It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When Myth Trumps Science

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Too right, these clowns probably believe in global warming, and humans can interpret human thoughts like they interpret there own.

Scientists remember are just people that had everything going ok for them at school to make them get through all there classes, does not make them any smarter than alot of other people.

I would laugh at any of the scientists that think they can interpret one sentence of my thoughts taken from my mind over the last 17 years. I have proven scientists wrong so many times.

If you no seen what i write before, they have mind control mionitored me since 1992, and they get almost everything wrong. They perve into our home thinking everyone is the same person.

I could come on here, telling lies in a thread, and some pillock would think i am telling the truth. Scientists are just as dunce as anyone else. There is no way on earth humans ever run this society and no way that humans have any more intelligence greater than just to think about sex, thats all they think about.

The ipcc has shown that science has so many myths, just as much as religion.




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Science can create myths of its own. One has to be careful when accepting the proof offered by any studies.

To see if a study is really proving something you must:
-1- look at the methodology used to make sure the study is set up in a way that genuinely tests the hypothesis;
-2- examine the conclusions and check that they logically follow on from the data, and that no other conclusion could fit the data instead;
-3- check that others, under the same conditions, can reproduce the same data, and
-4- ask the all important question, "qui bono?" Is the research being funded by people who will benefit from certain conclusions being reached?


The article the OP references claims:

Those illusory correlations seem particularly strong with one of the more controversial myths that Vreeman and Carroll debunked that sugar causes hyperactivity in children (it doesn't).
When Myth Trumps Science


It's important to note that Vreeman and Carroll did not conduct any research themselves. They merely looked at research done by others and gave us their conclusions as proven facts without quoting which studies they had looked at.

The likeliest source of their data on sugar and hyperactivity was a study led by Dr. Mark L. Wolraich in 1995.

Two studies, from 1980 and 1986, linked sugar intake and hyperactivity. However a causal relationship was not established, merely a correlation.


(Wolraich's) new analysis involved 23 other studies, conducted from 1982 to 1994. All but one compared sugar and sugar substitutes given to children without anyone involved knowing whether the youngsters got the sugar or the substitute.

The sugars tested included sucrose, glucose and fructose. The substitutes were aspartame, saccharine or a combination of the two.
. . .
Analysis of the studies found sugar did not affect the behavior or thinking of children. But the researchers did not rule out the possibility that sugar has a small effect or may affect subsets of youngsters.
Study disputes link between sugar and hyperactivity


Here we see a faulty methodology.
A control group needs to be given an inert substance, one they cannot react to, in order to function as a control. I have checked out some studies purporting to prove that these sweeteners do not cause hyperactivity, but they make the same mistake, comparing the results with these sweeteners to the results with sugar.

Thus the only thing that Wolraich's study proves is that the effect on the children was similar, whether it was sugar, aspartame or saccharine they were given.

Thus the results could equally well be explained by all three substances causing hyperactivity.


Now I've known seriously hyperactive children who were definitely hyperactive regardless of diet. I'm not here to make a case for sugar or artificial sweeteners being the cause of hyperactivity. I'm here to show the traps into which we can all to easily fall if we take anyone's word as "the truth" and fail to question it for ourselves.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 





Say! Wasn't that the original reason that 'science' came into being... to counteract the absurdities of the Church?


Actually if I understand my history correctly science came into being to learn how to turn other substances than gold into gold. They tell me this is called alchemy!

Now, I am not scientist, and while science has made some truly stupendous achievements while trying to turn other substances than gold into gold, like the Atom Bomb, the emissions polluting Combustion Engine, and of course that vast waste land known as Television just to name a few of the great achievements that have truly been helpful to mankind, they have still failed in their number one mission…to turn other substances other than gold into gold.

I can see why they would want to point to other great achievements instead like gunpowder!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
same could be said about the THEORY of evolution, Global warming and MANY other THEORIES that are out there and being passed as fact.

Im not saying evolution didnt happen, im just saying its a THEORY that people pass off as fact.

Whats disturbing to me more are the theories that are out there , that directly involve us passing laws and costing us money.

Of course terms like Global Warming are being changed every day to make it more politically friendly.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Your study is nice, but the unspoken message is that you think that "scientists" *even in groups* are somehow above and beyond normal man. One could argue with good points how this just isn't so. Nothing, not belief in a god and/or belief in mankind's tool of understanding known as science while somehow make a person ascend beyond being human.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Blackburnia riparia...

Which EVOLVED from which (parent) species?



