The Falacy of PsuedoScience

reply to post by boncho


Whoah, I've been living under a rock!

Awkward

An experiment in dog telepathy, circa 1920

In this telepathy experiment between human and dog Karl Krall (on the right) tried to detect the thinking radiation he assumed to flow between the two. Krall was a rich dealer in diamonds who had founded his very own institute for paraphysical research in Munich. He had also taken care of the famous horse Clever Hans (who performed arithmetic in Berlin in 1904) after his owner Wilhelm van Osten had died. He thought Hans used telepathy and started an elaborate research program but he was wrong: the horse could read the right answers in small unintentional signals given by humans.

SOURCE

What a joke right? Pseudoscience at its finest? And yet....................

Fanny the poodle a godsend to family of special needs child

Fanny can sense when Jennifer is entering into distress even as she is showing no outward signs her parents could detect. About 45 minutes ahead of a seizure, Fanny begins running circles around Jennifer's wheelchair, and frantically licking the girl, sometimes barking.

www.tampabay.com...

I’m sure at first studying the human/dog connection might strike some as “junk science” and yet today, dogs can detect seizures, serve as guide dogs to the blind and some purportedly have been able to sniff cancer. There was a thread a few years ago featuring detailed experiments by a researcher who’s name escapes me that performed some pretty compelling evidence about dogs knowing when their masters were returning home. (I wish I could find that thread.) I believe he was English or Australian as I recall. It was about measuring “intuition” and “connection” of humans to animals and other humans. In one experiment a mother began to lactate at precise moment her newborn began to cry miles away.

Perhaps some consider this all “pseudoscience” but I consider it fascinating and sometimes science fiction becomes science fact. Thanks for inspiring lively discussion on both fronts.

reply to post by Resentedhalo08

Originally posted by Serafine

Is everything a science? Our readers want to know!

Resentedhalo08, I'm trying to figure what your concerns are in this thread. Some things to consider?

Originally posted by Resentedhalo08

Personally I would question the validity of these so called "scientists",

Care to back this up with some sources?

Remember posting that? Was it a quickfire shoot from the hip post? Demanding a scientific method, as you have, did you apply such a method in that response? See what I am trying to describe here? Know anything about João de Deus? Why did you post "so called "scientists"?

How much background do you have on "Psychic Surgery"? Name such "healers" that have been investigated and NOT been proven frauds. Don't even try saying competent doctors, scientists and researchers haven't investigated any of them. You might want to consider your ideas concerning pseudoscience.

Is a psychic a scientist? where's the science that follows the pseudo? The INVESTIGATION of the phenomena? Scientists investigating it? How about Psychics who ARE scientists? Are we focusing now? You can use a Google/Wiki education to work this out, in a matter of seconds.. minutes and hours.... But be very careful about your conclusions with such limited means. Try spending years, decades on these matters.

You can think and reason for yourself. Learn logical fallacies. Not to tie yourself up in knots, but to set some of your own "methods" in order. I watched you appeal to authority ( academic credibility... a scientists "reputation" etc ) so many times that if you REMOVE such statements from your posts, what would be left? How many holes in your ideas? Because they are an appeal to authority and not valid. Look at your "so called scientists" post man... be very careful of using ridicule ( or ad homs ) in place of your own required research and background regarding the subject.

I understand this is just conversations eh? This thread isn't a formal paper, nor really a debate. I'm merely trying to offer things you may consider.

I remember in the early 80s Harvard/Radcliffe giving freshmen Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science". You may have read it, as it's considered a classic by some. Providing that book at such a Top End ( Ivy League ) Institution is something that enlightened me about "academic credibility". That book wasn't for the purpose of debate ( especially for freshmen students, who lack such skill ). The book was provided as an example of "how to think". Not "what" to think mind you, but HOW.

Fortunately much of the matters considered in that book, I already had years of experience with. I had background, in fact, much more background than the author, in some of those fields and subjects. I could "see" where his limitations and fallacies where, which is odd considering the name of his book! lol He used many fallacies and had very little understanding of most of the subjects.

So YOU can either appeal to authority here... academic credibility or you can do the work yourself, filing such sources where appropriate. Thinking for yourself.. Reasoning for yourself and NOT thinking because OTHERS so think... Doing because others do. YOU CHOOSE.

What background do you have in Gurdjieff, Cayce, Wilhelm Reich etc etc? UFOs? You can read the critics all you want, but actually going to SEE the play yourself and sitting in the audience... let alone participating, is wise. Become your own critic without quoting "other" critics... in a word... think for yourself, do the work, then consider your opinions.

