NSF to ATS: You're Stupid!

Originally posted by whaaa
Couldn't the same thing be said of Christians, Conservatives, Democrats, and people in general. Why single out the "conspiracy community".

haha, that's because there's almost an equal ammount of crazy finatics agaisnt Christians (go watch an origins debate....you got cuckos on both sides of the nest) and Republicans and Democrats duke it out here better than they conspiracy theorize. There's a need for a don't think scifi group jsut so they have crazies on both sides of the line...

What a load of crap. In fact, some of the greatest scientific minds in history also possesed either superstitions or paranormal beliefs, like Newton, Einstein, ect.

Maybe they should try and do some research themselves instead of claiming all paranormal as nonsense simply because it doesnt jive with their square views.

Everyday we learn and discover just how little we really know about everything. It is so called scientists like this who actually dampen and slow progress and discovery.

A real scientist fears not the powers of the unknown or superstition. he fears nothing but an end of discovery.

Originally posted by MadMachinist
how many times have you heard the phrase "you have to think outside the box" kinda ironic that scientist would say this because people are thinking outside the box.
But then again the uptight scientific community has always been against non-scientist thinking outside the box, that would be part of the reason why alot of them wont come forward because they know they would be excommunicated from the scientific community.

Way too true.

They are so scard to put out and test theories that are wrong, just to prove they are wrong because it ruins their credibility. Then they are so scared to chang emethodology, because they can't be individuals and BE CREATIVE
Here's some fun
From there:

Moral 1: Science consists of two processes, deduction and induction.

Deduction goes from the general to the specific: making predictions based on theories. Induction goes from the specific to the general: pulling observations together to create a new theory. The nice thing about deduction is, if you do it right, the conclusion is always right (at least as right as the theory it starts with!). Induction, no matter how well you do it, is always suspect, and frequently wrong.

Nonetheless, real science consists primary of induction! (This is also why I chose to write this as a fable, story-first moral-second, instead of giving some general points and then saying "here is a story that illustrates them." If I've done my job, my general morals are obvious from my specific story. You got them by induction!)

Moral 2: Everyone likes to have theories that are right. Scientists spend a lot of time making predictions, and hoping they will come true. But they actually don't learn much when they do! The real learning happens when the predictions don't come true. In many cases, the scientists themselves refuse to believe the key results that lead to the new theories. (Moral 2': scientists are people too. They like to be right as much as anybody.)

Moral 3: Wrong theories are still useful. Every one of Fred's theories was eventually proven wrong, or at the very least, to be a specific case of a more general principle. Einstein is probably wrong too. But each theory is a building block to the next, bigger theory: and each one is also useful, as long as you work within the domain in which it is true. Almost everything we build today is based on 19th century Physics, which has been known to be very fundamentally wrong for almost a hundred years. But it's still useful for making cars and bridges and rockets and anything else that isn't too fast or too big or too small.

Moral 4: Sometimes you get so caught up in the excitement of science, you forget to eat. Which about wraps it up for Fred, I'm afraid.

See, this whole paper is in danger of these principles. btw, the story is cute, go read it.


Ooo, even more fun, the study of science:
The myth of the magical scientific method

The "hypothetico-deductive" schema taught to students was not developed as a method at all: It was intended a logical analysis of how scientific theories derive support from evidence, and it was developed in a process that intentionally excluded consideration of the process of discovery in science. Few people learn that this notion came by a tangled route from an unreliable source (philosophical speculation), or that actual research on how science proceeds is still in its infancy. The question of how science is so successful at improving understanding is hardly ever presented as a question at all.

The current situation is harmful in many ways: People in some immature scientific disciplines are actually trying to use this "method" as a guide to research practice; Others are required to pretend to have followed it when they report their results; and everyone is denied the benefit of useful, insightful analysis of how science works.

I am entertained.


[btw, this is genralizations, nto aimed at all scientist being evil. Some do have good ideas because they ARE imaginative.]

This attitude among the scientific community is endemic. Instead of addressing these theories (conspiracy ones included) and attempting to answer them, or at least acknowledging the more plausable theories, could do wonders to the field of the esoteric in general.

They just don't ever want to "stoop" to our level.

I have a friend who is a "practicing" physicist -- meaning he teaches a bunch of college kids a bunch of theories and then grabs his tweed jacket and nurses Guiness at a nearby pub (God forbid we call it a bar) until Midnight before starting a new day again -- who won't even look at ATS when I tell him of an interesting thread. Let alone even considering that there was any conspiracy involving 9/11 other than a bunch of disinfranchised arabs wanting to strike out at American hegemony.