Here’s the abstract
www.entomology.cornell.edu...
seems it’s sister species are B. atra and B. lata and falls under Blackburnia Sharp, Hawaiian Platynini
I’m not exactly sure what your question is about (parent) species...are you looking for an abrupt change?


Evaluation of relationships within the endemic Hawaiian Platynini (Coleoptera: Carabidae) based on molecular and morphological evidence.
Cryan JR, Liebherr JK, Fetzner JW Jr, Whiting MF.
Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, USA.
Relationships among 69 species of Hawaiian Platynini, a monophyletic beetle radiation, was investigated based on evidence from five data partitions, comprising mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences (cytochrome oxidase II, 624 bp; cytochrome b, 783 bp; 28S rDNA, 668 bp; wingless; 441 bp) and morphology (206 features of external and internal anatomy). Results from individual and combined data analyses generally support the monophyly of three putative divisions within Platynini in Hawaii: Division 0 (Colpocaccus species group), Division 1 (Blackburnia species group), and Division 2 (Metromenus species group). However, relationships within and among these three divisions differ from previous morphological hypotheses. An extensive series of sensitivity analyses was performed to assess robustness of recovered clades under a variety of weighted parsimony conditions. Sensitivity analyses support the monophyly of Divisions 0 and 1, but were equivocal for the monophyly of Division 2. A phylogeny based on combined data suggests at least four independent losses/reductions of platynine flight wings. The combined analysis provides corroboration for biogeographic hypotheses, including (1) colonization of Kauai by Hawaiian Platynini with subsequent dispersal and colonization along the island chain from Oahu to Maui Nui to Hawaii Island and (2) incongruent area relationships among Eastern Molokai, West Maui, and Haleakala for two species triplets. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


I think we are getting way off topic, but I’ll leave you with this:
www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Now THAT is what I'm talking about!



Excellent posts Andy1033, Kailassa, ProtoplasmicTraveler, ManBehindTheMask and Watcher-In-The-Shadows.



How do you know if you are talking to a Scientist or an Absurdist?

An Absurdist will say something like "That CAN'T be... because..."

A Scientist will say something like "Really? Show me what you've got!"

The Scientific method is actually quite fabulous methodology for learning...

Unfortunately, Absurdists don't feel like those rules apply to them...

So MANY bad assumptions...

Hey you Absurdists... The next time HUNDREDS OF TONS of rain clouds go sailing by your head...

Please do PARROT to me the Law of Gravity!



The study is a fabulous example of what I like to call John Stossel syndrome.

Do I really NEED to say anything more?



(and of course
)



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


A lot of people who view themselves as Scientists (that are really Absurdists) don't seem to REALLY understand the concept of Evolution.

They often bring LOTS of data to you... but all the data really is... is examples of ADAPTATION.

Evolution, which should really be called Gradualism, maintains that there was NEVER any CATASTROPHES.

The cornerstone of this theory is that species EVOLVED into other species.

For that to ACTUALLY occur one species needs to EVOLVE into another.

Not implied.

Not surmised.

Not conjectured.

Not deduced.

Not opined.

It NEEDS to have occurred.

Is that what you brought to us?



[edit on 29-5-2009 by golemina]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by Pauligirl
 




They often bring LOTS of data to you... but all the data really is... is examples of ADAPTATION.




What do you think Adaptation is and how do you think it works?
I am curious, but you may want to start a new thread.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Illusory correlation? I thought it was called cognitive bias...I'm pretty sure that is a much more accepted term, and is what I have learned in my studies in psychology



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Sorry man but "scientist" is just another word for normal human with a piece of paper called a PhD.....



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 




What do you think Adaptation is and how do you think it works?


Conceptually... fairly well understood (Even by Absurdists
).

How it works?

You're kidding right?


I understand where you think you are trying to go...


All the kings horses and all the kings men won't sum ADAPTATION into EVOLUTION.

The only known cases of the evolution of NEW species are from exposure to CATACLYSMIC/CATASTROPHIC events.

Which once again exposes Absurdists to be a bunch of delusional chumps vis-a-vis their views/understanding on DNA.



With regards to 'Scientists' being (normal) guys with PhDs...

True.

Problem is with that blanket approach... is there are SOME good Scientists... doing GREAT work... great people with fabulous minds.

They are for the most part the exception.

Most of the guys in question are PARROTS, have no real interest in really accomplishing anything, except being one of the guys, holding on to their cushy jobs, not rocking the boat...

And like I have babbled continuously in this thread (and the past
)... they are Absurdists standing on their soapboxes (mostly for sale
).

