This forum is being dominated by ignorant 'tards. Any suggestions on how to get rid of them?
My suggestion would be for rpenner to appoint some more mods who can ban those who are repeat offenders. Is there a way that we can get a more active police force? I nominate AlphaNumeric.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 7 2009, 10:47 PM)
I nominate AlphaNumeric.
I don't have the patience that Rpenner does and I'm a lot shorter with cranks than a good mod should be.
I don't have the patience that Rpenner does and I'm a lot shorter with cranks than a good mod should be.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 7 2009, 04:47 PM)
This forum is being dominated by ignorant 'tards. Any suggestions on how to get rid of them?
My suggestion would be for rpenner to appoint some more mods who can ban those who are repeat offenders. Is there a way that we can get a more active police force? I nominate AlphaNumeric.
My suggestion would be a reputation meter, sort of like the feedback function, but in which individual posts, not members are rated. Moderators will have to approve all post ratings, which can only speak to the intelligence or knowledge of the poster. That way, the people who continually make bad posts will end up with a very bad reputation, and it will be immediately apparent to all who makes bad posts, meanwhile, you won't have people like Edward 3 and Confused2 going around giving positive feedback to all the cranks.
My suggestion would be for rpenner to appoint some more mods who can ban those who are repeat offenders. Is there a way that we can get a more active police force? I nominate AlphaNumeric.
My suggestion would be a reputation meter, sort of like the feedback function, but in which individual posts, not members are rated. Moderators will have to approve all post ratings, which can only speak to the intelligence or knowledge of the poster. That way, the people who continually make bad posts will end up with a very bad reputation, and it will be immediately apparent to all who makes bad posts, meanwhile, you won't have people like Edward 3 and Confused2 going around giving positive feedback to all the cranks.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
I don't have the patience that Rpenner does and I'm a lot shorter with cranks than a good mod should be.
I do believe that's the point of nominating you.
You would ban someone like Cusa without a second thought, whereas rpenner waits until there's a solid case against him, made up of posts made since rpenner was mod. Farsight, 4Dguy, magpies and others would get banned for bad science content, rather than being allowed to post whatever they want without consequences, so long as they're not too aggressive with their crap.
I do believe that's the point of nominating you.
You would ban someone like Cusa without a second thought, whereas rpenner waits until there's a solid case against him, made up of posts made since rpenner was mod. Farsight, 4Dguy, magpies and others would get banned for bad science content, rather than being allowed to post whatever they want without consequences, so long as they're not too aggressive with their crap.
Well... I am going to throw my voice in here and hope it's not badly taken.
1. I do not think that posters should be banned for being unpopular.
2. I do think a number of academically solid mods should be elected with the power to ban. I think there is too much work for Rpenner and I also agree that he is somewhat more lenient than I would personally prefer.
3. I think that posts should be considered not only on their science content (some people are not scientists but are good posters and good thinkers nonetheless), but on their intelligence and coherence. Whatever makes for a cogent and interesting dialog is fine by me.
4. People who troll, who make no effort to understand the subject they are posting on, or who are simply too deluded to see any other viewpoint than their own should be permanently banned.
5. There should be a separate section named "Crank Theories" where crank posts could be relegated. In this section, even completely ridiculous theories could be aired without mod interference ... with the understanding that to argue there is to argue with probable crackpots.
Don't get me wrong ... I have the greatest respect for Rpenner and I also agree that Alpha would make a good mod. However.... the question that needs to be asked is this...
What sort of forum is this?
Is it a general forum?
Is it a science forum?
Is it a science forum looking for legitimate scientific discussions only?
There are a lot of gray areas but a specific direction is always best.
I hope this has not offended anyone. It's only my opinion obviously.
1. I do not think that posters should be banned for being unpopular.
2. I do think a number of academically solid mods should be elected with the power to ban. I think there is too much work for Rpenner and I also agree that he is somewhat more lenient than I would personally prefer.
3. I think that posts should be considered not only on their science content (some people are not scientists but are good posters and good thinkers nonetheless), but on their intelligence and coherence. Whatever makes for a cogent and interesting dialog is fine by me.
4. People who troll, who make no effort to understand the subject they are posting on, or who are simply too deluded to see any other viewpoint than their own should be permanently banned.
5. There should be a separate section named "Crank Theories" where crank posts could be relegated. In this section, even completely ridiculous theories could be aired without mod interference ... with the understanding that to argue there is to argue with probable crackpots.
Don't get me wrong ... I have the greatest respect for Rpenner and I also agree that Alpha would make a good mod. However.... the question that needs to be asked is this...
What sort of forum is this?
Is it a general forum?
Is it a science forum?
Is it a science forum looking for legitimate scientific discussions only?
There are a lot of gray areas but a specific direction is always best.
I hope this has not offended anyone. It's only my opinion obviously.
Myself (perhaps this is just me), i don't mind reading some of these crazy science-related theories, because they are mistakes i myself could have made. By reading what is not, it helps me understand further just what is.
There are exceptions, because i am not fond of re-reading the same debunked theory over and over again (as i do recall doing so with a certain bigbang - nuclear relation thread that pops up continuously...).
Then there are those who just abuse this forum, with NO scientific contribution whatsoever.
I wouldn't mind some more mods, or mjolnirpants suggested feedback system.
There are exceptions, because i am not fond of re-reading the same debunked theory over and over again (as i do recall doing so with a certain bigbang - nuclear relation thread that pops up continuously...).
Then there are those who just abuse this forum, with NO scientific contribution whatsoever.
I wouldn't mind some more mods, or mjolnirpants suggested feedback system.
IMHO one of the the goals of all members of this forum must be to convince our host(s) that we deserve the server space and bandwidth which they so generously provide.
As a result of a few direct communications and many clues I conclude (perhaps incorrectly) that our host(s) sympathise with the intent to make physics as interesting and accessible (to all) as possible.
If someone knows slightly (or much) more physics than (say) 4Dguy and treats him like *** - the 'treating like ***' will far outweigh the 'more physics' .
.. I have simply run out of time. I will try to continue later.
-C2
As a result of a few direct communications and many clues I conclude (perhaps incorrectly) that our host(s) sympathise with the intent to make physics as interesting and accessible (to all) as possible.
If someone knows slightly (or much) more physics than (say) 4Dguy and treats him like *** - the 'treating like ***' will far outweigh the 'more physics' .
.. I have simply run out of time. I will try to continue later.
-C2
QUOTE (Michael J+Jul 7 2009, 07:03 PM)
Myself (perhaps this is just me), i don't mind reading some of these crazy science-related theories, because they are mistakes i myself could have made. By reading what is not, it helps me understand further just what is.
There are exceptions, because i am not fond of re-reading the same debunked theory over and over again (as i do recall doing so with a certain bigbang - nuclear relation thread that pops up continuously...).
I definitely agree. The problem lies with people like amrit, 4DGuy and magpies who have been around forever but still post a million stupid new topics. The lack of administration seems to encourage them to higher levels of idiocy.
There are exceptions, because i am not fond of re-reading the same debunked theory over and over again (as i do recall doing so with a certain bigbang - nuclear relation thread that pops up continuously...).
I definitely agree. The problem lies with people like amrit, 4DGuy and magpies who have been around forever but still post a million stupid new topics. The lack of administration seems to encourage them to higher levels of idiocy.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 8 2009, 12:47 AM)
The lack of administration seems to encourage them to higher levels of idiocy.
Absolutely, i have noticed this. You are right, i chose not to name the names, but you nailed it head on!
Atleast Cusa keeps his to one massive useless post 
I suppose i should have worded myself a bit better. I don't mind reading incorrect theories, but the crank's just seem to take it too far. Especially the ones who insist their ignorant claims, without providing any proof, except for their "well prove me wrong" attitude. Only thing is, they were never right in the first place!
Absolutely, i have noticed this. You are right, i chose not to name the names, but you nailed it head on!
Atleast Cusa keeps his to one massive useless post I suppose i should have worded myself a bit better. I don't mind reading incorrect theories, but the crank's just seem to take it too far. Especially the ones who insist their ignorant claims, without providing any proof, except for their "well prove me wrong" attitude. Only thing is, they were never right in the first place!
When the mood strikes me and I see Philip347 post ...
I respond with excessive information about the glory of Nachos.
My hope is that it completely invalidates whatever crap he's spewing.
I respond with excessive information about the glory of Nachos.
My hope is that it completely invalidates whatever crap he's spewing.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 7 2009, 06:51 PM)
1. I do not think that posters should be banned for being unpopular.
Was this in response to my suggestion? I'm not bothered, if it was. I suggested that the mods should approve the post feedback, and that the feedback must address the post's intelligence and accuracy specifically to ensure that it's not a popularity contest.
I tend to agree with your views on the matter. I was a moderator on another forum, and I continually fought for a special place for the cranks, as well as moderation of by a coherent set of rules. Unfortunately, the admin and one or two of the other mods were more apt to act according to their current moods than according to a coherent set of rules.
Although I generally tend to agree with much of what rpenner does here, I see him doing much the same as those on the afore-mentioned forum. Whomever is annoying him the most lately is the only one who seems to see any consequences to misbehaving, and while he tends to act pretty fairly in this regard, this results in most of the bad posters having their run of the place.
I tend to agree with your views on the matter. I was a moderator on another forum, and I continually fought for a special place for the cranks, as well as moderation of by a coherent set of rules. Unfortunately, the admin and one or two of the other mods were more apt to act according to their current moods than according to a coherent set of rules.
Although I generally tend to agree with much of what rpenner does here, I see him doing much the same as those on the afore-mentioned forum. Whomever is annoying him the most lately is the only one who seems to see any consequences to misbehaving, and while he tends to act pretty fairly in this regard, this results in most of the bad posters having their run of the place.
If someone knows slightly (or much) more physics than (say) 4Dguy and treats him like *** - the 'treating like ***' will far outweigh the 'more physics' .
I actually agree with this. Unfortunately, it ignores the oft-stated fact that the very lack of moderation of poster integrity is the major motivating factor for those who treat the cranks like ѕhit.
Hmmm... it has. What else has succeeded as well?
Hmmm... it has. What else has succeeded as well?
For starters, Rob, our forebearers created the general knowledge base upon which our modern sciences are founded. I mean, unless, that is, you believe Science with a Capital "S" to be a "suis generis" invention that arose from the aether like Eve from so many Adam's Ribs...
Was this in response to my suggestion? I'm not bothered, if it was. I suggested that the mods should approve the post feedback, and that the feedback must address the post's intelligence and accuracy specifically to ensure that it's not a popularity contest.
QUOTE
There are a lot of gray areas but a specific direction is always best.
I hope this has not offended anyone. It's only my opinion obviously.
I hope this has not offended anyone. It's only my opinion obviously.
I tend to agree with your views on the matter. I was a moderator on another forum, and I continually fought for a special place for the cranks, as well as moderation of by a coherent set of rules. Unfortunately, the admin and one or two of the other mods were more apt to act according to their current moods than according to a coherent set of rules.
Although I generally tend to agree with much of what rpenner does here, I see him doing much the same as those on the afore-mentioned forum. Whomever is annoying him the most lately is the only one who seems to see any consequences to misbehaving, and while he tends to act pretty fairly in this regard, this results in most of the bad posters having their run of the place.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are a lot of gray areas but a specific direction is always best. I hope this has not offended anyone. It's only my opinion obviously. |
I tend to agree with your views on the matter. I was a moderator on another forum, and I continually fought for a special place for the cranks, as well as moderation of by a coherent set of rules. Unfortunately, the admin and one or two of the other mods were more apt to act according to their current moods than according to a coherent set of rules.
Although I generally tend to agree with much of what rpenner does here, I see him doing much the same as those on the afore-mentioned forum. Whomever is annoying him the most lately is the only one who seems to see any consequences to misbehaving, and while he tends to act pretty fairly in this regard, this results in most of the bad posters having their run of the place.
If someone knows slightly (or much) more physics than (say) 4Dguy and treats him like *** - the 'treating like ***' will far outweigh the 'more physics' .
I actually agree with this. Unfortunately, it ignores the oft-stated fact that the very lack of moderation of poster integrity is the major motivating factor for those who treat the cranks like ѕhit.
QUOTE (Mollypants+)
Unfortunately, it ignores the oft-stated fact that the very lack of moderation of poster integrity is the major motivating factor for those who treat the cranks like ѕhit.
I am not sure whether you stated what you intended to state :-
Are we in agreement that 'bullying' by an individual or group is a manifestation of 'lack of integrity'?
-C2
I am not sure whether you stated what you intended to state :-
Are we in agreement that 'bullying' by an individual or group is a manifestation of 'lack of integrity'?
-C2
[/QUOTE]5. There should be a separate section named "Crank Theories" where crank posts could be relegated. In this section, even completely ridiculous theories could be aired without mod interference ... with the understanding that to argue there is to argue with probable crackpots.
[QUOTE]
I like this idea as suggested by RobDegraves and others
Let the cranks (I do not need say that I am a crank) have their own non-moderated section where they can speak for themselves - let them the chance to demonstrate their level of crankieness - and let them show to what extent they can arouse attention and discussion and arguing. There is relevance in having such a section till the opposite has been proven.
Perhaps such a section will show to be one of the more popular places - also for the mainstreamers.
[QUOTE]
I like this idea as suggested by RobDegraves and others
Let the cranks (I do not need say that I am a crank) have their own non-moderated section where they can speak for themselves - let them the chance to demonstrate their level of crankieness - and let them show to what extent they can arouse attention and discussion and arguing. There is relevance in having such a section till the opposite has been proven.
Perhaps such a section will show to be one of the more popular places - also for the mainstreamers.
How do you discourage a "crank"?
Hmmm... wait. Is this, like, a trick question?
Kind of like asking others how to bring to their senses those who believed the earth, heavens forbid, round 600 or so years ago?
"Well," one person might posit, "we could burn the witches."
"No! No! No," might come the passionate and very well-intended response...
"Death by drowning is so much more humane."
Best,
Raphie
P.S. Serious response forthcoming, but this admittedly sarcastic comment is far more to the point in meaningful manner IMHO.
Hmmm... wait. Is this, like, a trick question?
Kind of like asking others how to bring to their senses those who believed the earth, heavens forbid, round 600 or so years ago?
"Well," one person might posit, "we could burn the witches."
"No! No! No," might come the passionate and very well-intended response...
"Death by drowning is so much more humane."
Best,
Raphie
P.S. Serious response forthcoming, but this admittedly sarcastic comment is far more to the point in meaningful manner IMHO.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 9 2009, 10:22 PM)
How do you discourage a "crank"?
Hmmm... wait. Is this, like, a trick question?
Kind of like asking others how to bring to their senses those who believed the earth, heavens forbid, round 600 or so years ago?
No.
So tell me Raphie, who was the first 'crank' to sit around and say "What if the earth were round?"
I ask because apparently, you don't think that people like Aristotle (a lot more than 600 years ago!) actually gathered evidence to support this round earth theory, just like the cranks here don't gather any evidence to support their own claims.
