Continuing lessons on how to "spot the LOONEY"
The dangers of accepting anything at face value is part of the continuing lesson being taught in this blog, and this entry is no different. We are going to look at some of the more difficult points being made and the general refute for the claims of the pseudoscience crowd. We can get more into detail but it may not be necessary as a lot of this stuff is picked apart all over the net by physicists and scientists far more experienced than I, and anyone can find it. So I will be general for a short while and allow you to research (as taught earlier) for your own good. We can get more specific later.
Some other typical tactics of pseudoscience (and the con-man) will be "Russel's teapot", which is the same as above:
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
It is essentially: "You can't prove my Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist therefore it must exist".
You will also see "special pleading":
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
Although by far this is more common in faith, this is also used in pseudoscience and con's as a means to break down the target (you) or to establish a "fact" (or precedent) while using a circular special pleading argument that because one outlier must exist, the outlier precedent is representative and demonstrative of the norm. Science knows outliers exist but to make an exception for the rule there must be justification. The exception doesn't disprove the rule anymore than the exception validates a new rule of normalcy.
Outlier: a statistical observation that is markedly different in value from the others of the sample http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outlier
One of the worst case scenario's would be to establish that a special pleading case is feasible (usually this is attained by "looks like ..." or similar arguments) and then create a circular argument around it stating something to be factual, such as: "we can create plasma discharges that score a similar regolith in such a way as to make plasma impact locations look like craters... therefore it stands to reason that the Moon craters are made by plasma discharge".
That argument sounds ridiculous but it really has been used as evidence and argument by electric universe cult members seeking to convince science that craters on Mars and elsewhere (yep, even the Moon) are made by plasma discharge - comically enough, we actually watch meteors and general "stuff" impact the Moon creating craters yet we've never once seen a plasma discharge create a crater, despite it's being observed regularly.
This is one example you should look at because science is involved and it's hard for the scientifically illiterate to see what the truth is, especially when science is misinterpreted and studies are used to support a belief. Feel free to do some research and comment below. I will add some for you to think about as well.
The study in question from the electric universe is from an electrical engineering standpoint but it addresses only a potential. It does not address scale, energy levels required to attain said scarring nor does it make a point as to the potential source of said high energies. It is essentially a "looks like, therefore it must be..." argument. It also doesn't address the fact that we know how plasma strikes regolith and the evidence it leaves behind, and this is measurable even today. What does that mean for the craters? Plasma discharge leaves physical evidence behind, therefore if said evidence isn't there we can rule out plasma discharge. This is like forensics.
Is there a refute, or a study that demonstrates another potential that is more likely or based upon common occurrences, known and validated laws of physics and observations that meet known laws? you bet:
http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.028001
Someone making a claim should have evidence (as we already discussed) and this evidence should be, for someone making a claim that is an authority from a STEM field, scientific or presented in such a way as to utilize proven factual studies and (potentially) extrapolated from that (like when hypothesizing about a subject not studied). So when someone makes a claim that sounds "right" but can't be supported by evidence (like the examples below) then it stands to reason that regardless of their claims of authority, degree or importance, they're full of sh*.... erm ... lets use the word "manure".
The electric universe (hereafter noted only as eu, in lower case to differentiate between the European Union, a respectable and far more credible organization) is constantly stating that any astronomical observations of magnetism, electricity, plasma or anything related is misleading to the general public because of the failure of Astrophysicists to know plasma physics. They will often trot out a decades old quote by Hannes Alfven (a real scientists they idolize) to support their claims, as though nothing changes over time.
Even if the quote were true in the past it doesn't stand to reason that it is still true. This is like saying: "Raping your wife was once considered impossible in the past, therefore it stands to reason that the courts will continue to support that raping your wife is impossible today" (which we know is not true by example and precedent). In the past it might have been the norm but things change over time. Change is the only true constant in life.
So the eu claim is really easy to spot the lie just by researching any school curriculum and noting that among the requirements to get a degree in Astrophysics you must take plasma physics courses, high energy physics and more. Plus, observation of the websites that cater to plasma physics and astrophysics (like: pppl.gov ) demonstrate plasma physicists, engineers and astrophysicists working side by side to learn about physics from stars to modern fusion experiments.