They give themselves away forcing their theories on the data, forcing the math on the theories, saying ABSURD things like the 2nd LAW of thermodynamices blah blah blah...

(With their blindness to their EXTREMELY SHALLOW MATERIALISM, unable to see that we don't live in a CLOSED SYSTEM and even though the biggest lab in existence (the world in which we live
), continually rubs their nose in their ignorance, they are ABSOLUTELY OBLVIOUS to their cluelessness... And in the FINAL analysis, they still see themselves as intelligent (
), not to mention the DE FACTO center of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE! )





I am curious, but you may want to start a new thread.


I will leave that honor to you.

But as you might guess... Love to chat.

(Just PM me
)



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

For me, the core ideas are most interesting, especially for Above Top Secret. I particularly like the observation that "It's instinctual to make sense of the patterns we see, to assign some kind of order to the mystifying connections that continually occur around us."


Yep. I do that. No doubt.



Where I think the study and article fall short is that neither considers the fact that data is manipulated, and people know it. That sometimes, agenda masquerades as science to try and trump a previous agenda.

It's not always about myths trumping science. All too often, it's about people knowing their strings are being pulled and just digging their heels in, in self defense.


I suggested that "people know their strings are being pulled and just digg their heels in, in self defense. "

Seems to me my hypothesis has been proved. Several posters here have winged off to defend their personal beliefs, without regard to the ideas addressed in the opening post.

Interesting phenomena, don't you think?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Ahh, I was waiting for you to make such a reply
when people spend more than a page on defending ideas not actually related to the OP, I'd have to say your hypothesis cannot be rejected.. Congrats on such a fast experiment! :]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by scraze
reply to post by soficrow
 


... I'd have to say your hypothesis cannot be rejected.. Congrats on such a fast experiment! :]


Thank you. Thank you.



Shoulda called it "When Myth Trumps Reason," eh?




ed. to add comment



[edit on 31-5-2009 by soficrow]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 




I suggested that "people know their strings are being pulled and just digg their heels in, in self defense. "

Seems to me my hypothesis has been proved. Several posters here have winged off to defend their personal beliefs, without regard to the ideas addressed in the opening post.

Interesting phenomena, don't you think?


Dude... How MANY people did you put on 'ignore' that you seem reduced to responding to your own posts?



It might have been interesting to 'sacrifice' someone to reading this BS expose so we could get to the meat (the other 58 'myths') of what these two geniuses are setting straight for us mere mortal simpletons.

Maybe you also overlooked and was surprised at the VERY prevalent backlash of the higher wattage bulbs to the unending Absurdisms served up as 'Science'.



Personal opinions...


Did you read (or understand
) ANYTHING that was said? My box of crayons is around here somewhere... I would be MORE than glad to explain the hard parts to you.

I ACHE to serve!



...my hypothesis has been proved...




Good one!

[edit on 31-5-2009 by golemina]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by soficrow
 




I suggested that "people know their strings are being pulled and just digg their heels in, in self defense. "

Seems to me my hypothesis has been proved. Several posters here have winged off to defend their personal beliefs, without regard to the ideas addressed in the opening post.

Interesting phenomena, don't you think?


...It might have been interesting to 'sacrifice' someone to reading this BS expose so we could get to the meat (the other 58 'myths') of what these two geniuses are setting straight for us mere mortal simpletons.

Maybe you also overlooked and was surprised at the VERY prevalent backlash of the higher wattage bulbs to the unending Absurdisms served up as 'Science'.


Golemina,

What you are doing here is called "highjacking" the thread.

You have winged off to defend your personal beliefs, without regard to the ideas addressed in my opening post. ...My focus was confined to the 'theory,' not the specific 'discoveries.'

You apparently did NOT notice that I questioned the entire basis of the study.

You are NOT addressing the topic, or contributing to the defined subject.

You ARE being disrespectful, insulting, and indulging in ad-hominim attacks and gratuitous arguing.

Your behavior goes against ATS' T&C, and notably, does NOT contribute to free and open discussion, where civility and decorum rule the day.

I strongly recommend that you start your own thread to focus on your topic, whatever it may be.

FYI - Why is it the ATS members are forgetting their motto? Deny Ignorance!

and

Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com


(1) Any posts/replies that focuses on a member rather than the topic of the thread, or follow the normal evolution of a thread's focus, will be subject to warnings.

(2) Any posts/replies that contain a direct insult of another member will be subject to immediate posting bans, without warning.

(3) Typical "Decorum" and "Political Trolling" posts will be under closer scrutiny, and may be removed with the warning icons.

