon, October 5, 2009 - 7:22 PMI didn't make it even a third of the way.. Thanos I fully agree with you..
These guys learn some of the vocabulary,, Then they say stuff like, "Okay the scientists have found out the universe is shaped like a dodecahedron.. We're finding more and more of this sacred geometry.. And it's been proven!"
Oh yeah? Proven? how?
He says we're in the middle of the galaxy, expect a Galactic alignment.
What? Aligned with what? How?
So, he knows a few scientific words.. That makes him an expert??
I can't take this stuff!!
-
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Mon, October 5, 2009 - 9:43 PMThanos, I listened to the whole thing - hope you're not disappointed. Wilcock is a really talented speaker. Now whether there's even a shred of evidence that provides any proof whatsoever for the proposed events related to 2012 is another story. But, this fellow has done his homework and connected a lot of dots, which apparently many take as fact.
He does pad his yarn with a lot of neat images, and where appropriate, he injects bits of real science, but, of course, his interpretations are generally suspect, and in many places, clearly without merit.
What I was most impressed with was his showmanship. I'm unclear even whether he believes what he is saying, and I tend to think the whole thing might be a spoof to make a couple of bucks.
Now if people want the real 2012 scoop, I suggest they click on the link below:
www.fancast.com/movies/201...cene/videos
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 8:47 AMIts not science at all. Its paranormal.
I don't understand why you think this is "rotting people's brains". You think some subjects should be censured from human conversation? -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 9:16 AMDavid Wilcock is not a scientist. And doesn't pretend to be. He is more of a wizard of sorts. He quotes some scientific fact but leverages on things like sacred geometry in which there is a religious/spiritual component.
So to call this science is wrong. If you can't stand it, then don't touch it. But its wrong to portray it as something its not. To try to stop it, I think, is vain. If you study history you know that stuff like this cannot be stopped. -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 9:24 AMI like it how he talks about black ops and secret orgs working fringe science. It reminds me of Stargate SG-1 or the current show Fringe. -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 10:17 AM"I like it how he talks about black ops and secret orgs working fringe science. It reminds me of Stargate SG-1 or the current show Fringe."
The funny thing about black projects is that, unless they are intended to be disinformation (and some are), they very much real science. Projects become black (classified) because the government considers the research to be a national security issue (think stealth, nuclear weapons, curers for bioweapons (they require one to work with very dangerous diseases and are a security risk), etc). Yes, the government is a bit over zealous in classifying things and has a history of abuse but those issues don't make the science any less real.
And before you ask, my dad's career s spent working on black projects. After his death, I learned that he was considered an expert in ballistics (nuclear weapons not bullets) and propulsion (jets and rockets). -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 11:43 AM>"my dad's career s spent working on black projects"<
Wow! On one side that could be cool. On the other side ..... well its black ops, and I don't go there. -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 5:31 PMThis 'Black Ops' thing is really overblown. Essentially, many projects sponsored by the government require a security clearance. Once you get a clearance you're supposed to refrain about communicating about certain things that have been deemed classified - depending upon your level of clearance. People use the term frequently to get mileage about what they're pointing out, but it really doesn't mean much. -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 5:47 PMBTW "black ops" and "black projects" actually refer to two different things. A black ops is a covert military action, where as a black project is a project that goes before congress for funding with only a name and dollar amount (all other information being blacked out - literally), unless the congressmen are on the appropriate committee with the correct clearances.
Black projects are of dubious constitutional merit - congress is asked to fund them with little or no oversight. Black ops are of dubious merit under international law depending on the mission, unless the mission is against someone we are at war with. -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 6:01 PMTroy, thanks for the clarification. I got the sense that Wilcock was using the term 'Black Ops' for anything that was classified - at least from the context of his point of view. Course, I wouldn't be surprised if he was fabricating much of what he said.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 10:26 AMFirst off, Thanos, you absolutely do not need a degree in anything to be a critical thinker. You don't even need to understand a lot of technical scientific jargon to smell BS or call it when you see it. Of course experts will have deeper insight and ability to dissect the minutia in false statements or arguments, but understanding the ins and outs of every subject isn't necessary to thinking with a rational or critical mind.
"I don't understand why you think this is "rotting people's brains". You think some subjects should be censured from human conversation?"
c'mon eric, that's not what he said at all. The term rotting brains may by hyperbolic, but Thanos has a good point about the erosion of skepticism and the rise credulity. It may not be any worse now than it ever has been, but in America in particular we are lagging far behind in science education and there is a general distrust of scientific experts in the media, it's just not valued in our culture like it once was and hopefully we can bring that kind of interest back around. I can speak from my public school education that critical thinking was absolutely not taught in science classrooms. I learned more about critical thinking in my college level literature classes and then well after college than I ever did in my mandatory high school science education classes. -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 11:40 AM>"c'mon eric, that's not what he said at all. The term rotting brains may by hyperbolic, but Thanos has a good point about the erosion of skepticism and the rise credulity."<
Ok, ok. sometimes I take things to the nth degree.