Another common tactic you will see is from people who have such a desire for attention due to some past inadequacy and epic failure in life that they argue from self authority regardless of the factual scientific evidence refuting their claims. A great couple of examples of this can be found on Phys.org by a single poster called "gkam" where he argues about the overall safety of nuclear energy or about the threat of THz radiation fog in communication. Most of his arguments stem from his desire to have attention and thus concentrate predominantly on his superiority or "authority".
The argument from gkam is: I have a degree, therefore I can't be wrong and you should listen to my experience. In fact, a quote from gkam is likely to also state he has "experience" which outweighs any actual evidence that refutes his claims. Here is an actual direct quote he uses to another person to establish his authority for making a blatantly obvious false claim and then promoting spam, trolling, flaming, baiting and worse comments in the thread: "These folk got mad because I had some experiences with the issues here".
And another when downrated for a factually wrong "opinion" that was hidden in more snark than honesty about another poster: "Someone probably not in the business marked down that last post ... It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience"
So how can we know when an "experienced" engineer tells us something wrong (or correct)? The simple answer is "evidence". The harder answer is "evidence". If an engineer says: "the sky is blue because Aliens use Krylon on the horizon". We can see it's wrong because there is no evidence to support it.
So what about this claim: " I assume we will now find out what terahertz radiation does to us guinea pigs"?
Obviously the poster is imparting a personal fear of THz and attempting to create a fear based upon his "authority", so how can you find the truth? It's easier than you think to know more than the engineer because this is a studied topic. You can start with research and Google Scholar as well as the Wiki link (use the reference section to find direct sources of claims, then follow the evidence)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation
We know that "anything with temperatures greater than about 10 kelvin" [see wiki link/sources above] gives off Terahertz [THz] radiation. This is important to note becuase his argument is that we "can" weaponize or create high energy THz radiation sources that are thermally destructive, therefore exposure to all THz us dangerous. Making the claim that it will be dangerous because of the potential thermal energies or weaponization is like saying "because we can create lasers out of light, then exposure to light is dangerous and can kill us". This is a great analogy because as everyone knows we evolved to use light yet light (in various forms like UV) can cause cancer or (as noted) can be coherent and utilized at various energies as either a weapon or pointer. Does that mean all lasers or light is dangerous? nope. but gkam's argument states this exact point. who is right? the singular claim of an attention whore or the hundreds of scientists involved in research that state otherwise?
This is also demonstrated in the various scientific studies in the references of the wiki-link as well as in the references section of each study. Yes, THz can be thermally dangerous under certain energies, but that doesn't mean it's dangerous all the time (obvious since we're regularly exposed to it by anything with a temp above 10 Kelvin, which is -441.67 degree Fahrenheit or -263.15 degree Celsius - IOW, literally everything)
So what happens when said poster gkam the engineer talks about the horrendous problems with nuclear energy, it's safety (overall) or the future with nuclear in our life? gkam has often promoted the horrors of Chernobyl and Fukushima as being the typical and probable outcome of all nuke plants regardless of the evidence. So what is the truth? Nukes are safer than even green energy as noted in the below (the PDF is a study where safety is established overall per KWH)
http://physics.kenyon.edu/people/sullivan/PHYS102/PHYS102F12Lecture15.pdf
Now, I am not advocating for a fission future. I just advocate for reality, facts and verifiable evidence based science over opinionated subjective emotional pleas and argument from authority. So what do the authorities say about nuclear anything? check these out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Syv9arXqU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2PxY-wOrI8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDarcdMiIGs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7Zm8XO7Zc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM-I3ifi_UI
All the videos are able to be easily researched and all information in them is verifiable. So which person is the more believable? The one with the scary pics (gkam) promoting a worst case scenario that has "potential" or the one who gives an unemotional factual analysis of the science?
I say the latter.
When someone like gkam seeks attention it is not likely to go away (especially if you challenge the "authority" of the claims, regardless of the overwhelming evidence against said claim). This is evident in his continuing promotion of false ideas, claims and arguing that, because person A doesn't establish their personal information and degree history publicly where it can be easily accessed then person A must be wrong, regardless of the overwhelming evidence supporting person A's claim. One of the stupidest things anyone can do today is publish their personal information in an easily accessible manner open to the general public... like posting their name, address, phone number or social security number publicly.
This is exactly what the idiot gkam actually believes though! He truly believes: if I publicly promote my information then I can prove I am "real" and therefore everyone who refuses to do this is "fake" and "hiding". This is logically inconsistent, especially as all tech professionals, law enforcement, common sense and even (wow) the government state you should never publicly do this at all.