You mentioned pseudoscience... look for a list of what's been and what is labeled "pseudoscience". What I see with you is that you need to CHOOSE. If you want some method applied and end of ignorance, then try applying them to your ideas of "academic credibility" and "a scientists reputation". As if you value the reputation of scientists? What of the doctors, scientists and researchers, writers that work and deal with any pseudoscience ( as labeled ) field? Don't tell me such people are not "credible" lol SEE?

In place of demanding an end to ignorance on ATS forums and some sort of "dealing with facts", this thread really seems to come down to your choosing how YOU will think. Not what, but HOW..... So far I find more "belief" in your statements... what you BELIEVE, often based on very spurious sources, and without a personal understanding of the various "pseudoscience's." After all, try to imagine these science's are NOT pseudo and wonder, WHO decides? YOU DO!!!!!!!

Put it this way man lol.... you scoff at Psychic Surgery ( healing ).... and me?... I have experienced it while living in the Philippines lol... go figure..... yea yea sure sure.... She wasn't a fake man.. I mean... she was investigated by so many "credible" people and NEVER proven fake lol... In fact "I" watched her put her hands in my body man, through three sessions lol..... Then again... you may NOT BELIEVE!!! ? lol

Consider your sources man... I certainly try to make it a habit, especially when I'm a primary source!... THINK FOR YOURSELF and also learn to change your mind ! brilliant eh? well.... maybe not.... nahhhhhh it's Brilliant!!!!

reply to post by Serafine


Well said. And in strict discordance of "rules":

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/efb2e2ceddf8.jpg[/atsimg]

My dogs love me. Can I measure that or provide evidence as fact?

Sure, how many licks does it take to be proven?

reply to post by Tecumte

Who's 'conspiracy theories' are you referring to, the 'states' or those who take exception to them. That's the very thing I'm getting at. Some would just trust whatever was issued by the state or it's mouthpieces as gospel and then relegate any other info into the conspiracy theory catergory.

If the state lies, it means you need more concrete evidence to disprove it. Not less. Just because an accredited organization lies about something, doesn't mean you can take a 100 random theories and state them as fact.

reply to post by Serafine

Put it this way man lol.... you scoff at Psychic Surgery ( healing ).... and me?... I have experienced it while living in the Philippines lol... go figure..... yea yea sure sure.... She wasn't a fake man.. I mean... she was investigated by so many "credible" people and NEVER proven fake lol... In fact "I" watched her put her hands in my body man, through three sessions lol..... Then again... you may NOT BELIEVE!!! ? lol

Is there a limit to the number of people these 'Surgeons' are allowed to heal?

reply to post by kinda kurious


I had a stripper love me once, is that relevant to anything in this thread? No.

reply to post by kinda kurious


I have no idea what you are trying to address in your post with the dog and the horse.



(I couldn't find the source material from the link your provided) It says that an experiment was done to see if the horse was psychic but it was the animals intuition.

Then, the second, you post an article of some parents that believe their dog is psychic. Which can also be explained by intuition.

What message is supposed to be in this post?

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

I had a stripper love me once, is that relevant to anything in this thread? No.

Can you PROVE she loved you? That is the relevance.

BTW That whoosing sound you heard was a metaphor going over your head.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

I have no idea what you are trying to address in your post with the dog and the horse.



(I couldn't find the source material from the link your provided) It says that an experiment was done to see if the horse was psychic but it was the animals intuition.

Then, the second, you post an article of some parents that believe their dog is psychic. Which can also be explained by intuition.

What message is supposed to be in this post?

I'll try to go real S - L - O - W.

The first article is a primitive example (albeit bizarre) of an early attempt to correlate any connection between humans and canines communicating on another esoteric level beyond normal sensory perception. (The ancillary story regarding the horse was part of original article and not necessarily related.)

The second modern day article illustrates that such esoteric connection does,in fact, exist.

The purpose of my post was to show that what initially may appear as "junk science" can be refined through experimentation to yield meaningful real world results.

I hope that will clarify it for you and apologize if I was unclear, unless you are simply being coy in which case I respectfully retract my apology. We good now?

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

I had a stripper love me once, is that relevant to anything in this thread? No.

Can you PROVE she loved you? That is the relevance.

BTW That whoosing sound you heard was a metaphor going over your head.

Since when is love a tangible phenomena?