Oh, and for the record? Widespread knowledge of the spherical shape of the earth goes waaaaaay back in history. 600 years ago, the people who thought the earth was round comprised pretty much every educated person alive in the western world.
Hmmm... wait. Is this, like, a trick question?
Kind of like asking others how to bring to their senses those who believed the earth, heavens forbid, round 600 or so years ago?
No.
So tell me Raphie, who was the first 'crank' to sit around and say "What if the earth were round?"
I ask because apparently, you don't think that people like Aristotle (a lot more than 600 years ago!) actually gathered evidence to support this round earth theory, just like the cranks here don't gather any evidence to support their own claims.
Oh, and for the record? Widespread knowledge of the spherical shape of the earth goes waaaaaay back in history. 600 years ago, the people who thought the earth was round comprised pretty much every educated person alive in the western world.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 10 2009, 03:49 AM)
So tell me Raphie, who was the first 'crank' to sit around and say "What if the earth were round?"
I ask because apparently, you don't think that people like Aristotle (a lot more than 600 years ago!) actually gathered evidence to support this round earth theory, just like the cranks here don't gather any evidence to support their own claims.
First, MP, we'd have to define "crank," since one Age's "crank" is the latter Age genius, as we see so often and clearly in the Arts, and less so clearly in the Sciences.
Second, I'd like you to imagine a scenario of a young child by the water with his parents watching a ship go off in to the sunset... let's say, not 600, but 1000 years ago...
After a time the ship "sinks" below the horizon.
"Mommy, Daddy!" the young child cries. "Did you see that?!? The ship sank! This must mean the earth is round!"
"No, son," they reply, each in turn, using not these specific words, but words to the effect. "This is just an optical delusion you are having. And besides, there are other explanations. For instance, maybe the ship sank"
"Ah," says the child. "MY parents are so very wise!"
And then that same ship that "sank" comes back to port six months later.
How now to explain?
Perhaps it was simply that the light the child received (i.e what he or she saw) was "bent" in reception?
Bent? Oh, come on now... we are truly bordering on hysteria when such words may be taken seriously. If the world is not round then the light must have BENT (either in actuality or within the sphere of cognitive perception...)?
PLEASE...
:-)
Not to be taken too literally, MP. I am making a somewhat poetic point here...
Best,
Raphie
I ask because apparently, you don't think that people like Aristotle (a lot more than 600 years ago!) actually gathered evidence to support this round earth theory, just like the cranks here don't gather any evidence to support their own claims.
First, MP, we'd have to define "crank," since one Age's "crank" is the latter Age genius, as we see so often and clearly in the Arts, and less so clearly in the Sciences.
Second, I'd like you to imagine a scenario of a young child by the water with his parents watching a ship go off in to the sunset... let's say, not 600, but 1000 years ago...
After a time the ship "sinks" below the horizon.
"Mommy, Daddy!" the young child cries. "Did you see that?!? The ship sank! This must mean the earth is round!"
"No, son," they reply, each in turn, using not these specific words, but words to the effect. "This is just an optical delusion you are having. And besides, there are other explanations. For instance, maybe the ship sank"
"Ah," says the child. "MY parents are so very wise!"
And then that same ship that "sank" comes back to port six months later.
How now to explain?
Perhaps it was simply that the light the child received (i.e what he or she saw) was "bent" in reception?
Bent? Oh, come on now... we are truly bordering on hysteria when such words may be taken seriously. If the world is not round then the light must have BENT (either in actuality or within the sphere of cognitive perception...)?
PLEASE...
:-)
Not to be taken too literally, MP. I am making a somewhat poetic point here...
Best,
Raphie
OK... going to jump in here
I hate it when people use history to bolster whatever point they have when they don't really understand it.
History is not a conveniently linear and simplistic science. For example, the people who say that the Church was evil and the people who say it was a savior are both right.... at different times and at different places.
Let's take your scenario Raphie Frank.
A thousand years ago, many in France and England thought the Earth was flat and ended past the Atlantic. Many of the maps would have "Here there be Dragons". Africa was said to have men who's heads were in their torsos. Elephants were thought to be chaste and bees had no feet.
Yet...
The Norse were in America 1000 years ago. In Constantinople and in the Muslim empire, math, medicine, astronomy, etc... all flourished. The Greeks knew the Earth to be round 3000 years ago... and calculated the circumference of it to about 10% of it's actual size.
In every age you had those who only knew superstition... and those who sought to understand the world via science and logic.... haltingly.. slowly... but surely.
Our current philosophy of science comes from these people. It's a dishonor to betray their work with superstition and crackpottery. There is a reason we have the current system and it's not to put down the heretics. It's to ensure that the Dark Ages don't return.
OK... I waxed a little lyrical there.. but you get my point.
I hate it when people use history to bolster whatever point they have when they don't really understand it.
History is not a conveniently linear and simplistic science. For example, the people who say that the Church was evil and the people who say it was a savior are both right.... at different times and at different places.
Let's take your scenario Raphie Frank.
QUOTE
Second, I'd like you to imagine a scenario of a young child by the water with his parents watching a ship go off in to the sunset... let's say, not 600, but 1000 years ago...
A thousand years ago, many in France and England thought the Earth was flat and ended past the Atlantic. Many of the maps would have "Here there be Dragons". Africa was said to have men who's heads were in their torsos. Elephants were thought to be chaste and bees had no feet.
Yet...
The Norse were in America 1000 years ago. In Constantinople and in the Muslim empire, math, medicine, astronomy, etc... all flourished. The Greeks knew the Earth to be round 3000 years ago... and calculated the circumference of it to about 10% of it's actual size.
In every age you had those who only knew superstition... and those who sought to understand the world via science and logic.... haltingly.. slowly... but surely.
Our current philosophy of science comes from these people. It's a dishonor to betray their work with superstition and crackpottery. There is a reason we have the current system and it's not to put down the heretics. It's to ensure that the Dark Ages don't return.
OK... I waxed a little lyrical there.. but you get my point.
(Note to Rob: Have not yet read your post...)
My thoughts regarding the naming of any new section upon this forum for non-standard thinking?
"Chaos: Alternative Approaches"
This is just one thought, and perhaps not the best thought. But the key point/s is that any such new section, from its inception, should convey the following three points:
A ) Views presented herein are not "sanctified" by the administrators of this forum
B ) Those posting herein acknowledge that their views do not accord with thus far gathered empirical data.
C ) This is a "Free Thought" Zone, meaning that verbal or Psychological abuse of those within the "Free Thought Zone" will (especially) not be tolerated.
+ a fourth...
D ) It is the hope of the Science Forum Administrators, that, in providing such a venue for unrestrained thought, some valuable insights might be gleaned with relevance to mainstream physics.
What should NOT be conveyed?
E) This is a "separate but equal" zone ala Deep South America circa 1952.
As such, the word "crank," in IMHO should be no more incorporated into any name regarding a sub-forum for free thought than words such as the "n"-word should be incorporated in regards to matters pertaining to basic human dignity.
Best to all,
Raphie
My thoughts regarding the naming of any new section upon this forum for non-standard thinking?
"Chaos: Alternative Approaches"
This is just one thought, and perhaps not the best thought. But the key point/s is that any such new section, from its inception, should convey the following three points:
A ) Views presented herein are not "sanctified" by the administrators of this forum
B ) Those posting herein acknowledge that their views do not accord with thus far gathered empirical data.
C ) This is a "Free Thought" Zone, meaning that verbal or Psychological abuse of those within the "Free Thought Zone" will (especially) not be tolerated.
+ a fourth...
D ) It is the hope of the Science Forum Administrators, that, in providing such a venue for unrestrained thought, some valuable insights might be gleaned with relevance to mainstream physics.
What should NOT be conveyed?
E) This is a "separate but equal" zone ala Deep South America circa 1952.
As such, the word "crank," in IMHO should be no more incorporated into any name regarding a sub-forum for free thought than words such as the "n"-word should be incorporated in regards to matters pertaining to basic human dignity.
Best to all,
Raphie
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 10 2009, 04:54 AM)
History is not a conveniently linear and simplistic science.
At least on the following point we are agreed, Rob. Now extend this thought. because I quite "hate" it, and believe it quite dishonorable to our forbearers to suppose that the current modality of accepted knowledge acquisition is the only one that has ever proven effective or useful in the history of Humankind. - RF
At least on the following point we are agreed, Rob. Now extend this thought. because I quite "hate" it, and believe it quite dishonorable to our forbearers to suppose that the current modality of accepted knowledge acquisition is the only one that has ever proven effective or useful in the history of Humankind. - RF
QUOTE
and believe it quite dishonorable to our forbearers to suppose that the current modality of accepted knowledge acquisition is the only one that has ever proven effective or useful in the history of Humankind. - RF
Hmmm... it has. What else has succeeded as well?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 10 2009, 05:39 AM)
Hmmm... it has. What else has succeeded as well?
For starters, Rob, our forebearers created the general knowledge base upon which our modern sciences are founded. I mean, unless, that is, you believe Science with a Capital "S" to be a "suis generis" invention that arose from the aether like Eve from so many Adam's Ribs...
Hmmm... I believe that was the point I was making. What is your point?
Are there any other bodies of knowledge that have done as well as the one we base our science on?
I am confused as to what you are trying to say.
Are there any other bodies of knowledge that have done as well as the one we base our science on?
I am confused as to what you are trying to say.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 10 2009, 06:09 AM)
Hmmm... I believe that was the point I was making. What is your point?
Are there any other bodies of knowledge that have done as well as the one we base our science on?
I am confused as to what you are trying to say.
The fact is, Rob, we likely agree more than you may suppose. Science, in its current modern form is indispensable, but this does not mean there is not room for it to grow into something far more deep and rich. It is said that Technology too far ahead of its time is indistinguishable from magic (Clarke?) The same too, I believe, could be said for knowledge.
Zukav said it quite well IMHO, even if in slightly different form...
=======================================================
"'Nonsense' is that which does not fit into the prearranged patterns we have superimposed on reality. There is no such thing as 'nonsense' apart from a judgmental intellect which calls it that."
- Gary Zukav - The Dancing Wuli Masters (p.131)
=======================================================
When we, as a society in general, or as a forum, in the specific, impede others ability to jump headlong into "nonsense," in the hopes that such nonsense might ultimately be made intelligible, I believe we do ourselves a disservice.
As a tangential, but very related aside, one point I have maintained since becoming a poster to this forum, and yet maintain, is that in order to move forward it is at times necessary to step back.
You noted that the Greeks surmised the world to be round long before the Age of the Enlightenment.
Indeed.
They also surmised much else we yet label as "mysticism" and "superstition."
For instance:
The Greeks "divined" the significance of the Golden Ratio thousands of years ago, yet make mention of the this ratio upon this forum, in spite of its precise relationship to pi [ 5*arccos (phi/2) ], for instance, and you will be immediately labeled a "crank" or a "mystic" or a "numerologist." Rather absurd given the ubiquity of pi in Physics formulas.
Meanwhile... a line from a 2008 paper, "Temporal Interactions between Cortical Rhythms":
==========================================================
The modal peak frequencies fall into distinct bands, with approximately twice as many bands as expected from a natural log distribution. Instead, the bands appear approximately distributed according to ‘phi’ (the ‘golden mean’) rather than ‘e’ – a constant commonly associated with the organisation of complex natural systems (Atela et al., 2002).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=2622758
(Check out the paper if only for the list of authors and Institutional affiliations)
===========================================================
Is it possible that thousands of years later we are only yet beginning to understand just how much knowledge Humankind managed to attain "way back when" on the basis of simple pure logic, observation through time, and, yes, even a commitment to what one might term the "poetic sensibility," a sensibility Biologist E.O Wilson (Consilience) of Harvard might term the "Ionian Enchantment"?
Best,
Raphie
Are there any other bodies of knowledge that have done as well as the one we base our science on?
I am confused as to what you are trying to say.
The fact is, Rob, we likely agree more than you may suppose. Science, in its current modern form is indispensable, but this does not mean there is not room for it to grow into something far more deep and rich. It is said that Technology too far ahead of its time is indistinguishable from magic (Clarke?) The same too, I believe, could be said for knowledge.
Zukav said it quite well IMHO, even if in slightly different form...
=======================================================
"'Nonsense' is that which does not fit into the prearranged patterns we have superimposed on reality. There is no such thing as 'nonsense' apart from a judgmental intellect which calls it that."
- Gary Zukav - The Dancing Wuli Masters (p.131)
=======================================================
When we, as a society in general, or as a forum, in the specific, impede others ability to jump headlong into "nonsense," in the hopes that such nonsense might ultimately be made intelligible, I believe we do ourselves a disservice.
As a tangential, but very related aside, one point I have maintained since becoming a poster to this forum, and yet maintain, is that in order to move forward it is at times necessary to step back.
You noted that the Greeks surmised the world to be round long before the Age of the Enlightenment.
Indeed.
They also surmised much else we yet label as "mysticism" and "superstition."
For instance:
The Greeks "divined" the significance of the Golden Ratio thousands of years ago, yet make mention of the this ratio upon this forum, in spite of its precise relationship to pi [ 5*arccos (phi/2) ], for instance, and you will be immediately labeled a "crank" or a "mystic" or a "numerologist." Rather absurd given the ubiquity of pi in Physics formulas.
Meanwhile... a line from a 2008 paper, "Temporal Interactions between Cortical Rhythms":
==========================================================
The modal peak frequencies fall into distinct bands, with approximately twice as many bands as expected from a natural log distribution. Instead, the bands appear approximately distributed according to ‘phi’ (the ‘golden mean’) rather than ‘e’ – a constant commonly associated with the organisation of complex natural systems (Atela et al., 2002).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=2622758
(Check out the paper if only for the list of authors and Institutional affiliations)
===========================================================
Is it possible that thousands of years later we are only yet beginning to understand just how much knowledge Humankind managed to attain "way back when" on the basis of simple pure logic, observation through time, and, yes, even a commitment to what one might term the "poetic sensibility," a sensibility Biologist E.O Wilson (Consilience) of Harvard might term the "Ionian Enchantment"?
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 10 2009, 04:22 AM)
Kind of like asking others how to bring to their senses those who believed the earth, heavens forbid, round 600 or so years ago?
Actually the Earth has been known to be round for millenia. It was known to the Ancient Greeks and one guy, using the change in shadows when you change latitude (he compared the size of a shadow in two Egyptian cities on the same longitude), worked out the size of the Earth to within about 1% of the true value.
It was only during the Dark Ages that people really forgot about this and even then the majority of educated people knew it, it's just that group of people was such a minority.
I think the forum would benefit from a separation of 'Mainstream' and 'Pet theories'. If someone wants to talk about mainstream work they should be allowed to without cranks appearing and saying "That's wrong as my theory says...." as Sylwester, Farsight, Armit etc do. The crank forum should allow admin to post disclaimers in threads such as "This work is attempting to replace [mainstream theory] on the grounds of Phenomena X, Y and Z" and then link to mainstream work on the topic which addresses some of the criticisms.