...Our intent here is to operate a free and open discussion venue, where civility and decorum rule the day, so that the focus is on important and provocative issues, not each other. All members, new and old, need to have complete confidence that their ideas, theories, observations, and opinions can be posted to ATS with the complete confidence that replies will remain focused on the issues in the spirit of collaborative learning and understanding.

Insults, ad-hominim attacks, and gratuitous arguing have no place here.


Respectfully,
sofi



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Dude chill.

This is ALL good natured fun (and hopefully discussion
).

Why do you have such a problem with my opinion?

If YOU have such a narrow tolerance for what you seem to want to permit discussion wise... I will make a note of it (and the fact that you seem intent on having such a freakish amount of control and what you think should be permissible).

There are PLENTY of other threads were people seem intent on expanding their viewpoints and ACTUALLY interacting with others at this most fabulous site...

ATS baby!

(Have a good one Sofie
).



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by soficrow
 


Did you read (or understand
) ANYTHING that was said? My box of crayons is around here somewhere... I would be MORE than glad to explain the hard parts to you.


Yep - you were going on and on about 'true' scientists and Absurdists (although the way you use the word seems to have little to do with actual Absurdism), and your opinion on the theory evolution - all with a lot of caps - and all of which [bold]isn't related to the OP. All this effort put in unrelated posts is what is considered to be to the hypothesis that whenever people are opposed, they tend to put their foot down. And you sure do. Here's your very first reaction:



Originally posted by golemina


It has MANY signs of a disinformation campaign.

BTW, the THEORY of Evolution is just so much wishful thinking. NOT supported by the facts. Velikovsky shot Darwin's theories down wholesale more than 50 years ago.


Notice you're using a lot of caps, and you're loudly speaking against the original post: you slander it with having signs of a disinformation campaign. Secondly you talk about the theory of evolution - where the hell did you get this from? The post is not about the theory evolution! It isn't! It is about the way humans spread knowledge and hold on to it. Here's another one of your posts:


Originally posted by golemina


It's ALWAYS good to hear from a Darwinian Absurdist!

Well, since you seem to be picking up the gauntlet...

Why don't you enlighten us to which NEW species of fauna evolved from a parent species...


Sure, it's never too early to start using terms you think are cleverly insulting. To me it's just abuse of terms to show how much you disagree. Then you return to the theory of evolution - and again, this is off-topic. We're not talking about any specific theory, at least, soficrow wasn't. You are.

Next post!


Originally posted by golemina
Yes! A brilliant display of Absurdism at it's very best.



Just to show I'm paying attention: this is the third time you've expressed your discontempt for the OP. The rest of that post doesn't really make sense to me - something about HIV.. Still not about the subject at hand.

All of your other posts are either about what true "Scientists" and "Absurdists" are supposed to be or about the theory of evolution. A few people even get on your subject, and post their opinions about scientists. Again I wonder whether they understand the subject of the OP.

So far, you have spent 11 posts to insult people who disagree, to display your sense of victory, and to display your opinions. In no post do you discuss the way you think information can be retained while there might be proof to the contrary. Instead, you have made it painfully clear to everyone who you think is completely unworthy to listen to (Absurdist) and what you think is the truth. This is exactly what soficrow meant with digging heels in the ground.

By the way, there are enough threads about the theory of evolution on ATS, you might want to redirect your posts there. The way you conduct conversation here is counter-productive - I get that you want to have a heated conversation, but you have effectively derailed a thread. Once again, this thread is not about what scientists are or about the theory of evolution - it's about how people hold on to information they think is true and soficrow's hypothesis that people when facing contradictory information will protect their version of the truth somehow. (Did I get that right, soficrow?)

[edit on 31-5-2009 by scraze]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


It's all around you, if you look.

Start with triticale. There are dozens of 'transitional' speci-types that reflect the adoption of a new trait or the dormancy of an obsolete one.

Sometimes, obsolescene becomes extinction.

Now, since natural selection (not evolution) takes place over generations, you may not notice the change until many generations have passed.

Pick a "baseline" set of genes. Look again after 5 or 50,000 years. There WILL be change. Ask again in 50,000 years and I'll give you some comparisons with present-day species.

Given that we can only "observe" with the senses we currently enjoy, and are limited in our observation periods to our lifespans, or those of a few generations, almost all of science is THEORY.

Some theories are sound conclusions; others are revised, replaced or abandoned. "THEORY" is not a pejorative, it is a description.

Science is FAITH in sound theories.

Any problem with faith?

Deny Ignorance!
jw

[edit on 31-5-2009 by jdub297]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join