So what is the reasoning for the argument? It's more about saving face and trying to make a blatantly stupid mistake a positive in his delusional mind because he was stupid and he knows it. He figures that we all know he was blatantly stupid in ways that create epic problems for him, but if he can get just one more person to actually follow in his footsteps, he has justified his mistake and it absolves him of the label of "blatantly stupid".
He couldn't be more wrong. On that a special note also remember: it doesn't matter how many degree's you hold or how high your test scores are, nor does it matter how much experience you have... when you are wrong and the evidence proves you so to be so, you are wrong. Period. Get over it and either learn from your mistakes or continue to promote a known false belief and be labeled a complete chronic lying jackass like gkam has been. Consider that particular lesson a warning as well becuase for those who require credibility in their life, it will affect you in ways that are negative.
Here are more wise words to remember:
"If you make a claim without evidence, then the counter claim (reciprocal) without evidence holds the exact same validity. If you say something is without being able to prove it with evidence, than simply saying something is not is equally valid and holds the same truth.
one of the cornerstones of the scientific method is: the claim plus physical evidence supporting claim plus it must be compatible with observation and past validated knowledge
dismissal of a baseless claim is not prejudice or wrong, it is required by the scientific method"
Forest Gump quoted in his movie: "Stupid is as stupid does"... this is more true that you can imagine. It's not "that" you do something stupid. Everyone makes mistakes. It's that you continue to do stupid things without thinking of the consequences and then promote it as being a good thing. (think: Jackass, the movie or otherwise).
This also happens to be the definition of insanity: repeating the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Next week: What makes people argue a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Like global warming or their own brand of Pseudoscience?
Russels Teapot, Special pleading and argument from misinterpretation
You can't state that the lack of evidence refuting x is definitive proof that x must exist... this is another common tactic of pseudoscience and religions both. You can see a demonstration of this as: "No one has proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, therefore it MUST exist".Some other typical tactics of pseudoscience (and the con-man) will be "Russel's teapot", which is the same as above:
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
It is essentially: "You can't prove my Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist therefore it must exist".
You will also see "special pleading":
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
Although by far this is more common in faith, this is also used in pseudoscience and con's as a means to break down the target (you) or to establish a "fact" (or precedent) while using a circular special pleading argument that because one outlier must exist, the outlier precedent is representative and demonstrative of the norm. Science knows outliers exist but to make an exception for the rule there must be justification. The exception doesn't disprove the rule anymore than the exception validates a new rule of normalcy.
Outlier: a statistical observation that is markedly different in value from the others of the sample http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outlier
One of the worst case scenario's would be to establish that a special pleading case is feasible (usually this is attained by "looks like ..." or similar arguments) and then create a circular argument around it stating something to be factual, such as: "we can create plasma discharges that score a similar regolith in such a way as to make plasma impact locations look like craters... therefore it stands to reason that the Moon craters are made by plasma discharge".
That argument sounds ridiculous but it really has been used as evidence and argument by electric universe cult members seeking to convince science that craters on Mars and elsewhere (yep, even the Moon) are made by plasma discharge - comically enough, we actually watch meteors and general "stuff" impact the Moon creating craters yet we've never once seen a plasma discharge create a crater, despite it's being observed regularly.
This is one example you should look at because science is involved and it's hard for the scientifically illiterate to see what the truth is, especially when science is misinterpreted and studies are used to support a belief. Feel free to do some research and comment below. I will add some for you to think about as well.
The study in question from the electric universe is from an electrical engineering standpoint but it addresses only a potential. It does not address scale, energy levels required to attain said scarring nor does it make a point as to the potential source of said high energies. It is essentially a "looks like, therefore it must be..." argument. It also doesn't address the fact that we know how plasma strikes regolith and the evidence it leaves behind, and this is measurable even today. What does that mean for the craters? Plasma discharge leaves physical evidence behind, therefore if said evidence isn't there we can rule out plasma discharge. This is like forensics.
Is there a refute, or a study that demonstrates another potential that is more likely or based upon common occurrences, known and validated laws of physics and observations that meet known laws? you bet:
http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.028001
Argument from authority
This is especially difficult for the average layman or non-STEM graduate to argue against as the typical person who is not overly scientifically literate can't always differentiate between what is real and what is bullshit ... but not to fear because there really is an easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. It's called: EvidenceSomeone making a claim should have evidence (as we already discussed) and this evidence should be, for someone making a claim that is an authority from a STEM field, scientific or presented in such a way as to utilize proven factual studies and (potentially) extrapolated from that (like when hypothesizing about a subject not studied). So when someone makes a claim that sounds "right" but can't be supported by evidence (like the examples below) then it stands to reason that regardless of their claims of authority, degree or importance, they're full of sh*.... erm ... lets use the word "manure".