Actually the Earth has been known to be round for millenia. It was known to the Ancient Greeks and one guy, using the change in shadows when you change latitude (he compared the size of a shadow in two Egyptian cities on the same longitude), worked out the size of the Earth to within about 1% of the true value.
It was only during the Dark Ages that people really forgot about this and even then the majority of educated people knew it, it's just that group of people was such a minority.
I think the forum would benefit from a separation of 'Mainstream' and 'Pet theories'. If someone wants to talk about mainstream work they should be allowed to without cranks appearing and saying "That's wrong as my theory says...." as Sylwester, Farsight, Armit etc do. The crank forum should allow admin to post disclaimers in threads such as "This work is attempting to replace [mainstream theory] on the grounds of Phenomena X, Y and Z" and then link to mainstream work on the topic which addresses some of the criticisms.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 9 2009, 11:14 PM)
First, MP, we'd have to define "crank," since one Age's "crank" is the latter Age genius, as we see so often and clearly in the Arts, and less so clearly in the Sciences.
That is so rarely true that I challenge you to find me 5 examples. I'll even get you started: Alfred Wegener. Second, there is a very clear and concise definition of "crank" and it leaves out actual scientists whose theories are before their time. So by definition as well as practical experience: You're wrong.
Aristotle's experiments were already pretty well known by then.
Aristotle's experiments were already pretty well known by then.
After a time the ship "sinks" below the horizon. "Mommy, Daddy!" the young child cries. "Did you see that?!? The ship sank! This must mean the earth is round!" "No, son," they reply, each in turn, using not these specific words, but words to the effect. "This is just an optical delusion you are having. And besides, there are other explanations. For instance, maybe the ship sank"
"Ah," says the child. "MY parents are so very wise!"
And then that same ship that "sank" comes back to port six months later.
How now to explain?
Easy: The parents are the cranks, pushing their own thought-up 'theories' despite the availability of evidence to the contrary. The child's claim was based on observation and the development of a hypothesis, a very simplistic form of the scientific method. The parents simply dismissed his hypothesis and pushed their own own the child, without regard for any evidence or methodology.
And you are working to further increase the applicability of the title "crank" to yourself, because you're sitting around naval-gazing instead of accepting the clear evidence.
And you are working to further increase the applicability of the title "crank" to yourself, because you're sitting around naval-gazing instead of accepting the clear evidence.
Not to be taken too literally, MP. I am making a somewhat poetic point here...
If by "poetic" you mean "retarded and wrong", then you're right. Your 'point' is not only a well worn bit of rhetoric that all of us are sick of hearing by now, it's one that's based on a fallacious premise, evinced by fallacious claims, and which has been proven invalid over and over and over again.
A crank brings down the label upon him or herself with his or her own behavior. "nigger" refers to a black person, who has no control over the color of their skin or the subculture in which they were raised. There is simply no comparison.
A crank brings down the label upon him or herself with his or her own behavior. "nigger" refers to a black person, who has no control over the color of their skin or the subculture in which they were raised. There is simply no comparison.
and believe it quite dishonorable to our forbearers to suppose that the current modality of accepted knowledge acquisition is the only one that has ever proven effective or useful in the history of Humankind
Another fallacy: No-one claims that methodological naturalism is the only institution which has produced positive results. It is merely the institution which has produced the most measurable positive results.
Despite the fact that the dissenters of knowledge which is claimed to be "ahead of it's time" are almost inevitably proven wrong...
There is nothing wrong with asking questions or even questioning the established order.
However, there is something wrong with not listening to the answers, nor bothering to search for the actual truth.
What cranks do is not just ask questions... which would be fine. What they do is come up with a theory, despite not having bothered to look at all the evidence, all the knowledge that came before... and then stick to their theory no matter how it fails to match observations or current evidence.
That's where the problem lies. If you have questions.. there are answers. Learn what has been done before, what has been learned and if there are any current answers. Then... and only when you have full knowledge... you can try to come up with your own answers. If you are right... every one will celebrate your genius.
Even if you are wrong, you will not have wasted your time.
Cranks are just intellectually lazy as far as I am concerned.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions or even questioning the established order.
However, there is something wrong with not listening to the answers, nor bothering to search for the actual truth.
What cranks do is not just ask questions... which would be fine. What they do is come up with a theory, despite not having bothered to look at all the evidence, all the knowledge that came before... and then stick to their theory no matter how it fails to match observations or current evidence.
That's where the problem lies. If you have questions.. there are answers. Learn what has been done before, what has been learned and if there are any current answers. Then... and only when you have full knowledge... you can try to come up with your own answers. If you are right... every one will celebrate your genius.
Even if you are wrong, you will not have wasted your time.
Cranks are just intellectually lazy as far as I am concerned.
Well more often than not, they just need someone to explain a concept they missed and explain why they are wrong.
Just saying they are wrong is no help either. They are intellectually lazy for not researching the answer, but you are also intellectually lazy for not taking the time to explain it to them.
I do agree, if someone is unwilling to listen, thats a different story, but so far I have not received that treatment. Told outrightly that I am a crank before explaining the reasons, and then going out of the way to insult me doesn't rank someone high on the evolutionary chain.
Yes.
Reading something they can understand, that seems to make sense, that presents itself as technically competent, non-scientists are easily gulled by fake science. --Henry H. Bauer
When 4Dguy proves that he was right, I will be the first to acknowledge it.
Until then... he's a crank, for the reasons already laid out.
It's the same thing for all those people who claim psychic powers. If they ever actually prove that they have such powers in an empirical and verifiable way, I will be the first to give my amazed applaud.
The nice thing is.. no one will notice my flip flop on the subject, since everyone will be busy rewriting all the physics textbooks from scratch.
I have no problem with that.
I just don't expect it to happen.
Incorrect.
You associate all qualifiers with racist qualifiers. This is not accurate since you could make that argument by extension apply to every qualifier.
Is calling someone lazy the same as being racist?
Is calling someone a liar the same as being racist?
Lastly...
I never claimed to be moral.... however I do adhere to a specific code of conduct that I do not deviate from.
However, I do object to you equating my use of qualifiers with racist terms.
Incorrect.
You associate all qualifiers with racist qualifiers. This is not accurate since you could make that argument by extension apply to every qualifier.
Is calling someone lazy the same as being racist?
Is calling someone a liar the same as being racist?
Lastly...
I never claimed to be moral.... however I do adhere to a specific code of conduct that I do not deviate from.
However, I do object to you equating my use of qualifiers with racist terms.
Ever heard of the term, "discrimination on the basis of intellectual orientation," Rob? I doubt it, since the term is mine, but you quite seem to engage in it all the same. Very disappointing to observe such a trait in someone as seemingly intelligent and desirous of being fairminded as yourself.
But, hey, my late Great-Grandfather Raphael, for whom I am named, hated ni**ers. All the same, he did his part, socially speaking, helping to build his Pittsburgh community with a construction company, savings and loan and real estate agency.
Obviously he wasn't all bad. Just a bit close-minded and a bit the slave to a limited knowledge base.
Best, RF
You mean not liking stupid people?
I must plead guilty then.
It took life on earth at least 100 million years of evolution to develop intelligence. Wasting it pisses me off.
You mean not liking stupid people?
I must plead guilty then.
It took life on earth at least 100 million years of evolution to develop intelligence. Wasting it pisses me off.
I agree with your sentiments regarding "waste." Much intelligence is wasted IMHO... for the ignorance of others.
I made no such claims.
My claims were on the exactness of your claims. Hardly the same thing.
I made no such claims.
My claims were on the exactness of your claims. Hardly the same thing.
Your "defense," on the other hand, would require that others agree with you, because bigotry, unlike, say, a test score, is a quite malleable social-dependent notion bound to social opinion.
Again you call me a bigot, when it is quite the contrary. I find that rather poor manners to say the least.
When I call someone on something it is based on the facts that they are presenting. You should know that better than anyone.
However, I will not.. simply not... allow false information to be presented as fact if I can help it.
Does that make me a bigot?
Perhaps you felt offended that I consider your theories to be crackpot theories. I have not actually stated any such thing. What I have said is that I have yet to see any actual relevance in your mathematical musings that have to do with actual science. I believe "navel gazing" was my exact terms. That is what I see. If that offends you... I am sorry but there is little I can do to change that.
If you feel that by attacking me you can make way for better acceptance of your theories, I doubt highly that it will be an effective technique.
I am pretty darn tired of it though.
We did... you just won't listen.
We told you how the stone were cut... using quartz or other abrasives which have been observed in use by other South American tribes.
We told you how the stones were carried... in fact an archeological expedition went and moved one just to show how it was done.
We showed you facts... you ignore them to this day.
That is so rarely true that I challenge you to find me 5 examples. I'll even get you started: Alfred Wegener. Second, there is a very clear and concise definition of "crank" and it leaves out actual scientists whose theories are before their time. So by definition as well as practical experience: You're wrong.
QUOTE
Second, I'd like you to imagine a scenario of a young child by the water with his parents watching a ship go off in to the sunset... let's say, not 600, but 1000 years ago...
Aristotle's experiments were already pretty well known by then.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Second, I'd like you to imagine a scenario of a young child by the water with his parents watching a ship go off in to the sunset... let's say, not 600, but 1000 years ago... |
Aristotle's experiments were already pretty well known by then.
After a time the ship "sinks" below the horizon. "Mommy, Daddy!" the young child cries. "Did you see that?!? The ship sank! This must mean the earth is round!" "No, son," they reply, each in turn, using not these specific words, but words to the effect. "This is just an optical delusion you are having. And besides, there are other explanations. For instance, maybe the ship sank"
"Ah," says the child. "MY parents are so very wise!"
And then that same ship that "sank" comes back to port six months later.
How now to explain?
Easy: The parents are the cranks, pushing their own thought-up 'theories' despite the availability of evidence to the contrary. The child's claim was based on observation and the development of a hypothesis, a very simplistic form of the scientific method. The parents simply dismissed his hypothesis and pushed their own own the child, without regard for any evidence or methodology.
QUOTE
Perhaps it was simply that the light the child received (i.e what he or she saw) was "bent" in reception? Bent? Oh, come on now... we are truly bordering on hysteria when such words may be taken seriously. If the world is not round then the light must have BENT (either in actuality or within the sphere of cognitive perception...)? PLEASE...
And you are working to further increase the applicability of the title "crank" to yourself, because you're sitting around naval-gazing instead of accepting the clear evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps it was simply that the light the child received (i.e what he or she saw) was "bent" in reception? Bent? Oh, come on now... we are truly bordering on hysteria when such words may be taken seriously. If the world is not round then the light must have BENT (either in actuality or within the sphere of cognitive perception...)? PLEASE... |
And you are working to further increase the applicability of the title "crank" to yourself, because you're sitting around naval-gazing instead of accepting the clear evidence.
Not to be taken too literally, MP. I am making a somewhat poetic point here...
If by "poetic" you mean "retarded and wrong", then you're right. Your 'point' is not only a well worn bit of rhetoric that all of us are sick of hearing by now, it's one that's based on a fallacious premise, evinced by fallacious claims, and which has been proven invalid over and over and over again.
QUOTE
As such, the word "crank," in IMHO should be no more incorporated into any name regarding a sub-forum for free thought than words such as the "n"-word should be incorporated in regards to matters pertaining to basic human dignity.
A crank brings down the label upon him or herself with his or her own behavior. "nigger" refers to a black person, who has no control over the color of their skin or the subculture in which they were raised. There is simply no comparison.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As such, the word "crank," in IMHO should be no more incorporated into any name regarding a sub-forum for free thought than words such as the "n"-word should be incorporated in regards to matters pertaining to basic human dignity. |
A crank brings down the label upon him or herself with his or her own behavior. "nigger" refers to a black person, who has no control over the color of their skin or the subculture in which they were raised. There is simply no comparison.
and believe it quite dishonorable to our forbearers to suppose that the current modality of accepted knowledge acquisition is the only one that has ever proven effective or useful in the history of Humankind
Another fallacy: No-one claims that methodological naturalism is the only institution which has produced positive results. It is merely the institution which has produced the most measurable positive results.
QUOTE
The fact is, Rob, we likely agree more than you may suppose. Science, in its current modern form is indispensable, but this does not mean there is not room for it to grow into something far more deep and rich. It is said that Technology too far ahead of its time is indistinguishable from magic (Clarke?) The same too, I believe, could be said for knowledge.
Despite the fact that the dissenters of knowledge which is claimed to be "ahead of it's time" are almost inevitably proven wrong...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 10 2009, 02:56 PM)
Easy: The parents are the cranks, pushing their own thought-up 'theories' despite the availability of evidence to the contrary. The child's claim was based on observation and the development of a hypothesis, a very simplistic form of the scientific method. The parents simply dismissed his hypothesis and pushed their own own the child, without regard for any evidence or methodology.
Are they? They were taught by their teachers that the earth was flat, an established scientific fact in their time. They chose not to question it. I agree with Ralphie, the crank label has got to stop.
Yes some of us may have incomplete knowledge of something. But that does not stop the free flow of thought. Yes, maybe we are missing a basic scientific principle that helps us to understand it. But there is no harm in questioning something that is assumed by general consensus to be correct. After all, Newtonian physics was the main stream back in the days til Einstein came along. Newton was not wrong, but he just had an incomplete picture.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -
-- William Shakespeare
By claiming that someone is ignorant, it shows that you are the fool for thinking you know everything.
Are they? They were taught by their teachers that the earth was flat, an established scientific fact in their time. They chose not to question it. I agree with Ralphie, the crank label has got to stop.
Yes some of us may have incomplete knowledge of something. But that does not stop the free flow of thought. Yes, maybe we are missing a basic scientific principle that helps us to understand it. But there is no harm in questioning something that is assumed by general consensus to be correct. After all, Newtonian physics was the main stream back in the days til Einstein came along. Newton was not wrong, but he just had an incomplete picture.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -
-- William Shakespeare
By claiming that someone is ignorant, it shows that you are the fool for thinking you know everything.
QUOTE
Yes, maybe we are missing a basic scientific principle that helps us to understand it. But there is no harm in questioning something that is assumed by general consensus to be correct.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions or even questioning the established order.
However, there is something wrong with not listening to the answers, nor bothering to search for the actual truth.
What cranks do is not just ask questions... which would be fine. What they do is come up with a theory, despite not having bothered to look at all the evidence, all the knowledge that came before... and then stick to their theory no matter how it fails to match observations or current evidence.
That's where the problem lies. If you have questions.. there are answers. Learn what has been done before, what has been learned and if there are any current answers. Then... and only when you have full knowledge... you can try to come up with your own answers. If you are right... every one will celebrate your genius.
Even if you are wrong, you will not have wasted your time.
Cranks are just intellectually lazy as far as I am concerned.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 10 2009, 07:00 PM)
There is nothing wrong with asking questions or even questioning the established order.
However, there is something wrong with not listening to the answers, nor bothering to search for the actual truth.
What cranks do is not just ask questions... which would be fine. What they do is come up with a theory, despite not having bothered to look at all the evidence, all the knowledge that came before... and then stick to their theory no matter how it fails to match observations or current evidence.