Erosion of skepticism and rise of credulity....well put. But isn't the option to be incredulous vs being skeptic a personal choice? -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 12:07 PMSure, it comes about after making specific choices, but a little education goes a long way and as long as we're forcing education onto young adults and children, we would probably be better off teaching them critical thinking rather than making them memorize the periodic table of elements (for example). If people still want to believe 2012 hooey, that's definitely their choice, but if they're going to proselytize the silliness I think we have a duty to call bullshit on them.
On the black ops tip, I am just finishing Jon Ronson's "Men Who Stare At Goats," which is a hilarious and oddly chilling read and something i recommend. Kind of off topic, but a great book anyway. -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 5:54 PMTeaching critical thinking can be difficult, especially in high school where one has to contend with peer-pressure to conform and parental pressure for a lot of reasons. Even here in grad school, I see pressure not to question what authority (the profs) says. Question to hard and lose any chance of getting a PhD ( a real conflict of interest).
Of course there are those who are cynical, and would say that teaching of critical thinking is discouraged because critical thinkers make very poor sheep. -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 6:13 PMOK, Ok, I probably should have watched the whole thing before calling BS on it. But if you smell a cowwpie in the dark, you don't have to see it to know not to forge ahead.
Why would I want to censure it? Rather, it should be refuted by teaching kids basic science.
In my day, science classes were fun. We learned all sorts of nifty stuff, hand on. I duno what they teach, if anything, in school anymore. Of course, back in my day it was possible to FLUNK. To say a child failed to adequately learn this or that anymore in un-PC. Obviously, it was anyones' fault but the kids. Man, I wish Ihad that excuse in 10th grade english, lol.
I'm not just ragging so much about this, as psuedo-science in general. It pisses me off, and IS rotting peoples brains. Hyperbole? Yeah, but you know what I mean guys. freaking astrology- how can people go for that? yet they do- in part bc they failed to learn in school that the alignment of the planets and stars could not possibly effect ones life here one Earth- barring a nearby gamma ray burst or collision. I'll admit there are things we don't fully understand, but new age gurus and hippy chicks with nice tits spread their nonsense like a bad case of the clap.
So sayeth Thanos. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Tue, October 6, 2009 - 6:18 PMAnd questioning authority? They gave Maxwell hella greif when he said he thought that light, magnetsim and electricity were related. Turns out, they're more than related.
Authority should be questioned. It's OK. I imagine it would piss off a professor if one of his students checked him. Oh well, it probably happens frequently. When you guys hold doctorates, if you don't already, your students will probably check you. But they'll probably be cyborgs with advanced AI. I'm not kidding, lolol. -
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 6:09 AM>>I can speak from my public school education that critical thinking was absolutely not taught in science classrooms.<<
>>In my day, science classes were fun. We learned all sorts of nifty stuff, hand on. I duno what they teach, if anything, in school anymore. Of course, back in my day it was possible to FLUNK. To say a child failed to adequately learn this or that anymore in un-PC. Obviously, it was anyones' fault but the kids.<<
Good discussion guys about formal education, and maybe seeking to understand why people might "chose" to become uninformed, or not believe the "more" informed.
You know you have a Middle school Science teacher among you! I teach 6th and 8th grade. Physical Science to 6th graders - that means I'm teaching Physics and Chemistry to 10 year olds.. };-D Yeah I have to smile at that.
and Earth Science to 8th graders.
I give them at least one good sized lab a week, and loads of demos. Use clickers for questioning -that means I get 100% response whenever I'm digging. Give a quiz once every other week.. So, suffice it to say,, I'm not sitting behind the desk and watching them read like my teachers did when I was growing up. It's a different world now. At least in my own circle.
Here's the website that has pretty much everything I do.
mrcrowder.us/school/student.html
As you can see, we move! They're DOING science as much as they are learning about it didactically.
I teach with the premise, that we don't really know anything.. We "think" we do based on certain evidence.
So, that gives them the opportunity to question and reason.
I think it's very important that science teachers in particular don't just say "Well that's what scientists say, or that's what the book says"
We should know why the book says it, or why most scientists agree on whatever topic we teach. Not just what it is..
That's what gets kids interested and questioning, eventually becoming a reasonable thinker.
That's also why I hang out on this list. I want to know the whys for everything we bring up here.
-
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 8:01 AM>"I teach with the premise, that we don't really know anything.. We "think" we do based on certain evidence. "<
Awesome! You must have a lot of fun, Dave.
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 3:18 PMEccelent! Hooray for science teachers! I remember our science teacher starting a model rocket club after school. i learned alot there, too- about things like thrust, drag, lift and gravity. Not only that, it was fun.
-
-
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 8:14 AM"When you guys hold doctorates, if you don't already, your students will probably check you."
Personally, I think questioning authority should be a requirement for getting a PhD and as a professor I would not endorse a student that did not challenge what they are told.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Psuedoscience? Or Not?
Wed, October 7, 2009 - 8:10 AMAstrology and the like are religious beliefs and as long as the public understands that I am fine with people believing in astrology. Like you, Thanos, I dislike when people try to pass astrology off as science.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