I think this also applies to people who believe the status quo. And anyone religious.

I always find it amusing that billions of people believe in a supream being whom created life, the planets, the solarsytem, space, everything - yet something as simple as another race of intelligent beings is absolutely impossible. Humans like to think they're special, on their special planet, in their own special corner of the universe.

I forget what the tally was, but we know very very little of what actually is happening. So to say, anything that is not accepted into mainstream science today is simply wrong, to me, is quite ignorant.

Maybe I need to take over the world and rebuild the civilizations with a huge emphasis on Scientific Advancement where people could work on anything they desired, I'd be able to prove them all wrong.

In short, the NSF is ignorant with the rest of us.

Dear NSF,

We truly loved your article regarding paranormal beliefs at www.nsf.gov...
Please do something about it, or some of us will not hesitate to make it hit the news lines as an anti-Christian propaganda.

With best regards,
the unable to make well-informed decisions users of abovetopsecret.com.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by krif]

A real scientist fears not the powers of the unknown or superstition. he fears nothing but an end of discovery.

Skadi- that was truely beautiful.
Oh and I don't buy into the NSF report. I'm living proof it's false.

I find this a little true in many way but I don't think applys to us at ATS most of us try to find evindice to most calims.

I wonder if a group of people that like conspiracies, cryptozoo, etc, can in fact join all toguether and sue them in a court of law!?

Good idea!!!!!!!!!

well i guess the NSF is Retarded

why?

because i saw a friggin UFO up close w/my own eyes.

I know its a true factual event, my buddys witnessed it with me

so basically, if you can see how i view their statements from a Factual Knowledge based viewpoint, you will understand why i think they are IDIOTS

LOL

how on earth can some supposedly mainstream always right about everything group be so Ignorant and totally wrong ??

i dont know, but i do know one thing as a Cold Hard Fact that not even Jesus can dispute,

That flying saucers are real, wether the Govt or aliens make them it doesnt matter

They exist i saw it theres nothing anyone can do to change that reality

Therefore, NSF is the main idiot here.

I cannot respect an organization that acts that way

I guess ill never be able to trust those guys agian

NSF is equal to Serpo, Profit yaweh and all the rest of the charletans IMO because of this incredible breach of IDIOCY

If ATS was'nt as neutral, and it being neutral is a truly great thing,
I bet we could as an organisation force them to retract the article.

Or blackmail them, as has been suggested.

[edit on 8/31/2006 by iori_komei]

The man who sits at the desk behind me refuses to take his prescription medications because of something he learned on Coast to Coast. He will probably die within the next year because of it but he's convinced the doctors are trying to kill him. He has Diabetes and his blood pressure is so high he can barely function. He will not take his meds and talks all day long about Coast to Coast. He's a dead man walking and Coast to Coast is responsible. He believes every word spoken by these psuedo scientists who are nothing more than con men preying on the uninformed and naive. I think this is what they are concerned about and so am I. The charlatans espousing phoney conspiracies and out and out lying to sell books, tapes and advertising can be dangerous and should be made to answer for the emotional and physical damage they cause.

I consider this to be a seperate issue from working to keep bad people out of government by trying to expose them. In these cases there is a genuine problem and real conspiracies that need to be uncovered. I don't think that is what they are talking about. They are talking about the possible harm to easily fooled people who think the Earth is hollow and full of Reptilians. They are talking about those that think the movie the "Matrix" is real. That is a whole diferent matter than researching if our government is in contact with intelegent life which is entirely plausible however unlikely. Here on ATS we have a mixture of the two blended together and those engaging in reasonable investigations are clearly labeled by sharing the same space. That is wrong.

I enjoy the diverse opinions shared here and as long as no one is being hurt the things I would consider outlandish make for terrific entertainment. I may not agree with the wilder claims but I'd stand up others rights to beleive and say what they want in a heartbeat. I do think that something needs to be done about people who use these venues to disseminate information that could harm or even kill innocent people. Everyone here should work together to eliminate these vultures by exposing them and their lies to the light of day. Shows like Coast to Coast and Rense should be held accountable for harm caused by their guests giving out dangerous medical advice. If they were, they would clean up their shows in a hurry.