That's where the problem lies. If you have questions.. there are answers. Learn what has been done before, what has been learned and if there are any current answers. Then... and only when you have full knowledge... you can try to come up with your own answers. If you are right... every one will celebrate your genius.
Even if you are wrong, you will not have wasted your time.
Cranks are just intellectually lazy as far as I am concerned.
Well more often than not, they just need someone to explain a concept they missed and explain why they are wrong.
Just saying they are wrong is no help either. They are intellectually lazy for not researching the answer, but you are also intellectually lazy for not taking the time to explain it to them.
I do agree, if someone is unwilling to listen, thats a different story, but so far I have not received that treatment. Told outrightly that I am a crank before explaining the reasons, and then going out of the way to insult me doesn't rank someone high on the evolutionary chain.
Question...
In your post... did you ask a question or advance a theory?
There is a difference.
In your post... did you ask a question or advance a theory?
There is a difference.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 10 2009, 07:13 PM)
Question...
In your post... did you ask a question or advance a theory?
There is a difference.
I did neither. I stated an opinion.
In almost all of my posts so far has been opinions. There were a few posts that I stated facts based on what I've read, but I prefaced them with "from what I've read" or "I think".
Never claimed something to be true. Never theorized anything. I only stated opinions so far.
In your post... did you ask a question or advance a theory?
There is a difference.
I did neither. I stated an opinion.
In almost all of my posts so far has been opinions. There were a few posts that I stated facts based on what I've read, but I prefaced them with "from what I've read" or "I think".
Never claimed something to be true. Never theorized anything. I only stated opinions so far.
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 10 2009, 07:40 PM)
Are they? They were taught by their teachers that the earth was flat, an established scientific fact in their time. They chose not to question it. I agree with Ralphie, the crank label has got to stop.
I would question the truth of that claim. The roundness of the Earth has been known for thousands of years, it was only in Medieval times that it fell out of common-ish knowledge, but those who were wealthy or powerful enough to afford education mostly knew it was round. And even those who didn't it wasn't stated as a scientific fact, it was stated as an assumption. A scientific fact would imply there's evidence being provided.
And you can't use that as a comparison with today. If someone says "Oh yeah, what's the evidence for general relativity then?" you can find many thousands of books, papers and detailed experimental data online or in a library or in a university. 1500 years ago you had no way of checking for yourself or seeing the raw data, you just had accept it or not.
I would question the truth of that claim. The roundness of the Earth has been known for thousands of years, it was only in Medieval times that it fell out of common-ish knowledge, but those who were wealthy or powerful enough to afford education mostly knew it was round. And even those who didn't it wasn't stated as a scientific fact, it was stated as an assumption. A scientific fact would imply there's evidence being provided.
And you can't use that as a comparison with today. If someone says "Oh yeah, what's the evidence for general relativity then?" you can find many thousands of books, papers and detailed experimental data online or in a library or in a university. 1500 years ago you had no way of checking for yourself or seeing the raw data, you just had accept it or not.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 10 2009, 07:21 PM)
I would question the truth of that claim. The roundness of the Earth has been known for thousands of years, it was only in Medieval times that it fell out of common-ish knowledge, but those who were wealthy or powerful enough to afford education mostly knew it was round. And even those who didn't it wasn't stated as a scientific fact, it was stated as an assumption. A scientific fact would imply there's evidence being provided.
And you can't use that as a comparison with today. If someone says "Oh yeah, what's the evidence for general relativity then?" you can find many thousands of books, papers and detailed experimental data online or in a library or in a university. 1500 years ago you had no way of checking for yourself or seeing the raw data, you just had accept it or not.
That is very true, but consider what the most readily available medium to search for knowledge is? The Internet. The best and the worse place to go. It is the best because it is fast and easy to access peer reviewed papers. But it is also easy to access misinformation from people who had imperfect understanding of it to begin with.
It is very hard to tell one apart from the other sometimes.
Take the website enterprisemission, do you consider it a crank website? or a place for valid scientific information? They present some wild ideas there that seem to have strong scientific basis.
Also consider books, the 2nd best source. How often do you go to the library and grab a book on a topic, only to find out that the knowledge has been out of date for at least 3 decades?
One almost always have to search through periodicals to find information, and even those aren't always accurate. I think we as a society suffer from TOO much readily available information and no way to discern the validity of that information.
Here is another example: The whole topic of Anthropogenic Global Warming. One side claims the other side to be cranks. Which side is right? Both present scientific facts to support their side, but which scientific facts are correct? Both sides have these supposed "experts". Both claim the other side have scientists who are not real scientists... Which side is right?
And you can't use that as a comparison with today. If someone says "Oh yeah, what's the evidence for general relativity then?" you can find many thousands of books, papers and detailed experimental data online or in a library or in a university. 1500 years ago you had no way of checking for yourself or seeing the raw data, you just had accept it or not.
That is very true, but consider what the most readily available medium to search for knowledge is? The Internet. The best and the worse place to go. It is the best because it is fast and easy to access peer reviewed papers. But it is also easy to access misinformation from people who had imperfect understanding of it to begin with.
It is very hard to tell one apart from the other sometimes.
Take the website enterprisemission, do you consider it a crank website? or a place for valid scientific information? They present some wild ideas there that seem to have strong scientific basis.
Also consider books, the 2nd best source. How often do you go to the library and grab a book on a topic, only to find out that the knowledge has been out of date for at least 3 decades?
One almost always have to search through periodicals to find information, and even those aren't always accurate. I think we as a society suffer from TOO much readily available information and no way to discern the validity of that information.
Here is another example: The whole topic of Anthropogenic Global Warming. One side claims the other side to be cranks. Which side is right? Both present scientific facts to support their side, but which scientific facts are correct? Both sides have these supposed "experts". Both claim the other side have scientists who are not real scientists... Which side is right?
QUOTE
Take the website enterprisemission, do you consider it a crank website?
Yes.
Reading something they can understand, that seems to make sense, that presents itself as technically competent, non-scientists are easily gulled by fake science. --Henry H. Bauer
Consider this then. Back in the days of Einstein and Bohr, there were a lot of things they disagreed with. Einstein even went as far as accuse Bohr of being a crank for believing in mysticism. But Wolfgang Pauli did believe some of the things that Einstein accused Bohr of.
If you lived in that time, you would probably accuse one or the other as cranks depending on who you thought was right. How is that any different than what happens here?
Einstein believed that God did not throw dice. But the fact that he believed in god, an entity that is based in mysticism, and not science, could be construed as being a crank could it not?
If you lived in that time, you would probably accuse one or the other as cranks depending on who you thought was right. How is that any different than what happens here?
Einstein believed that God did not throw dice. But the fact that he believed in god, an entity that is based in mysticism, and not science, could be construed as being a crank could it not?
The difference is that they went on to prove whether they were right or not.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 10 2009, 07:49 PM)
The difference is that they went on to prove whether they were right or not.
Exactly, but who's to say someone like 4D, could not prove that he was right?
Exactly, but who's to say someone like 4D, could not prove that he was right?
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 10 2009, 03:15 PM)
Exactly, but who's to say someone like 4D, could not prove that he was right?
Neither Bohr or Einstein developed their theories in a vacuum. It was based on what they had studied and learned.
Cranks like 4Dguy believe that they don't have to study physics. Actual knowledge of the subject gets in the way of their speculation. They believe that because they think of something, it has validity.
Neither Bohr or Einstein developed their theories in a vacuum. It was based on what they had studied and learned.
Cranks like 4Dguy believe that they don't have to study physics. Actual knowledge of the subject gets in the way of their speculation. They believe that because they think of something, it has validity.
QUOTE
Exactly, but who's to say someone like 4D, could not prove that he was right?
When 4Dguy proves that he was right, I will be the first to acknowledge it.
Until then... he's a crank, for the reasons already laid out.
It's the same thing for all those people who claim psychic powers. If they ever actually prove that they have such powers in an empirical and verifiable way, I will be the first to give my amazed applaud.
The nice thing is.. no one will notice my flip flop on the subject, since everyone will be busy rewriting all the physics textbooks from scratch.
I have no problem with that.
I just don't expect it to happen.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 10 2009, 08:19 PM)
Neither Bohr or Einstein developed their theories in a vacuum. It was based on what they had studied and learned.
Cranks like 4Dguy believe that they don't have to study physics. Actual knowledge of the subject gets in the way of their speculation. They believe that because they think of something, it has validity.
Well, then I guess I am different. I did actually study Physics, though obviously I don't always quote the correct facts (kind of fuzzy after all these years). As an EE I obviously studied basic electro-magnetic theory and know about Maxwell's equations and his original work. I understand the math behind it, but not necessarily the conclusions drawn.
I also studied Relativity in college briefly, and know the basic concepts like time dialation, Lorentz contraction etc and the algebra involved in deriving the equation.
I also understand what Einstein said about Gravity and the curvature of space time.
Obviously all of this is on a layman's level and not expert since I don't work in the field.
Perhaps my best understanding of physics is as it relates to Quantum mechanics, since in electronics we had to deal with the concept of Quantum tunneling in transistors.
Again, I can't claim to be an expert, and there are obvious holes in my knowledge either due to never having studied it or bad memory, but I'm hardly ignorant.
So far in all of my posts I have not posted anything that was either a theory or hypothesis. All of it was either history, opinion or just comments to try and understand something.
If I were to post a hypothesis, it would be something like this:
I think that it may be possible to create variable optics using liquid crystals. If you look at liquid crystals, the crystals "turn" when an electric current is applied eventually blocking light. Therefore, if I can apply just the right current to partially turn the crystal, then the light would be refracted at a certain angle to the detector.
If you use a pattern of the right currents to the right array of crystals, then it is possible to create a variable focus for a liquid crystal lens.
Something I thought up about 20 years ago...
Cranks like 4Dguy believe that they don't have to study physics. Actual knowledge of the subject gets in the way of their speculation. They believe that because they think of something, it has validity.
Well, then I guess I am different. I did actually study Physics, though obviously I don't always quote the correct facts (kind of fuzzy after all these years). As an EE I obviously studied basic electro-magnetic theory and know about Maxwell's equations and his original work. I understand the math behind it, but not necessarily the conclusions drawn.
I also studied Relativity in college briefly, and know the basic concepts like time dialation, Lorentz contraction etc and the algebra involved in deriving the equation.
I also understand what Einstein said about Gravity and the curvature of space time.
Obviously all of this is on a layman's level and not expert since I don't work in the field.
Perhaps my best understanding of physics is as it relates to Quantum mechanics, since in electronics we had to deal with the concept of Quantum tunneling in transistors.
Again, I can't claim to be an expert, and there are obvious holes in my knowledge either due to never having studied it or bad memory, but I'm hardly ignorant.
So far in all of my posts I have not posted anything that was either a theory or hypothesis. All of it was either history, opinion or just comments to try and understand something.
If I were to post a hypothesis, it would be something like this:
I think that it may be possible to create variable optics using liquid crystals. If you look at liquid crystals, the crystals "turn" when an electric current is applied eventually blocking light. Therefore, if I can apply just the right current to partially turn the crystal, then the light would be refracted at a certain angle to the detector.
If you use a pattern of the right currents to the right array of crystals, then it is possible to create a variable focus for a liquid crystal lens.
Something I thought up about 20 years ago...
I got a question for you then.. being an EE (electronics engineer) specializing in computers.
I got a theory ...
I think a better way to layer the electronic circuits in a computer chip would be to use pressure to make them even smaller. It could be done using both temperature and pressure to reduce the size of chips and to set the silicone.
That way even better chips could be made. I do expect the operating temperature to rise though... since all the circuits will be closer to each other. The reasons involve heat and something I call "proximity".
What do you think?
I got a theory ...
I think a better way to layer the electronic circuits in a computer chip would be to use pressure to make them even smaller. It could be done using both temperature and pressure to reduce the size of chips and to set the silicone.
That way even better chips could be made. I do expect the operating temperature to rise though... since all the circuits will be closer to each other. The reasons involve heat and something I call "proximity".
What do you think?
Hi RobdeGraves,
Taking the 'theory' as intended:-
Would you prefer the response to include some stuff about crystals, carrier lifetimes, recombination (etc) or would you prefer the response:-
"Idiot" and/or "Crank".
IMHO the difference is that of attempting to maintain the appearance of an average 'forum IQ' > 70 or <= 70.
Your thoughts?
-C2.
Edit:-
I invite you to look beyond the effectiveness of having a hammer in your pants and a bunch of sock-baboons - is it also desirable?
Taking the 'theory' as intended:-
Would you prefer the response to include some stuff about crystals, carrier lifetimes, recombination (etc) or would you prefer the response:-
"Idiot" and/or "Crank".
IMHO the difference is that of attempting to maintain the appearance of an average 'forum IQ' > 70 or <= 70.
Your thoughts?
-C2.
Edit:-
I invite you to look beyond the effectiveness of having a hammer in your pants and a bunch of sock-baboons - is it also desirable?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 10 2009, 07:00 PM)
What cranks do is not just ask questions... which would be fine. What they do is come up with a theory, despite not having bothered to look at all the evidence, all the knowledge that came before... and then stick to their theory no matter how it fails to match observations or current evidence...
Cranks are just intellectually lazy as far as I am concerned.
Although I agree with your general sentiments, suggesting hard work as an admirable value/ethic, you make some very broad generalizations Rob Degraves. The term "crank" is a catch-all term no less so than "ni**er" or "sp*c" or "hon*ie." They are terms used by, as far as I am concerned, not just the intellectually lazy, but also the morally lazy.
Best,
Raphie
Cranks are just intellectually lazy as far as I am concerned.
Although I agree with your general sentiments, suggesting hard work as an admirable value/ethic, you make some very broad generalizations Rob Degraves. The term "crank" is a catch-all term no less so than "ni**er" or "sp*c" or "hon*ie." They are terms used by, as far as I am concerned, not just the intellectually lazy, but also the morally lazy.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE
The term "crank" is a catch-all term no less so than "ni**er" or "sp*c" or "hon*ie." They are terms used by, as far as I am concerned, not just the intellectually lazy, but also the morally lazy.
Incorrect.
You associate all qualifiers with racist qualifiers. This is not accurate since you could make that argument by extension apply to every qualifier.
Is calling someone lazy the same as being racist?
Is calling someone a liar the same as being racist?
Lastly...
I never claimed to be moral.... however I do adhere to a specific code of conduct that I do not deviate from.
However, I do object to you equating my use of qualifiers with racist terms.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 10 2009, 11:08 PM)
Incorrect.
You associate all qualifiers with racist qualifiers. This is not accurate since you could make that argument by extension apply to every qualifier.
Is calling someone lazy the same as being racist?
Is calling someone a liar the same as being racist?
Lastly...
I never claimed to be moral.... however I do adhere to a specific code of conduct that I do not deviate from.
However, I do object to you equating my use of qualifiers with racist terms.
Ever heard of the term, "discrimination on the basis of intellectual orientation," Rob? I doubt it, since the term is mine, but you quite seem to engage in it all the same. Very disappointing to observe such a trait in someone as seemingly intelligent and desirous of being fairminded as yourself.