Your best bet would to speak to a Neurologist who can map the brain and show what chemicals are released through the bonds of love. So yes, I'm sure it can be proven.

ETA: The reason I am saying love isn't "tangible" is in the sense that no one is claiming any grand feats with it. I don't think anyone has claimed anything supernatural out of love. (ie. Talking to ghosts, levitating, etc.) Correct me if I am wrong.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Absence of evidence is not evidence.

The second modern day article illustrates that such esoteric connection does,in fact, exist.

Well, it exists in your head, yes. (See definition below) Unfortunately, your belief is just that, a belief. So you don't need proof for your belief.

In terms of formal definition, "Esoterism" signifies the holding of esoteric opinions or beliefs,

Adjective

esoteric (comparative more esoteric, superlative most esoteric)

1.Understood only by a chosen few or an enlightened inner circle.

2.The writing in this manual is very esoteric; I need a degree in engineering just to understand it!

3.Having to do with concepts that are highly theoretical and without obvious practical application.

4.Confidential; private.

You first article pointed out a very likely (although unproven) explanation for the second article. I still don't see you point.

Originally posted by boncho
Since when is love a tangible phenomena?

Thanks for making my point.

Gee, you are finally catching on.

reply to post by boncho


It is quite obvious from your posting history you just do "drive-bys" for the lulz and seek no serious discussion.

Please check back in once you have a few real threads under your belt and some tenure here. In the meantime I have no use for feeding trolls. Good day.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by boncho
Since when is love a tangible phenomena?

Thanks for making my point.

Gee, you are finally catching on.

I just didn't understand the relevance. As I said before, you can speak to a neurologist to understand the effects emotions play on brain chemicals.

But that doesn't translate into ghosts, magic doctors or anything else. I'm still confused as to what your point is.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by boncho

 

It is quite obvious from your posting history you just do "drive-bys" for the lulz and seek no serious discussion.

Please check back in once you have a few real threads under your belt and some tenure here. In the meantime I have no use for feeding trolls. Good day.

I do seek serious discussion. The topic is pseudoscience. The very meaning is:

\Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

You posted a scientific study done at the turn of the century that was investigating psychic phenomena which came to the conclusion that it was intuition. Something that is well documented to this day in science.


Then you listed an example that hasn't been understood throughout the science community. But you claim the first instance to be pseudoscience.

I really don't understand what you are saying is pseudoscience, or what validity it has. Also, the OP posted some examples earlier that are heavily influenced by pseudoscience. So if you would like a serious discussion, perhaps you could mount a cogent argument as to why those examples are being misrepresented. Although I don't think they are.

reply to post by boncho


OK, one last attempt in earnest. In a nutshell I was simply striving to illustrate that the wacky 1920's experiment could be easily confused as "pseudoscience" while in the modern era it is widely proven that humans and animals (in this case canines) do, in fact, "communicate" on some higher level. It was merely a casual comparison of two examples, nothing more. Then you began your ensuing scrutiny of semantics.

As I stated before, if I was unclear or my examples were weak I expressed my apology but you kept hammering (trolling) nonetheless. BTW, since you seem to struggle with the concept of love being proven I'm puzzled why you think intuition can be.

reply to post by kinda kurious


I think you are missing the bigger picture here. The 'paranormal' developed a reputation for being pseudoscience because it was so heavily used as a way to scam people and an exhaustive amount of scientific research went into it and most always it provided no answers.

Anyone can still research it, as long as they aren't providing false, faith based claims it is still considered science. Although I couldnt find the link to the horse study I don't know why you are claiming it to be pseudoscience, it doesn't look like it.


Love and the chemicals that control it.

Intuition

Using spot games of shogi, the researchers have now pinpointed for the first time two brain regions involved in specific aspects of such intuition. Activity in the precuneus of the parietal lobe, a brain region responsible for integrating sensory information, was observed when professional players perceived and recognized realistic board patterns.

There is another study that explains how dogs pick up on subtle changes within the face and body movement of their owners but I couldn't find it. You get the idea though.

Note: I will concede that most decent data on intuition is recent. There have been many studies done, most notably during war time. If you search, you will find.


Still you are saying intuition is pseudoscience and it's not. The following you should address.

Here are some of the things that were mentioned by the OP.

Richard Hoagland and interdimensional physics
Timewave Zero
Expanding Earth Theory
Psychic Surgery

Originally posted by boncho
You get the idea though.

Funny you expect me to "get" your idea when all I've expected is same.

Troll on dude, I'm quite through with you.