The electric universe (hereafter noted only as eu, in lower case to differentiate between the European Union, a respectable and far more credible organization) is constantly stating that any astronomical observations of magnetism, electricity, plasma or anything related is misleading to the general public because of the failure of Astrophysicists to know plasma physics. They will often trot out a decades old quote by Hannes Alfven (a real scientists they idolize) to support their claims, as though nothing changes over time.
Even if the quote were true in the past it doesn't stand to reason that it is still true. This is like saying: "Raping your wife was once considered impossible in the past, therefore it stands to reason that the courts will continue to support that raping your wife is impossible today" (which we know is not true by example and precedent). In the past it might have been the norm but things change over time. Change is the only true constant in life.
So the eu claim is really easy to spot the lie just by researching any school curriculum and noting that among the requirements to get a degree in Astrophysics you must take plasma physics courses, high energy physics and more. Plus, observation of the websites that cater to plasma physics and astrophysics (like: pppl.gov ) demonstrate plasma physicists, engineers and astrophysicists working side by side to learn about physics from stars to modern fusion experiments.
Argument from authority for attention
Another common tactic you will see is from people who have such a desire for attention due to some past inadequacy and epic failure in life that they argue from self authority regardless of the factual scientific evidence refuting their claims. A great couple of examples of this can be found on Phys.org by a single poster called "gkam" where he argues about the overall safety of nuclear energy or about the threat of THz radiation fog in communication. Most of his arguments stem from his desire to have attention and thus concentrate predominantly on his superiority or "authority".
The argument from gkam is: I have a degree, therefore I can't be wrong and you should listen to my experience. In fact, a quote from gkam is likely to also state he has "experience" which outweighs any actual evidence that refutes his claims. Here is an actual direct quote he uses to another person to establish his authority for making a blatantly obvious false claim and then promoting spam, trolling, flaming, baiting and worse comments in the thread: "These folk got mad because I had some experiences with the issues here".
And another when downrated for a factually wrong "opinion" that was hidden in more snark than honesty about another poster: "Someone probably not in the business marked down that last post ... It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience"
Someone probably not in
the business marked down that last post. It is difficult to convey the
complexities of controlling power in reactive systems with multiple
varying inputs and changing loads.
It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-renewable-energy-sources-grew-pace.html#jCp
It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-renewable-energy-sources-grew-pace.html#jCp
Someone probably not in
the business marked down that last post. It is difficult to convey the
complexities of controlling power in reactive systems with multiple
varying inputs and changing loads.
It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-renewable-energy-sources-grew-pace.html#jCp
It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-renewable-energy-sources-grew-pace.html#jCp
Someone probably not in
the business marked down that last post. It is difficult to convey the
complexities of controlling power in reactive systems with multiple
varying inputs and changing loads.
It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-renewable-energy-sources-grew-pace.html#jCp
It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-renewable-energy-sources-grew-pace.html#jCp
Someone probably not in
the business marked down that last post. It is difficult to convey the
complexities of controlling power in reactive systems with multiple
varying inputs and changing loads.
It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-renewable-energy-sources-grew-pace.html#jCp
It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-renewable-energy-sources-grew-pace.html#jCp
So how can we know when an "experienced" engineer tells us something wrong (or correct)? The simple answer is "evidence". The harder answer is "evidence". If an engineer says: "the sky is blue because Aliens use Krylon on the horizon". We can see it's wrong because there is no evidence to support it.
So what about this claim: " I assume we will now find out what terahertz radiation does to us guinea pigs"?