But, hey, my late Great-Grandfather Raphael, for whom I am named, hated ni**ers. All the same, he did his part, socially speaking, helping to build his Pittsburgh community with a construction company, savings and loan and real estate agency.
Obviously he wasn't all bad. Just a bit close-minded and a bit the slave to a limited knowledge base.
Best, RF
QUOTE
Ever heard of the term, "discrimination on the basis of intellectual orientation," Rob? I doubt it, since the term is mine, but you quite seem to engage in it all the same
You mean not liking stupid people?
I must plead guilty then.
It took life on earth at least 100 million years of evolution to develop intelligence. Wasting it pisses me off.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 11 2009, 03:43 AM)
You mean not liking stupid people?
I must plead guilty then.
It took life on earth at least 100 million years of evolution to develop intelligence. Wasting it pisses me off.
I agree with your sentiments regarding "waste." Much intelligence is wasted IMHO... for the ignorance of others.
RaphieFrank
It would be best if you curtail your efforts to insult me or to equate my directness with racism.
I call things as I see them and I think I am a damn sight more polite than most in doing so. Sorry if you cannot handle having someone point out when something is BS ... but it's not something I can help you with. Thinking outside the box is fine. Intellectual laziness or dishonesty is not.
It would be best if you curtail your efforts to insult me or to equate my directness with racism.
I call things as I see them and I think I am a damn sight more polite than most in doing so. Sorry if you cannot handle having someone point out when something is BS ... but it's not something I can help you with. Thinking outside the box is fine. Intellectual laziness or dishonesty is not.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 11 2009, 04:20 AM)
RaphieFrank
It would be best if you curtail your efforts to insult me or to equate my directness with racism.
I appreciate your directness, Rob, and have many positive statements to make about you. All the same, I call it like I see it, just as you do.
The difference is this: In a court of law (in theory, not by way of threat...) I could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I am not "stupid" or a "liar" as you have publicly suggested me to be, and I could prove such to be the case, I might add, on the basis of objectively certifiable facts.
Your "defense," on the other hand, would require that others agree with you, because bigotry, unlike, say, a test score, is a quite malleable social-dependent notion bound to social opinion.
I can quite understand, however, that you may feel offended, as I have been on the wrong side of such offense far more times than I care to count and know how it feels. In any case, as I make an effort to curtail what you feel to be insults, I suggest you apply notions of social reciprocity and consider just how it is that maybe, just maybe, you have offended others in ways that were not merited or justified.
Best,
Raphie
It would be best if you curtail your efforts to insult me or to equate my directness with racism.
I appreciate your directness, Rob, and have many positive statements to make about you. All the same, I call it like I see it, just as you do.
The difference is this: In a court of law (in theory, not by way of threat...) I could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I am not "stupid" or a "liar" as you have publicly suggested me to be, and I could prove such to be the case, I might add, on the basis of objectively certifiable facts.
Your "defense," on the other hand, would require that others agree with you, because bigotry, unlike, say, a test score, is a quite malleable social-dependent notion bound to social opinion.
I can quite understand, however, that you may feel offended, as I have been on the wrong side of such offense far more times than I care to count and know how it feels. In any case, as I make an effort to curtail what you feel to be insults, I suggest you apply notions of social reciprocity and consider just how it is that maybe, just maybe, you have offended others in ways that were not merited or justified.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE
I could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I am not "stupid" or a "liar" as you have publicly suggested me to be
I made no such claims.
My claims were on the exactness of your claims. Hardly the same thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I am not "stupid" or a "liar" as you have publicly suggested me to be |
I made no such claims.
My claims were on the exactness of your claims. Hardly the same thing.
Your "defense," on the other hand, would require that others agree with you, because bigotry, unlike, say, a test score, is a quite malleable social-dependent notion bound to social opinion.
Again you call me a bigot, when it is quite the contrary. I find that rather poor manners to say the least.
When I call someone on something it is based on the facts that they are presenting. You should know that better than anyone.
However, I will not.. simply not... allow false information to be presented as fact if I can help it.
Does that make me a bigot?
Perhaps you felt offended that I consider your theories to be crackpot theories. I have not actually stated any such thing. What I have said is that I have yet to see any actual relevance in your mathematical musings that have to do with actual science. I believe "navel gazing" was my exact terms. That is what I see. If that offends you... I am sorry but there is little I can do to change that.
If you feel that by attacking me you can make way for better acceptance of your theories, I doubt highly that it will be an effective technique.
I am pretty darn tired of it though.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 10 2009, 03:22 AM)
How do you discourage a "crank"?
Hmmm... wait. Is this, like, a trick question?
Hmm, it is really funny that you post on this subject considering:
A. you are a crank yourself
B. you continue to encourage other cranks
Hmmm... wait. Is this, like, a trick question?
Hmm, it is really funny that you post on this subject considering:
A. you are a crank yourself
B. you continue to encourage other cranks
Rob,
perspective, preference, opinion, not fact.
Not the same as I call things as they are. For all we know you could be a delusional crank. things aren't as you declare them to be for everyone. that's what you don't seem to get, Superman. You study history I thought, not made future predictions? Sounds like some sort of psychological weather man.
How crazy am I going to be today? Slightly above neurotic with a chance of paranoia in the afternoon?
I have a serious puzzling question though. Why is birdchit mostly white? I've seen a lot of poo in my day from various sources, most of which is full of color. So why do birds poo white as the drive snow?
nano structured chips, force and pressure make things break. Just need to build smaller, not tougher.
QUOTE
I call things as I see them
perspective, preference, opinion, not fact.
Not the same as I call things as they are. For all we know you could be a delusional crank. things aren't as you declare them to be for everyone. that's what you don't seem to get, Superman. You study history I thought, not made future predictions? Sounds like some sort of psychological weather man.
How crazy am I going to be today? Slightly above neurotic with a chance of paranoia in the afternoon?
I have a serious puzzling question though. Why is birdchit mostly white? I've seen a lot of poo in my day from various sources, most of which is full of color. So why do birds poo white as the drive snow?
nano structured chips, force and pressure make things break. Just need to build smaller, not tougher.
Sometimes they have rules stickied for each thread. The search function on here is horrible,
one way to discourage a crank is to stop bumping and realize you aren't going to win every debate... oops
Moderator: This thread isn't a science related topic and should be moved.
one way to discourage a crank is to stop bumping and realize you aren't going to win every debate... oops
Moderator: This thread isn't a science related topic and should be moved.
Meem
Of course my opinion is not fact. I never said it was... look it up.
However, I do use facts to build that opinion. After that, it's a question of whose opinion matches the facts best.
Again pretty obvious one would think. Anything anyone says is always an opinion, not necessarily a fact. That is where rational debate and the rules of evidence come in.
That is quite a bit different from just hanging on to your point of view despite all evidence and not bothering to learn the subject matter however.
That is the difference between a crank and a rational debate. Both are just opinion, but the rational debater actually bothers to look at the evidence and learn.
QUOTE
QUOTE
I call things as I see them
perspective, preference, opinion, not fact.
I call things as I see them
perspective, preference, opinion, not fact.
Of course my opinion is not fact. I never said it was... look it up.
However, I do use facts to build that opinion. After that, it's a question of whose opinion matches the facts best.
Again pretty obvious one would think. Anything anyone says is always an opinion, not necessarily a fact. That is where rational debate and the rules of evidence come in.
That is quite a bit different from just hanging on to your point of view despite all evidence and not bothering to learn the subject matter however.
That is the difference between a crank and a rational debate. Both are just opinion, but the rational debater actually bothers to look at the evidence and learn.
So, that is why when people disagree with my opinion, they don't need to provide reasons or hard science as to how or why they disagree, but I need to look it up?
I just get further confused. I would still like modern, hard science to prove how Pamupunku was done. I mean, we could redo, just a small section. Since it's so easy to do, with modern technology. Then maybe we could figure out some facts, and drop all this irrational debate over opinion.
I just get further confused. I would still like modern, hard science to prove how Pamupunku was done. I mean, we could redo, just a small section. Since it's so easy to do, with modern technology. Then maybe we could figure out some facts, and drop all this irrational debate over opinion.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 11 2009, 04:57 PM)
So, that is why when people disagree with my opinion, they don't need to provide reasons or hard science as to how or why they disagree, but I need to look it up?
I just get further confused. I would still like modern, hard science to prove how Pamupunku was done. I mean, we could redo, just a small section. Since it's so easy to do, with modern technology. Then maybe we could figure out some facts, and drop all this irrational debate over opinion.
Probably had a lot to do with your opinion that Pamupunku was made by space aliens.
I just get further confused. I would still like modern, hard science to prove how Pamupunku was done. I mean, we could redo, just a small section. Since it's so easy to do, with modern technology. Then maybe we could figure out some facts, and drop all this irrational debate over opinion.
Probably had a lot to do with your opinion that Pamupunku was made by space aliens.
QUOTE
I would still like modern, hard science to prove how Pamupunku was done. I mean, we could redo, just a small section. Since it's so easy to do, with modern technology.
We did... you just won't listen.
We told you how the stone were cut... using quartz or other abrasives which have been observed in use by other South American tribes.
We told you how the stones were carried... in fact an archeological expedition went and moved one just to show how it was done.
We showed you facts... you ignore them to this day.
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 10 2009, 01:40 PM)
Are they? They were taught by their teachers that the earth was flat, an established scientific fact in their time.
WRONG!!!
Do some research, the spherical nature of the earth was proven by experimentation over two thousand years ago.
So that real scientists can waste their time trying to develop new technologies using wrong theories? What a dumb suggestion...
So that real scientists can waste their time trying to develop new technologies using wrong theories? What a dumb suggestion...
Yes some of us may have incomplete knowledge of something. But that does not stop the free flow of thought. Yes, maybe we are missing a basic scientific principle that helps us to understand it. But there is no harm in questioning something that is assumed by general consensus to be correct.
Find me a single crank who limits himself to questioning anything about mainstream science and I'll find you a dog who speaks French, in Russian. Cranks don't question anything. They simply declare proven physics to be wrong, or unproven, non-rigorous and ill-informed 'physics' to be right.
The saddest thing is that you and other cranks will never really understand the meaning of that quote.
The saddest thing is that you and other cranks will never really understand the meaning of that quote.
By claiming that someone is ignorant, it shows that you are the fool for thinking you know everything.
WRONG!!!
All it shows is that I believe someone to be ignorant. When I then follow up that accusation with evidence to prove them wrong, it shows I am correct.
We did... you just won't listen.
We told you how the stone were cut... using quartz or other abrasives which have been observed in use by other South American tribes.
We told you how the stones were carried... in fact an archeological expedition went and moved one just to show how it was done.
We showed you facts... you ignore them to this day.
Which expedition to puma punku did that? I don't recall the name of this expedition your referring to that went to show how they moved a stone, in fact, I don't even think it's exists. Because if it did, you would link it and prove me wrong.
You are saying an expedition did this, moved a stone at puma punku, so now, the burden of proof lies on you.
Prove that as fact about puma punku. You calimed it, not me. The burden of proof is yours.
I have been talking explicitly about puma punku, not "others." Should be easy to do, you're the history expert.
Where are you getting 440 tons?
And yes.. It does solve it. After proving that it could be done for 9 tons.. the rest is just a question of more manpower... obviously.
This is why I don't want to educate myself, like you have.
Contradiction.
How does one become educated, by others, or by themselves? You just said not to do it, then do it? What?
So by your own advice, he should ignore you. RF, I would take his advice, if I were you. However I am not, it's your choice.
Where are you getting 440 tons?
And yes.. It does solve it. After proving that it could be done for 9 tons.. the rest is just a question of more manpower... obviously.
Watch the whole thing 440 tons is from another topic thread, if you want to act like you don't remember ... you can that's fine. But in this link the Russian sounding guy talks about one weighing 880 tons ... only .. 872 tons sort in that case. Who cares though. The little dingy reed boat makes perfect sense! .. for little dingy rocks. I can build a small bridge across the mississippi, therefore the bridge crossing the Atlantic is just as easy ... right. That's called planes, and flying.
WRONG!!!
Do some research, the spherical nature of the earth was proven by experimentation over two thousand years ago.
QUOTE
They chose not to question it. I agree with Ralphie, the crank label has got to stop.
So that real scientists can waste their time trying to develop new technologies using wrong theories? What a dumb suggestion...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They chose not to question it. I agree with Ralphie, the crank label has got to stop. |
So that real scientists can waste their time trying to develop new technologies using wrong theories? What a dumb suggestion...
Yes some of us may have incomplete knowledge of something. But that does not stop the free flow of thought. Yes, maybe we are missing a basic scientific principle that helps us to understand it. But there is no harm in questioning something that is assumed by general consensus to be correct.
Find me a single crank who limits himself to questioning anything about mainstream science and I'll find you a dog who speaks French, in Russian. Cranks don't question anything. They simply declare proven physics to be wrong, or unproven, non-rigorous and ill-informed 'physics' to be right.
QUOTE
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." - -- William Shakespeare
The saddest thing is that you and other cranks will never really understand the meaning of that quote.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." - -- William Shakespeare |
The saddest thing is that you and other cranks will never really understand the meaning of that quote.
By claiming that someone is ignorant, it shows that you are the fool for thinking you know everything.
WRONG!!!
All it shows is that I believe someone to be ignorant. When I then follow up that accusation with evidence to prove them wrong, it shows I am correct.
QUOTE (meem+)
So, that is why when people disagree with my opinion, they don't need to provide reasons or hard science as to how or why they disagree, but I need to look it up?
That's right. When you put forth alternate hypotheses to explain already-understood events, the burden of proof is on you. Hell, even if you're putting forth a hypothesis to explain as yet unexplained events, the burden of proof is on you. Whomever makes the positive claim (X is true) has the burden of proof. Sometimes it can be proven than X is not true, but it is almost impossible to prove the vast majority of negative claims (X is not true), while it is generally relatively easy to prove most positive claims.
That's right. When you put forth alternate hypotheses to explain already-understood events, the burden of proof is on you. Hell, even if you're putting forth a hypothesis to explain as yet unexplained events, the burden of proof is on you. Whomever makes the positive claim (X is true) has the burden of proof. Sometimes it can be proven than X is not true, but it is almost impossible to prove the vast majority of negative claims (X is not true), while it is generally relatively easy to prove most positive claims.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 11 2009, 12:17 PM)
We did... you just won't listen.
We told you how the stone were cut... using quartz or other abrasives which have been observed in use by other South American tribes.
We told you how the stones were carried... in fact an archeological expedition went and moved one just to show how it was done.
We showed you facts... you ignore them to this day.
Which expedition to puma punku did that? I don't recall the name of this expedition your referring to that went to show how they moved a stone, in fact, I don't even think it's exists. Because if it did, you would link it and prove me wrong.
You are saying an expedition did this, moved a stone at puma punku, so now, the burden of proof lies on you.
QUOTE
in fact an archeological expedition went and moved one just to show how it was done.