Boy imagine if it could get you out of Jury Duty alone I'd be all for believing in all of the above

And the NSF and its corporate/govt sponsors say disregard the man behind the curtain. You must believe what we say because we are all powerful and all knowing. We are the great and powerful NSF! Both Tesla and Edison have been despised and maligned by the mainstream scientific community because they didn't fall into line with accepted theory or lacked the proper diploma on the wall. If scientifc data is put forward that doesn't fit current mainstream theory, even if it is hard and irrefutable, it's dismissed as anamolous and trivial. All the NSF is doing is waging a turf war to keep as much of its current corporate and gov't funding as possible. Thank the Creator that most these so scientific fanatics are locked up in there ivory towers. The one thing I learned in my engineering classes in college is that most science is really political.

Originally posted by behindthescenes
I just wanted everyone to know that the National Science Foundation recently concluded...

I'm not sure what's so "recent" about it? It happened to have been published in 2000.

You can read the full report here.

Moreover, in the context of the entire document, I'm not so sure what is so objectionable. Indeed, in the specific section that is the subject of this thread, it reads:

...may have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality...

...may indicate an absence of critical thinking skills...

What's wrong with that? Shouldn't that be considered? ...or should we simply chuck these scientists in the water to see if they sink or float to verify their true nature?

I see no "there" there in the section cited by this thread.


[edit on 1-9-2006 by loam]

Well, there seems to be alot of people who fit the NSF's criteria. Paranormal, UFOs, the whole lot of it, has never been more popular. People are starting to get wise to the realities of Creation. So whats the best way to keep people from believing it? Use your stooges in the NSF to criticize anyone who believes, and say that these people have mental problems.

Wow, unbelievable. I personally have seen a ghost and a UFO, so theres no way youll ever get me to believe there is no such thing as "paranormal". Its only "para" normal, because the ignorant masses dont consider it "normal"! Its as normal as breathing!

Shows just how disconnected we are with the Universe when we consider normalcy weird, and such mundane and abnormal stuff (like sitcoms and soap operas) we consider perfectly normal. And we wonder why life is the way it is. We wonder whether there is more to life. Of course there is! Its all around us! Right were you sit right now!

[edit on 31-8-2006 by AscendedMaster]

I am gonna go out on a limb here but I think the NSF document is just another tone setter to stem the (maybe) revolution. Even Hitler new that the biggest problem to his goal were the critical thinkers they were the first to be killed.
If I were trying to create a police state, the first thing I would do is get rid of anyone who didnt agree with me. I would pass laws such as patriot act I and II that allow me to label them terrorist. So what happens well in order for survival the NSF rolls over and jumps on the other sides band wagon.
To me the irrational and stupid people are the ones who take what ever is fed to them from the media like its candy and then spits it out to me. Assuming I am not going to dispute with them and then they get mad cause they really have no debate. But of course what do you expext when news is fed in 30 second sound bytes.
Come to think of it if they (NSF) had any cahones they would have gone after the news agency because they produce way more fiction than any TV I have come across. Or religion for that matter. But who would that serve?
Everyone I talk to always labels me as a conspiracy theorist everytime I want to have a discussion over a given topic. I get shut down because the news has already mentioned what I was going to hypothesis as conspiracy theory. It seems funny to me that I seem to find more facts to support a "conspiracy theory". Than i do to support most generally accepted stories.
Though the far most important aspect of reality that these statements from the NSF impact is that when the gov. starts knocking off non-conformist at a high rate the general public will say "yeah one less stupid illogical person to worry about" and go on with their aceepted slavery.

Science is great. Science, one might say, is perfect.

But scientists are very much not so.

Remember that these people are the same kind of monkeys we are. By no means do they have a perfectly objective and entirely flawless conception of reality.

Even the data rendered by their machines must be filtered through the morass of prejudice that is the human consciousness... and there is much that we can't perceive with our primitive sensory apparatus.

I for one believe that there are things, forces, that we don't understand nearly well enough to detect with the most advanced of scientific implements, simply because their existence is not self-evident to our mortal eyes and ears; they have always existed, but we have never thought to look for them, or we have no idea how to do so.

Here, we see scientists deeming themselves capable of detecting the most subtle of reality's nuances, using a gross and imperfect mechanism of consciousness that has only just been turned out by evolution's ceaseless toil.

It occurs to me that science is a lot like religion, in this sense. It would be far better off without its priests.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by The Parallelogram]

Originally posted by The Parallelogram


It occurs to me that science is a lot like religion, in this sense. It would be far better off without its priests.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by The Parallelogram]

P. you never cease to amaze me with your gems!! Wanna WATS