Obviously the poster is imparting a personal fear of THz and attempting to create a fear based upon his "authority", so how can you find the truth? It's easier than you think to know more than the engineer because this is a studied topic. You can start with research and Google Scholar as well as the Wiki link (use the reference section to find direct sources of claims, then follow the evidence)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation
We know that "anything with temperatures greater than about 10 kelvin" [see wiki link/sources above] gives off Terahertz [THz] radiation. This is important to note becuase his argument is that we "can" weaponize or create high energy THz radiation sources that are thermally destructive, therefore exposure to all THz us dangerous. Making the claim that it will be dangerous because of the potential thermal energies or weaponization is like saying "because we can create lasers out of light, then exposure to light is dangerous and can kill us". This is a great analogy because as everyone knows we evolved to use light yet light (in various forms like UV) can cause cancer or (as noted) can be coherent and utilized at various energies as either a weapon or pointer. Does that mean all lasers or light is dangerous? nope. but gkam's argument states this exact point. who is right? the singular claim of an attention whore or the hundreds of scientists involved in research that state otherwise?
This is also demonstrated in the various scientific studies in the references of the wiki-link as well as in the references section of each study. Yes, THz can be thermally dangerous under certain energies, but that doesn't mean it's dangerous all the time (obvious since we're regularly exposed to it by anything with a temp above 10 Kelvin, which is -441.67 degree Fahrenheit or -263.15 degree Celsius - IOW, literally everything)
So what happens when said poster gkam the engineer talks about the horrendous problems with nuclear energy, it's safety (overall) or the future with nuclear in our life? gkam has often promoted the horrors of Chernobyl and Fukushima as being the typical and probable outcome of all nuke plants regardless of the evidence. So what is the truth? Nukes are safer than even green energy as noted in the below (the PDF is a study where safety is established overall per KWH)
http://physics.kenyon.edu/people/sullivan/PHYS102/PHYS102F12Lecture15.pdf
Now, I am not advocating for a fission future. I just advocate for reality, facts and verifiable evidence based science over opinionated subjective emotional pleas and argument from authority. So what do the authorities say about nuclear anything? check these out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Syv9arXqU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2PxY-wOrI8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDarcdMiIGs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7Zm8XO7Zc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM-I3ifi_UI
All the videos are able to be easily researched and all information in them is verifiable. So which person is the more believable? The one with the scary pics (gkam) promoting a worst case scenario that has "potential" or the one who gives an unemotional factual analysis of the science?
I say the latter.
When someone like gkam seeks attention it is not likely to go away (especially if you challenge the "authority" of the claims, regardless of the overwhelming evidence against said claim). This is evident in his continuing promotion of false ideas, claims and arguing that, because person A doesn't establish their personal information and degree history publicly where it can be easily accessed then person A must be wrong, regardless of the overwhelming evidence supporting person A's claim. One of the stupidest things anyone can do today is publish their personal information in an easily accessible manner open to the general public... like posting their name, address, phone number or social security number publicly.
This is exactly what the idiot gkam actually believes though! He truly believes: if I publicly promote my information then I can prove I am "real" and therefore everyone who refuses to do this is "fake" and "hiding". This is logically inconsistent, especially as all tech professionals, law enforcement, common sense and even (wow) the government state you should never publicly do this at all.
So what is the reasoning for the argument? It's more about saving face and trying to make a blatantly stupid mistake a positive in his delusional mind because he was stupid and he knows it. He figures that we all know he was blatantly stupid in ways that create epic problems for him, but if he can get just one more person to actually follow in his footsteps, he has justified his mistake and it absolves him of the label of "blatantly stupid".
He couldn't be more wrong. On that a special note also remember: it doesn't matter how many degree's you hold or how high your test scores are, nor does it matter how much experience you have... when you are wrong and the evidence proves you so to be so, you are wrong. Period. Get over it and either learn from your mistakes or continue to promote a known false belief and be labeled a complete chronic lying jackass like gkam has been. Consider that particular lesson a warning as well becuase for those who require credibility in their life, it will affect you in ways that are negative.
Here are more wise words to remember:
"If you make a claim without evidence, then the counter claim (reciprocal) without evidence holds the exact same validity. If you say something is without being able to prove it with evidence, than simply saying something is not is equally valid and holds the same truth.
one of the cornerstones of the scientific method is: the claim plus physical evidence supporting claim plus it must be compatible with observation and past validated knowledge
dismissal of a baseless claim is not prejudice or wrong, it is required by the scientific method"
Forest Gump quoted in his movie: "Stupid is as stupid does"... this is more true that you can imagine. It's not "that" you do something stupid. Everyone makes mistakes. It's that you continue to do stupid things without thinking of the consequences and then promote it as being a good thing. (think: Jackass, the movie or otherwise).
This also happens to be the definition of insanity: repeating the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Next week: What makes people argue a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Like global warming or their own brand of Pseudoscience?
Comments
Post a Comment