Prove that as fact about puma punku. You calimed it, not me. The burden of proof is yours.
I have been talking explicitly about puma punku, not "others." Should be easy to do, you're the history expert.
OK...
Let's take the burden of proof then...
First...
So.. Pumapunku is in Tiwanaku.
Secondly...
Interactive Archeology
All done with local materials.
Are we done now?
Let's take the burden of proof then...
First...
QUOTE
Pumapunku is a temple complex located in Tiwanaku, Bolivia.
So.. Pumapunku is in Tiwanaku.
Secondly...
Interactive Archeology
All done with local materials.
Are we done now?
Um, you're serious that, which what you have provided, solves the cutting and moving of stones 100-440 tons 4400 meters above sea level? Or the little dingy one, in little dingy boats?
4400! that was a weird show too!
only 432 more tons to go ...
Where did they cut stones, perfectly. Quote it please? and where did they move them to the site 4400 meters above sea level?
4400! that was a weird show too!
QUOTE
We've formulated a plan for loading the eight-ton stone onto the boat. Click on the image above for the full diagram and explanation. (Design by Paul Harmon)
only 432 more tons to go ...
Where did they cut stones, perfectly. Quote it please? and where did they move them to the site 4400 meters above sea level?
http://www.wylfing.net/essays/matrix_revolutions.html
This is a strange article too. I'm not afraid to read or look into strange things, are you? How about think about them, realistically.
This is a strange article too. I'm not afraid to read or look into strange things, are you? How about think about them, realistically.
QUOTE
Some of the blocks brought up to build the temples are said to weigh about 100–130 tons
Where are you getting 440 tons?
And yes.. It does solve it. After proving that it could be done for 9 tons.. the rest is just a question of more manpower... obviously.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 10 2009, 11:26 PM)
The term "crank" is a catch-all term no less so than "ni**er" or "sp*c" or "hon*ie." They are terms used by, as far as I am concerned, not just the intellectually lazy, but also the morally lazy.
No, they are not the same. The easiest to see difference is that you can't choose to be black or asian or Richard Simmons, you're born that way, it's an unavoidable thing from your perspective. However, being a crank is a choice.
For instance, suppose you know nothing about relativity (I know its a stretch for you). You hear something on the radio about time dilation, something you've never heard of before and certainly haven't experienced. Do you write relativity off as obvious garbage or do you investigate further? Cranks do the former. You are reading the news paper and you read something about how GPS systems measure the gravitational and motion induced time dilation of relativity. Do you denounce it as crap since it's obvious that clocks in your attic tick the same as those in your basement or on a jet or do you keep an open mind, since you don't know anything about it? Cranks do the former. You're on an internet forum and there's a discussion about relativity and someone mentions how GR correctly predicts the GPS time dilation effects and posts the derivation, all 10 pages of algebra. Do you think the theory is nonsense since your sub-high school level education in maths doesn't allow you to understand it or do you accept that its just one of those things which is beyond you. Cranks do the former. You're in a pub with some people and a conversation about relativity comes up (well it does with me and my friends). Do you comment about how it's all quite over your head but you'd either leave it to the professionals or if you had time you'd devote some effort into learning or do you proclaim its BS because you can't do it and you think all physics should be within the grasp of a 6 year old with a calculator? Cranks do the latter. One of the guys at the table pipes up he's studied relativity, spending a few years at a good university doing research into it and he gives a few experiments which have put GR to the test over the decades, along with how much physicists search for errors[i] in their work. Do you accept he's more likely to have a grasp of it than you or do you get into a long 'debate' about how its [i]obviously wrong and that no equations he scribbles down on napkins can possibly alter that. Cranks do the latter.
Avoiding educating yourself, ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves and believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it are choices cranks make. Being black or disabled or ginger haired are not choices people make. Being ignorant and apathetic are.
No, they are not the same. The easiest to see difference is that you can't choose to be black or asian or Richard Simmons, you're born that way, it's an unavoidable thing from your perspective. However, being a crank is a choice.
For instance, suppose you know nothing about relativity (I know its a stretch for you). You hear something on the radio about time dilation, something you've never heard of before and certainly haven't experienced. Do you write relativity off as obvious garbage or do you investigate further? Cranks do the former. You are reading the news paper and you read something about how GPS systems measure the gravitational and motion induced time dilation of relativity. Do you denounce it as crap since it's obvious that clocks in your attic tick the same as those in your basement or on a jet or do you keep an open mind, since you don't know anything about it? Cranks do the former. You're on an internet forum and there's a discussion about relativity and someone mentions how GR correctly predicts the GPS time dilation effects and posts the derivation, all 10 pages of algebra. Do you think the theory is nonsense since your sub-high school level education in maths doesn't allow you to understand it or do you accept that its just one of those things which is beyond you. Cranks do the former. You're in a pub with some people and a conversation about relativity comes up (well it does with me and my friends). Do you comment about how it's all quite over your head but you'd either leave it to the professionals or if you had time you'd devote some effort into learning or do you proclaim its BS because you can't do it and you think all physics should be within the grasp of a 6 year old with a calculator? Cranks do the latter. One of the guys at the table pipes up he's studied relativity, spending a few years at a good university doing research into it and he gives a few experiments which have put GR to the test over the decades, along with how much physicists search for errors[i] in their work. Do you accept he's more likely to have a grasp of it than you or do you get into a long 'debate' about how its [i]obviously wrong and that no equations he scribbles down on napkins can possibly alter that. Cranks do the latter.
Avoiding educating yourself, ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves and believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it are choices cranks make. Being black or disabled or ginger haired are not choices people make. Being ignorant and apathetic are.
QUOTE
Avoiding educating yourself, ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves
This is why I don't want to educate myself, like you have.
Contradiction.
How does one become educated, by others, or by themselves? You just said not to do it, then do it? What?
So by your own advice, he should ignore you. RF, I would take his advice, if I were you. However I am not, it's your choice.
I'm scratching my head, Rob. Could you help me out? You see, I have this dilemma. I am rather certain that the answer to the following question:
==============================================================
Given 5 objects, each of which can be in an "off" or "on" state, and where each object begins in the "on" state, what is the probability that after 10 random operations of turning an object off or on, precisely 2 objects will be in an "on" state?
===============================================================
... is 62.9533248%
But clearly this must not be so.
After all, according to others, not only am I incapable of expanding n*(n+1), much less deducing probabilities to 7 decimal points (with pen and paper only...). but also according to the definitions of "crank" put forward by others, and assuming the correctness of this notion that I am a "crank," cranks are "intellectually lazy." Therefore, I must not have applied brute force of logic (along with numerous calculations...) to come up with this number, since I would neither have the intellectual wherewithal (i.e. "not laziness") nor the intellectual capacity to logically deduce the above percentage.
It must just be "mysticism" or "superstition," and if correct, the guess no doubt will be a "lucky" one.
As I said, I am scratching my head here... Could you help me out, Rob, and tell me where I must be going astray?
Best,
Raphie
P.S. @ Rob. Check your back posts. You termed Euler's arguments "convincing." and suggested the possibility of "elaborate lies" on my part. Again, if only to confirm my identity, feel free to contact Ray Parker @ Vassar College. He won the NACA (National Association of Campus Activities) award for innovative programming in 1987 on the basis of backing a project of my design and implementation (along with Helena Yee of Hunger Action and about 150 dedicated volunteers...) ... the "Ultimate Frisbee Marathon for Hunger Action," which later became "First Step" and then "Step Beyond," mention of which you can find, without my name associated (I served in an advisor capacity that year as a charter member of Vassar President Frances Fergusson's "Advisory Committee on Public Service"), in an archived issue of the New York Times [Google Keyword Search: Vassar "Step Beyond" ] - RF
==============================================================
Given 5 objects, each of which can be in an "off" or "on" state, and where each object begins in the "on" state, what is the probability that after 10 random operations of turning an object off or on, precisely 2 objects will be in an "on" state?
===============================================================
... is 62.9533248%
But clearly this must not be so.
After all, according to others, not only am I incapable of expanding n*(n+1), much less deducing probabilities to 7 decimal points (with pen and paper only...). but also according to the definitions of "crank" put forward by others, and assuming the correctness of this notion that I am a "crank," cranks are "intellectually lazy." Therefore, I must not have applied brute force of logic (along with numerous calculations...) to come up with this number, since I would neither have the intellectual wherewithal (i.e. "not laziness") nor the intellectual capacity to logically deduce the above percentage.
It must just be "mysticism" or "superstition," and if correct, the guess no doubt will be a "lucky" one.
As I said, I am scratching my head here... Could you help me out, Rob, and tell me where I must be going astray?
Best,
Raphie
P.S. @ Rob. Check your back posts. You termed Euler's arguments "convincing." and suggested the possibility of "elaborate lies" on my part. Again, if only to confirm my identity, feel free to contact Ray Parker @ Vassar College. He won the NACA (National Association of Campus Activities) award for innovative programming in 1987 on the basis of backing a project of my design and implementation (along with Helena Yee of Hunger Action and about 150 dedicated volunteers...) ... the "Ultimate Frisbee Marathon for Hunger Action," which later became "First Step" and then "Step Beyond," mention of which you can find, without my name associated (I served in an advisor capacity that year as a charter member of Vassar President Frances Fergusson's "Advisory Committee on Public Service"), in an archived issue of the New York Times [Google Keyword Search: Vassar "Step Beyond" ] - RF
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 11 2009, 06:55 PM)
Where are you getting 440 tons?
And yes.. It does solve it. After proving that it could be done for 9 tons.. the rest is just a question of more manpower... obviously.
Watch the whole thing 440 tons is from another topic thread, if you want to act like you don't remember ... you can that's fine. But in this link the Russian sounding guy talks about one weighing 880 tons ... only .. 872 tons sort in that case. Who cares though. The little dingy reed boat makes perfect sense! .. for little dingy rocks. I can build a small bridge across the mississippi, therefore the bridge crossing the Atlantic is just as easy ... right. That's called planes, and flying.
No... that is not how it works...
You made a claim.. the burden of proof is yours.
Where do you get 440 tons from? Where is this Russian guy?
That is what makes you a crank Meem.
You ask for proof, I give you proof. I ask you for proof... you have nothing but more vague semi references. You are not willing to learn or to accept any viewpoint other than your own no matter what the evidence says.
You made a claim.. the burden of proof is yours.
Where do you get 440 tons from? Where is this Russian guy?
That is what makes you a crank Meem.
You ask for proof, I give you proof. I ask you for proof... you have nothing but more vague semi references. You are not willing to learn or to accept any viewpoint other than your own no matter what the evidence says.
I might add, Rob, that any statements above regarding "5 objects" which must be connected and then reconnected, refers to a real world scenario that just about every film lighting technician confronts on a daily basis. Given 5 objects: Three Hots, a neutral and a ground, near as I can figure, there are only 144 of almost 10 million possibilities (of randomly connecting and disconnecting...) by which to accomplish the task, correctly and safely, of disconnecting and then reconnecting all strands in 10 operations (assuming all 5 are disconnected before being reconnected...)
Somehow, via just a couple heuristic rules, we manage to get it correct almost without fail.
Does this make film lighting technicians "brilliant?"
I don't think so.
It simply demonstrates the power of heuristic to organize experience and guide actions in a meaningful and effective manner.
Best,
RF
P.S. Note: Heuristics do the work so that we don't have to. Unfortunately, they are also often wrong, particularly in relation to character judgements. As, I might add, we have often seen within the context of this forum... This includes me too, Rob. I don't always get it right and am sorry if I have ever gotten it wrong in reference to you. As I noted, I have many positive statements to make about you...
Somehow, via just a couple heuristic rules, we manage to get it correct almost without fail.
Does this make film lighting technicians "brilliant?"
I don't think so.
It simply demonstrates the power of heuristic to organize experience and guide actions in a meaningful and effective manner.
Best,
RF
P.S. Note: Heuristics do the work so that we don't have to. Unfortunately, they are also often wrong, particularly in relation to character judgements. As, I might add, we have often seen within the context of this forum... This includes me too, Rob. I don't always get it right and am sorry if I have ever gotten it wrong in reference to you. As I noted, I have many positive statements to make about you...
RaphieFrank
I have to admit that I missed your first post entirely. Sorry, I just didn't see it.
That said...
1. It's a bit of a non sequitur. The heuristic thing might connect in some way but I don't see how.
2.
Again... I did not call you a crank. What I said.. specifically... is that your theory does not seem to have any real significance that I can see. Navel gazing is what I called it I believe. I am not a mathematician but I do know enough that attaching mystical significance to numbers does not seem very rational. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with intelligence. Some very intelligent people believed in numerology... in the middle ages.
3.
Again... I did not call you a crank. What I said.. specifically... is that your theory does not seem to have any real significance that I can see. Navel gazing is what I called it I believe. I am not a mathematician but I do know enough that attaching mystical significance to numbers does not seem very rational. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with intelligence. Some very intelligent people believed in numerology... in the middle ages.
3. You termed Euler's arguments "convincing." and suggested the possibility of "elaborate lies" on my part.
Your statements... as they were first stated... were indeed not supportable. Therefore Euler's criticisms of you were convincing. You amended your statements later.
Contacting a specific person is not convincing btw. Nor do I really care. You seem to wish to pursue your education and that is a worthwhile goal.
My suggestion... to not be seen as a "crank" are these...
1. Learn more.
You wish to pursue an academic career, I could not agree more.
2. Learn without any preconceptions.
Don't worry about any specific theories. In a few years you will have more knowledge in which to revisit it. Keep an open mind... but a trained one.
The difference between a crank and one who is not.... being willing to work and learn before trying to teach.
8 tons is 8 tons, no matter how you slice it Mr. Smith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA...0E5BC6&index=19
8 tons is 8 tons, no matter how you slice it Mr. Smith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA...0E5BC6&index=19
This is a 'temple area' with many finely cut stones, many weighing well over 100 tons. It is positioned to the south of the Akapana Pyramid. The ancient builders left no written records, all the legends have been handed down through the generations.
Puma Punku truly startles the imagination. It seems to be the remains of a great wharf that serviced Tiahuanaco, and a massive, four-part building, now collapsed, as seen in figure 1 and 2. One of the construction blocks from which the pier was fashioned weighs an estimated 440 tons and several other blocks laying about are between 100 and 150 tons. The quarry for these giant blocks was on the western shore of Titicaca, some fifteen kilometres away. There is no known technology in all the ancient world that could have transported stones of such massive weight and size. The Andean people of 500 A.D., with their simple reed boats, to whom orthodox historians have attributed as being the builders of these massive edifices, could certainly not have moved them. Even today, with all the modern advances in engineering and mathematics, we could not fashion such a structure.
I have to admit that I missed your first post entirely. Sorry, I just didn't see it.
That said...
1. It's a bit of a non sequitur. The heuristic thing might connect in some way but I don't see how.
2.
QUOTE
After all, according to others, not only am I incapable of expanding n*(n+1), much less deducing probabilities to 7 decimal points (with pen and paper only...). but also according to the definitions of "crank" put forward by others, and assuming the correctness of this notion that I am a "crank," cranks are "intellectually lazy." Therefore, I must not have applied brute force of logic (along with numerous calculations...) to come up with this number, since I would neither have the intellectual wherewithal (i.e. "not laziness") nor the intellectual capacity to logically deduce the above percentage.
Again... I did not call you a crank. What I said.. specifically... is that your theory does not seem to have any real significance that I can see. Navel gazing is what I called it I believe. I am not a mathematician but I do know enough that attaching mystical significance to numbers does not seem very rational. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with intelligence. Some very intelligent people believed in numerology... in the middle ages.
3.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| After all, according to others, not only am I incapable of expanding n*(n+1), much less deducing probabilities to 7 decimal points (with pen and paper only...). but also according to the definitions of "crank" put forward by others, and assuming the correctness of this notion that I am a "crank," cranks are "intellectually lazy." Therefore, I must not have applied brute force of logic (along with numerous calculations...) to come up with this number, since I would neither have the intellectual wherewithal (i.e. "not laziness") nor the intellectual capacity to logically deduce the above percentage. |
Again... I did not call you a crank. What I said.. specifically... is that your theory does not seem to have any real significance that I can see. Navel gazing is what I called it I believe. I am not a mathematician but I do know enough that attaching mystical significance to numbers does not seem very rational. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with intelligence. Some very intelligent people believed in numerology... in the middle ages.
3. You termed Euler's arguments "convincing." and suggested the possibility of "elaborate lies" on my part.
Your statements... as they were first stated... were indeed not supportable. Therefore Euler's criticisms of you were convincing. You amended your statements later.
Contacting a specific person is not convincing btw. Nor do I really care. You seem to wish to pursue your education and that is a worthwhile goal.
My suggestion... to not be seen as a "crank" are these...
1. Learn more.
You wish to pursue an academic career, I could not agree more.
2. Learn without any preconceptions.
Don't worry about any specific theories. In a few years you will have more knowledge in which to revisit it. Keep an open mind... but a trained one.
The difference between a crank and one who is not.... being willing to work and learn before trying to teach.
QUOTE
You ask for proof, I give you proof. I ask you for proof... you have nothing but more vague semi references. 8 ton stone, not quite the mentioned "proof", You are not willing to learn or to accept any viewpoint other than your own no matter what the evidence says.
8 tons is 8 tons, no matter how you slice it Mr. Smith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA...0E5BC6&index=19
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You ask for proof, I give you proof. I ask you for proof... you have nothing but more vague semi references. 8 ton stone, not quite the mentioned "proof", You are not willing to learn or to accept any viewpoint other than your own no matter what the evidence says. |
8 tons is 8 tons, no matter how you slice it Mr. Smith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA...0E5BC6&index=19
This is a 'temple area' with many finely cut stones, many weighing well over 100 tons. It is positioned to the south of the Akapana Pyramid. The ancient builders left no written records, all the legends have been handed down through the generations.
Puma Punku truly startles the imagination. It seems to be the remains of a great wharf that serviced Tiahuanaco, and a massive, four-part building, now collapsed, as seen in figure 1 and 2. One of the construction blocks from which the pier was fashioned weighs an estimated 440 tons and several other blocks laying about are between 100 and 150 tons. The quarry for these giant blocks was on the western shore of Titicaca, some fifteen kilometres away. There is no known technology in all the ancient world that could have transported stones of such massive weight and size. The Andean people of 500 A.D., with their simple reed boats, to whom orthodox historians have attributed as being the builders of these massive edifices, could certainly not have moved them. Even today, with all the modern advances in engineering and mathematics, we could not fashion such a structure.
QUOTE
This question becomes all the more intriguing when the infamous 'Grooved Stone' is taken into account, as seen in figure 3. This block has along its longest side a precision-made, 6mm wide groove, containing eqidistant drilled holes. The orthodox consensus is that they used acid-etching to produce these holes, which seems nearly impossible, when we consider that the holes are smooth-sided, and uniform. They look much more like drill-holes than acid-etched holes. It seems impossible that these were cut even with the use of stone or copper tools. This point alone throws serious doubt on the claim that the peoples of 500 A.D. built this edifice
Your link is taken directly from a UFO site and has no credibility whatsoever. I looked and nowhere else have I seen any mention of blocks weighing 400 tons.
Also, it has been explained to you at length how the cuts were made.
You just don't want to hear the truth so you run off to your UFO conspiracy website. You should likely just stay there.
Edited to add...
Hmmmm... apparently you just cannot discourage a crank. Thank you Meem for being the test subject in this thread.
Also, it has been explained to you at length how the cuts were made.
You just don't want to hear the truth so you run off to your UFO conspiracy website. You should likely just stay there.
Edited to add...
Hmmmm... apparently you just cannot discourage a crank. Thank you Meem for being the test subject in this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKuE9bVqe8M&feature=related
The russian guy there Agent Smith. "You were right, you were always right."
I believe he's about 25% through.
You ask for proof, I give you proof. I ask you for proof... you have nothing but more vague semi references. 8 ton stone, not quite the mentioned "proof", You are not willing to learn or to accept any viewpoint other than your own no matter what the evidence says
Which is no more but about the same exact contradictory logic as ...
Which is no more but about the same exact contradictory logic as ...
Avoiding educating yourself, ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves
I am thinking for myself, you are not.
There's a difference between thinking for yourself and making shi*t up.
It's the kind of crap which appeals to Meem.
I am pleased to see that he no longer pretends to post about physics.
Why are you even here then?
So you got kicked out of other forums, unsurprisingly... did you ever think that maybe it's not everyone else?
You refuse to learn.
You refuse to listen.
And you call us nazis?
Godwin's Law
Why are you even here then?
So you got kicked out of other forums, unsurprisingly... did you ever think that maybe it's not everyone else?
You refuse to learn.
You refuse to listen.
And you call us nazis?
Godwin's Law
there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law
I would seriously suggest you stick to UFO sites. You would likely be much happier there. Unless you are deliberately trolling, which is possible I suppose.
Why are you even here then?
So you got kicked out of other forums, unsurprisingly... did you ever think that maybe it's not everyone else?
You refuse to learn.
You refuse to listen.
And you call us nazis?
Godwin's Law
I would seriously suggest you stick to UFO sites. You would likely be much happier there. Unless you are deliberately trolling, which is possible I suppose.
he also refuses to admit he has language problems.
(at least I think it was him that said he had no trouble with English.)
penultimate
RF, with all due respect good sir, you can't bring something to this forum it doesn't have, and doesn't want, period ..
Meem, you do realize that this forum is not a single conscious entity, but rather is a collection of individuals, each offering their own unique contribution. I hope that helps with your confusion.
The russian guy there Agent Smith. "You were right, you were always right."
I believe he's about 25% through.
QUOTE
You ask for proof, I give you proof. I ask you for proof... you have nothing but more vague semi references. 8 ton stone, not quite the mentioned "proof", You are not willing to learn or to accept any viewpoint other than your own no matter what the evidence says
Which is no more but about the same exact contradictory logic as ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You ask for proof, I give you proof. I ask you for proof... you have nothing but more vague semi references. 8 ton stone, not quite the mentioned "proof", You are not willing to learn or to accept any viewpoint other than your own no matter what the evidence says |
Which is no more but about the same exact contradictory logic as ...
Avoiding educating yourself, ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves
I am thinking for myself, you are not.
QUOTE
I am thinking for myself, you are not.
There's a difference between thinking for yourself and making shi*t up.
Wow that was a crappy show.
A bunch of UFO conspiracy nuts and only one archeologist that they allowed on for about 10 seconds to tell them they are all nuts.
That is your evidence? I am not really impressed.
A bunch of UFO conspiracy nuts and only one archeologist that they allowed on for about 10 seconds to tell them they are all nuts.
That is your evidence? I am not really impressed.
I agree. I shouldn't have made those people to create that history channel program. That was a pretty huge error on my part. What was I thinking when I made that up? The world may never know.
I don't really need any evidence to see that you are incapable of thinking realistically, without falling to the stupid hippie, religious wacko, alien freak, conspiracy stigma, of popular opinion. I'm not afraid of what you think about me. You don't "rule my" world, thank god.
You still haven't disproved them by saying, you're crazy. You do realize that right?
QUOTE
That is your evidence? I am not really impressed.
I don't really need any evidence to see that you are incapable of thinking realistically, without falling to the stupid hippie, religious wacko, alien freak, conspiracy stigma, of popular opinion. I'm not afraid of what you think about me. You don't "rule my" world, thank god.
You still haven't disproved them by saying, you're crazy. You do realize that right?
QUOTE
That is your evidence? I am not really impressed.
It's the kind of crap which appeals to Meem.
I am pleased to see that he no longer pretends to post about physics.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 11 2009, 10:36 PM)
I agree. I shouldn't have made those people to create that history channel program. That was a pretty huge error on my part. What was I thinking when I made that up? The world may never know.
I don't really need any evidence to see that you are incapable of thinking realistically, without falling to the stupid hippie, religious wacko, alien freak, conspiracy stigma, of popular opinion. I'm not afraid of what you think about me. You don't "rule my" world, thank god.
You still haven't disproved them by saying, you're crazy. You do realize that right?
If you think that the History Channel is a good source of information, I feel truly sorry for you. How many hours of programming have they devoted to the likes of Dan Brown? How many "Decoding the Bible" shows have they had? It's really hard to take anything they do seriously. They will play anything that makes a profit and put on anyone who can draw a crowd. So much for their reputation.
I don't really need any evidence to see that you are incapable of thinking realistically, without falling to the stupid hippie, religious wacko, alien freak, conspiracy stigma, of popular opinion. I'm not afraid of what you think about me. You don't "rule my" world, thank god.
You still haven't disproved them by saying, you're crazy. You do realize that right?
If you think that the History Channel is a good source of information, I feel truly sorry for you. How many hours of programming have they devoted to the likes of Dan Brown? How many "Decoding the Bible" shows have they had? It's really hard to take anything they do seriously. They will play anything that makes a profit and put on anyone who can draw a crowd. So much for their reputation.
Coming from the "man" whom would cite wiki as a valid source. I gracefully bow, to your keen intellect.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 11 2009, 10:58 PM)
Coming from the "man" whom would cite wiki as a valid source. I gracefully bow, to your keen intellect.
So... let me get this straight...
Wikipedia: Humanity's best effort at making an open repository for all knowable things = untrustworthy
History Channel: Television station run by profit-seeking capitalists whose sole purpose is "more viewers, more money" = intellectual gold
So... let me get this straight...
Wikipedia: Humanity's best effort at making an open repository for all knowable things = untrustworthy
History Channel: Television station run by profit-seeking capitalists whose sole purpose is "more viewers, more money" = intellectual gold
Meem,
As much as I desire to be supportive of you, you make it quite a challenge. You strike me, increasingly, as one being abrasive just for the sake of it.
I state this because at every moment I strive to increase meaningful dialogue upon this forum, you seem to be intent upon undermining it.
PLEASE. Knock it the fu*k-all off, because it rather pi**es me off, and even more PLEASE, stop giving those on the fence every reasonable reason to side with those whom I believe to be the overly judgemental.
- Raphie
As much as I desire to be supportive of you, you make it quite a challenge. You strike me, increasingly, as one being abrasive just for the sake of it.
I state this because at every moment I strive to increase meaningful dialogue upon this forum, you seem to be intent upon undermining it.
PLEASE. Knock it the fu*k-all off, because it rather pi**es me off, and even more PLEASE, stop giving those on the fence every reasonable reason to side with those whom I believe to be the overly judgemental.
- Raphie
Wiki is humanities best effort at truth? With people like scientologists (and god knows who else, anyone that feels they have the knowledge to do so) out there trying to change it, constantly? And if it's YOUR answer, show me the answer from pamu punku mystery from Wiki ...
What a face flopping joke. Cling to your ideas little big man, cling to them tightly, and don't let go ...
RF, with all due respect good sir, you can't bring something to this forum it doesn't have, and doesn't want, period ..
Because anyone that hints at possibilty, is a crank. Pretty closed minded if you asked me.
You can't change knowledge in a book unless you burn it or right a new one ...
Hail chat nazi's!
What a face flopping joke. Cling to your ideas little big man, cling to them tightly, and don't let go ...
RF, with all due respect good sir, you can't bring something to this forum it doesn't have, and doesn't want, period ..
QUOTE
best effort at making an open repository
Because anyone that hints at possibilty, is a crank. Pretty closed minded if you asked me.
You can't change knowledge in a book unless you burn it or right a new one ...
Hail chat nazi's!
maybe the forum has it, but the majority of people in it, don't.
Who knows, who really cares.
Who knows, who really cares.
QUOTE
Hail chat nazi's!
Why are you even here then?
So you got kicked out of other forums, unsurprisingly... did you ever think that maybe it's not everyone else?
You refuse to learn.
You refuse to listen.
And you call us nazis?
Godwin's Law
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hail chat nazi's! |
Why are you even here then?
So you got kicked out of other forums, unsurprisingly... did you ever think that maybe it's not everyone else?
You refuse to learn.
You refuse to listen.
And you call us nazis?
Godwin's Law
there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law
I would seriously suggest you stick to UFO sites. You would likely be much happier there. Unless you are deliberately trolling, which is possible I suppose.
You refuse to learn and listen from your own logic.
wiki can solve everything, for me, but it doesn't have everything on puma punku does it?
Dont educate yourself from wiki, ignoring all the people whom have educated themselves from wiki.
Genius! Way to keep it real .... fake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtENxinYmiw...player_embedded
wiki can solve everything, for me, but it doesn't have everything on puma punku does it?
Dont educate yourself from wiki, ignoring all the people whom have educated themselves from wiki.
Genius! Way to keep it real .... fake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtENxinYmiw...player_embedded
What the heck did the video have to do with anything at all?
No.. that would be called actual archeology. I gave you a link to an actual archeology site... I bet you didn't even read it.
QUOTE
wiki can solve everything, for me, but it doesn't have everything on puma punku does it?
No.. that would be called actual archeology. I gave you a link to an actual archeology site... I bet you didn't even read it.
Sorry to interrupt but I have a few suggestions about the original topic. Now I’m not a science community person, but I can speak from the perspective of a person that wants to be apart of this forum.
1. I like the idea for a topic called “crank theories” or just breaking off “new theories” into its own section. I could have used that one myself; instead I had to post my idea under “relativity, quantum mechanics, and new theories”. I would suggest making it “relativity, quantum mechanics, and string theory” and a separate topic called “new theories”.
2. Limit number of posts a day for “new users” to (1 or something) and so on for each member level. This would allow n00bs less posting power than the serious forum users and give the moderators a little more time to sort through all the posts.
3. Ban some people; give the moderators rights to ban someone for a week or something as a warning (and permanently for extreme cases). A forum is a dictatorship, like the army or work. What the head honcho says is law, without question.
4. Have a place to submit forum names of known Trolls, Cranks, and Spammers. Then let the moderators review these people and ban them if they need to.
5. Make a “Did you know section” for those people that just want to post something they read or saw but don’t want to discuss it. Hopefully that would isolate a lot of your problem posts. It would also be good for lists of things like good books or websites.
6. I don’t know if you can do this, but it would be nice if there was a “Crank rating” and “Brilliant Rating” along with the positive and negative rating…. That one is probably a little redundant, but I’ll through the idea out there anyway.
I know I’m not a science person or even involved in the forum the way you all are so it means a lot to me if you even read what I post. I wish you the best of luck with the trad cleansing. – Nihilist
1. I like the idea for a topic called “crank theories” or just breaking off “new theories” into its own section. I could have used that one myself; instead I had to post my idea under “relativity, quantum mechanics, and new theories”. I would suggest making it “relativity, quantum mechanics, and string theory” and a separate topic called “new theories”.
2. Limit number of posts a day for “new users” to (1 or something) and so on for each member level. This would allow n00bs less posting power than the serious forum users and give the moderators a little more time to sort through all the posts.
3. Ban some people; give the moderators rights to ban someone for a week or something as a warning (and permanently for extreme cases). A forum is a dictatorship, like the army or work. What the head honcho says is law, without question.
4. Have a place to submit forum names of known Trolls, Cranks, and Spammers. Then let the moderators review these people and ban them if they need to.
5. Make a “Did you know section” for those people that just want to post something they read or saw but don’t want to discuss it. Hopefully that would isolate a lot of your problem posts. It would also be good for lists of things like good books or websites.
6. I don’t know if you can do this, but it would be nice if there was a “Crank rating” and “Brilliant Rating” along with the positive and negative rating…. That one is probably a little redundant, but I’ll through the idea out there anyway.
I know I’m not a science person or even involved in the forum the way you all are so it means a lot to me if you even read what I post. I wish you the best of luck with the trad cleansing. – Nihilist
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 12 2009, 05:57 AM)
Why are you even here then?
So you got kicked out of other forums, unsurprisingly... did you ever think that maybe it's not everyone else?
You refuse to learn.
You refuse to listen.
And you call us nazis?
Godwin's Law
I would seriously suggest you stick to UFO sites. You would likely be much happier there. Unless you are deliberately trolling, which is possible I suppose.
he also refuses to admit he has language problems.
(at least I think it was him that said he had no trouble with English.)
penultimate
Meem,
Find me a source that has anywhere near the quantity and variety of articles that Wikipedia has and is more accurate. Hint: not Encyclopedia Britannica.
The whole point of Wikipedia is that (with the exception of a handful of articles) anyone can edit, but those changes can be undone. The 'mods' at Wikipedia place a lot of value in sources. If you want to use Wikipedia as a source on a research paper, don't quote Wikipedia, quote the articles that Wikipedia sources from.
Overall, your argument stinks of a superiority complex. As far as Pumapunku goes, the wiki article has no gaping errors in logic, but you seem to be claiming that they had extraterrestrial help? That is beyond idiotic.
Find me a source that has anywhere near the quantity and variety of articles that Wikipedia has and is more accurate. Hint: not Encyclopedia Britannica.
The whole point of Wikipedia is that (with the exception of a handful of articles) anyone can edit, but those changes can be undone. The 'mods' at Wikipedia place a lot of value in sources. If you want to use Wikipedia as a source on a research paper, don't quote Wikipedia, quote the articles that Wikipedia sources from.
Overall, your argument stinks of a superiority complex. As far as Pumapunku goes, the wiki article has no gaping errors in logic, but you seem to be claiming that they had extraterrestrial help? That is beyond idiotic.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 12 2009, 05:40 AM)
RF, with all due respect good sir, you can't bring something to this forum it doesn't have, and doesn't want, period ..
Meem, you do realize that this forum is not a single conscious entity, but rather is a collection of individuals, each offering their own unique contribution. I hope that helps with your confusion.
For the record, I dont think Raphie Frank fits the definition of a crank. Although Raphie does have a flair for the over-dramatic, and always somehow manages to make all his posts be about Raphie Frank, Raphie has never claimed his mind-numbing fascination with numbers is anything more than a fascination with numbers. He's never said he found god in his maths, hes never claimed to overturn some long-standing formula or concept. All I see that Raphie has said, very diplomatically, is that he might have found something that could be connected to something else. Whats wrong with that? And even if it ends up being a total waste of time, its his time to spend.
I think Raphie is generally a polite and respectful poster, and I think those are valuable qualities that should be encouraged.
I think Raphie is generally a polite and respectful poster, and I think those are valuable qualities that should be encouraged.
I tend to agree with Occidental...
Though there were a few incidents, and I don't really know what the mysticism part of the numbers was all about, over all it seems that Raphie is getting appreciably better.
So... not really a crank at this time.
Though there were a few incidents, and I don't really know what the mysticism part of the numbers was all about, over all it seems that Raphie is getting appreciably better.
So... not really a crank at this time.
What makes a crank a crank?
A question or a theory? Somebody's statement, or the question of that statement?
I mean seriously, if I take the russian guy on his word, and say ok there is a 880 stone there. I haven't been there, and I don't think anyone else here has either. So can we not just assume this is true? Or is that guy a liar? If you want to say he is a liar, I think you have to go there yourself and prove him wrong. There isn't enough "real" info on it anywhere else. Because anyone who looks into it must be a crank, this is how you keep people away. But seriously, IF we ASSUME that there is in-fact a 880 ton stone from 10 miles away ... and they used a reed boat, like in the "disproof" mentioned and applied it's math to the 880 ton stone, this is what we get ..
1540 meter long boat, 550 meters wide, 210 meters high, and 330,000 bundles of reeds? Does the water way even support those measurements? How the heck did they get it up there after the water? This sounds realistic?
A question or a theory? Somebody's statement, or the question of that statement?
I mean seriously, if I take the russian guy on his word, and say ok there is a 880 stone there. I haven't been there, and I don't think anyone else here has either. So can we not just assume this is true? Or is that guy a liar? If you want to say he is a liar, I think you have to go there yourself and prove him wrong. There isn't enough "real" info on it anywhere else. Because anyone who looks into it must be a crank, this is how you keep people away. But seriously, IF we ASSUME that there is in-fact a 880 ton stone from 10 miles away ... and they used a reed boat, like in the "disproof" mentioned and applied it's math to the 880 ton stone, this is what we get ..
QUOTE
Our boat will be roughly 14 meters long, five meters wide, and two meters high, and use 3,000 bundles of totora reeds
1540 meter long boat, 550 meters wide, 210 meters high, and 330,000 bundles of reeds? Does the water way even support those measurements? How the heck did they get it up there after the water? This sounds realistic?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 12 2009, 12:30 PM)
What makes a crank a crank?
A question or a theory? Somebody's statement, or the question of that statement?
A crank is someone who declares themselves to be right in spite of evidence to the contrary. It also includes people who try to cast their philosophical ideas as scientific reality.
A question or a theory? Somebody's statement, or the question of that statement?
A crank is someone who declares themselves to be right in spite of evidence to the contrary. It also includes people who try to cast their philosophical ideas as scientific reality.
I thought this was an excellent essay on the subject.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 11 2009, 11:56 PM)
No, they are not the same. The easiest to see difference is that you can't choose to be black or asian or Richard Simmons, you're born that way, it's an unavoidable thing from your perspective. However, being a crank is a choice.
For instance, suppose you know nothing about relativity (I know its a stretch for you). You hear something on the radio about time dilation, something you've never heard of before and certainly haven't experienced. Do you write relativity off as obvious garbage or do you investigate further? Cranks do the former. You are reading the news paper and you read something about how GPS systems measure the gravitational and motion induced time dilation of relativity. Do you denounce it as crap since it's obvious that clocks in your attic tick the same as those in your basement or on a jet or do you keep an open mind, since you don't know anything about it? Cranks do the former. You're on an internet forum and there's a discussion about relativity and someone mentions how GR correctly predicts the GPS time dilation effects and posts the derivation, all 10 pages of algebra. Do you think the theory is nonsense since your sub-high school level education in maths doesn't allow you to understand it or do you accept that its just one of those things which is beyond you. Cranks do the former. You're in a pub with some people and a conversation about relativity comes up (well it does with me and my friends). Do you comment about how it's all quite over your head but you'd either leave it to the professionals or if you had time you'd devote some effort into learning or do you proclaim its BS because you can't do it and you think all physics should be within the grasp of a 6 year old with a calculator? Cranks do the latter. One of the guys at the table pipes up he's studied relativity, spending a few years at a good university doing research into it and he gives a few experiments which have put GR to the test over the decades, along with how much physicists search for errors[i] in their work. Do you accept he's more likely to have a grasp of it than you or do you get into a long 'debate' about how its [i]obviously wrong and that no equations he scribbles down on napkins can possibly alter that. Cranks do the latter.
Avoiding educating yourself, ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves and believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it are choices cranks make. Being black or disabled or ginger haired are not choices people make. Being ignorant and apathetic are.
For instance, suppose you know nothing about relativity (I know its a stretch for you). You hear something on the radio about time dilation, something you've never heard of before and certainly haven't experienced. Do you write relativity off as obvious garbage or do you investigate further? Cranks do the former. You are reading the news paper and you read something about how GPS systems measure the gravitational and motion induced time dilation of relativity. Do you denounce it as crap since it's obvious that clocks in your attic tick the same as those in your basement or on a jet or do you keep an open mind, since you don't know anything about it? Cranks do the former. You're on an internet forum and there's a discussion about relativity and someone mentions how GR correctly predicts the GPS time dilation effects and posts the derivation, all 10 pages of algebra. Do you think the theory is nonsense since your sub-high school level education in maths doesn't allow you to understand it or do you accept that its just one of those things which is beyond you. Cranks do the former. You're in a pub with some people and a conversation about relativity comes up (well it does with me and my friends). Do you comment about how it's all quite over your head but you'd either leave it to the professionals or if you had time you'd devote some effort into learning or do you proclaim its BS because you can't do it and you think all physics should be within the grasp of a 6 year old with a calculator? Cranks do the latter. One of the guys at the table pipes up he's studied relativity, spending a few years at a good university doing research into it and he gives a few experiments which have put GR to the test over the decades, along with how much physicists search for errors[i] in their work. Do you accept he's more likely to have a grasp of it than you or do you get into a long 'debate' about how its [i]obviously wrong and that no equations he scribbles down on napkins can possibly alter that. Cranks do the latter.
Avoiding educating yourself, ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves and believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it are choices cranks make. Being black or disabled or ginger haired are not choices people make. Being ignorant and apathetic are.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 12 2009, 05:30 PM)
What makes a crank a crank?
This
I know you agree with this flow of contradiction. It's rather blatantly obvious.
You don't know anything about me ... but I am the crank. guffaw. You know what you have made the choice to know, what you think you know.
I know you agree with this flow of contradiction. It's rather blatantly obvious.
Wow, thats some bad reading comprehension.
Choices cranks make are:
1. avoiding educating yourself
2. ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves
3. believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it
Like this:
Choices cranks make are:
1. avoiding educating yourself
2. ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves
3. believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it
Like this:
Well, I say it is older ... I don't know how to prove it though...
Does that help?
This
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 8 2009, 09:45 PM)
Well, I say it is older ... I don't know how to prove it though through carbon dating of the stone. Not 2000-3000 years
QUOTE
Avoiding educating yourself, ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves and believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it are choices cranks make.
I know you agree with this flow of contradiction. It's rather blatantly obvious.
You don't know anything about me ... but I am the crank. guffaw. You know what you have made the choice to know, what you think you know.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 12 2009, 12:46 PM)
I know you agree with this flow of contradiction. It's rather blatantly obvious.
You don't know anything about me ... but I am the crank. guffaw. You know what you have made the choice to know, what you think you know.
You're right, your style is more along the lines of:
1) State how you don't agree with the popular explanation of a given phenomenon
2) Vaguely reference a crackpot theory regarding said phenomenon
3) Claim that you have never advocated said crackpot theory
4) Start whining about how everyone picks on you
5) Post irrelevant philosophical nonsense
Does that sound more familiar?
You don't know anything about me ... but I am the crank. guffaw. You know what you have made the choice to know, what you think you know.
You're right, your style is more along the lines of:
1) State how you don't agree with the popular explanation of a given phenomenon
2) Vaguely reference a crackpot theory regarding said phenomenon
3) Claim that you have never advocated said crackpot theory
4) Start whining about how everyone picks on you
5) Post irrelevant philosophical nonsense
Does that sound more familiar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GNcpuQePPA
Lost Cause Lyrics
Artist(Band):Beck Review The Song (2) Print the Lyrics
Send "Lost Cause" Ringtones to Cell
Your sorry eyes; they cut through bone
They make it hard to leave you alone
Leave you here wearing your wounds
Waving your guns at somebody new
Baby you're lost
Baby you're lost
Baby you're a lost cause
There's too many people you used to know
They see you coming they see you go
They know your secrets and you know theirs
This town is crazy; nobody cares
Baby you're lost
Baby you're lost
Baby you're a lost cause
I'm tired of fighting
I'm tired of fighting
Fighting for a lost cause
There's a place where you are going
You ain't never been before
No one left to watch your back now
No one standing at your door
That's what you thought love was for
Baby you're lost
Baby you're lost
Baby you're a lost cause
I'm tired of fighting
I'm tired of fighting
Fighting for a lost cause
QUOTE
Lost Cause Lyrics
Artist(Band):Beck Review The Song (2) Print the Lyrics
Send "Lost Cause" Ringtones to Cell
Your sorry eyes; they cut through bone
They make it hard to leave you alone
Leave you here wearing your wounds
Waving your guns at somebody new
Baby you're lost
Baby you're lost
Baby you're a lost cause
There's too many people you used to know
They see you coming they see you go
They know your secrets and you know theirs
This town is crazy; nobody cares
Baby you're lost
Baby you're lost
Baby you're a lost cause
I'm tired of fighting
I'm tired of fighting
Fighting for a lost cause
There's a place where you are going
You ain't never been before
No one left to watch your back now
No one standing at your door
That's what you thought love was for
Baby you're lost
Baby you're lost
Baby you're a lost cause
I'm tired of fighting
I'm tired of fighting
Fighting for a lost cause
Meem,
How many times have you threatened to leave? Doesn't it make you a coward if you aren't willing to go through with your threats?
How many times have you threatened to leave? Doesn't it make you a coward if you aren't willing to go through with your threats?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 12 2009, 05:46 PM)
I know you agree with this flow of contradiction. It's rather blatantly obvious.
Wow, thats some bad reading comprehension.
QUOTE
Avoiding educating yourself, ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves and believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it are choices cranks make.
Choices cranks make are:
1. avoiding educating yourself
2. ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves
3. believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it
Like this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Avoiding educating yourself, ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves and believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it are choices cranks make. |
Choices cranks make are:
1. avoiding educating yourself
2. ignoring any and all people who have educated themselves
3. believing that the best way to evaluate something is to know nothing about it
Like this:
Well, I say it is older ... I don't know how to prove it though...
Does that help?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.