Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Filtering out the stupid stuff.

Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Science" should be required reading for HS students.

"Ben Goldacre: Battling Bad Science"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk

It's generally not sufficient for kooks to spew stupid crap; they want to convince everyone else they're not kooks, spread the gospel, so to speak.

"Common Sense is Useless in Science"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60uJ7sOx_1A

Interesting links TFF; but don't filter out all the kooky stuff, we have to have some fun.

Basic discussion of the Null Hypothesis.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-skepticism-reveals

"Scientists investigate water memory"
http://odewire.com/170441/scientists-investigate-water-memory.html

It's difficult to resist sometimes - the stories they weave around their "research" is so compelling.

There are several red flags in this article. No citation. No mention of any specific individual who did the research. No mention of a specific lab. No detail about the preparation or process. I would reject this as unsupported - poetic as it is - out of hand.

Substantiating the work actually occurred does not mean it's right, but it's a necessary first step. It's okay for them to write "Researchers at X university showed amazing thing Y." But it needs to be followed up with something like, "Journal W will publish the protocol and results this week, but Dr. Z, the PI (Principle Investigator), outlines the experiment as follows ..."

One could spend a lot of time and resources trying to explain something that can't and SHOULDN'T be explained, because it never happened.

Here's a blog entry on the article that details other problems.

http://blogs.nature.com/kausikdatta/2011/12/28/water-memory-myth-that-wouldnt-die

OK in some circles, but perhaps not calculated to win the hearts and minds of the scientific community.

"The Red Flags of Quackery v2.0"

http://sci-ence.org/red-flags2/

Amusing stuff, TFF, with, undoubtedly, a lot of underlying truth. However, having spent several years working in close association with the Psychiatric Services (all well and lengthily qualified) I suspect that not all quackery lies outside the medical profession.

I would also be inclined to treat this smart-arse approach with the same caution I would accord to the peddlers of snake oil.

Most doctors are not scientists. In any case, science does not mean "right" or "true."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OedkyxEqtA

"How Not To Be Stupid - A Guide To Critical Thinking"

The problem is that even "wishful thinkers" do not perceive that they "make up their minds prior to examining the evidence." Same for a number of the others. OTOH, just being consciously aware of some of the errors of reasoning and talking about them can help people recognize them and provide some inoculation.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/scientific_its_just_a_catchphrase

Woman asks paranormal "investigators" what their background in science is and what about their investigations makes them 'scientific.'

TFF, your You-tube link gave me a link to a video which would not play. Maybe it is my day to have trouble with the internet, but it refused to start/play. Do you have another link to a like video? It sounds interesting.

Rose, the video ran with no problems for me.

I'm struck by the number of times I chat with people who are bright, hold down intellectually demanding jobs, yet are seemingly chock full of wishful thinking. My most recent such encounter was with a 43 yr old woman who was somewhat proud to proclaim that she was a MENSA member. She was also proud to inform me that she was into witchcraft, astrology and tarot. Do you suppose that women are more predisposed to wishful thinking? I'm curious about that, since I once knew another woman who was equally smart - I.Q. 140, several uni degrees - and equally smitten by the very same set of beliefs.

Rede, As far as I can gather, there is nothing in the "rule book" that says that intelligent people should not hold beliefs.

Back in the 1950s, one of the first things I learned in sales training was that intelligent, educated, people are far more susceptible to sales talk than are the (apparently) less intelligent, less well educated. Of course, this may mean no more than that people in the former group are more ready to change their beliefs, but it might also be a “king’s new clothes” situation.

I don’t even know if this has anything to do with the topic, but that seems to be a minor consideration in these days of scientific paucity.

Great intelligence and great stupidity can reside in the same individual. I've had several creationists pull the Mensa card on me as if that settles anything.

Decades ago, when I was an intern there was a fellow who carried around his Mensa results in his back pocket and when someone would disagree with him, he would whip them out.

The obscurantists approach science in two ways. In the first way, they assert that they are, in fact, true science and in the second that science is flawed and needs to be improved by accepting that supernatural explanations are just as scientific as any other.

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time – when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness." ― Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World.

Neither "God did it!" nor "It must be magic!" is an explanation. These kinds of assertions are not science; they are the opposite of science.

I suspect that as/when this happens in one part of the World, another will be just be pulling itself out of the mire of superstition.

The most that any of us can do is try to shine a light in that part of the World over which we have some influence. The important thing to remember is that our light does not necessarily have a monopoly on rightness.

Well it seems that as a scientist Carl Sagan was a better than fair to middling prophet.

Sounds like wishful thinking in itself, but in any case, I prefer not to live in the society where reason is impossible.


I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence misses the mark. Not all mistakes are equally wrong. Being open to possibility - even inevitability - of error is no justification for silence when people are saying things we know are wrong or even stupid.

Reason may be supressed, but it becomes "impossible" only if we let it.



Does that mean you believe there are beliefs that have a monopoly on rightness? That would sound like some of the more dogmatic religious viewpoints.

I don't know. Is it dogmatic to insist that 2+2=4 (except for sufficiently large values of 2)?

Is it only dogmatism that allows our society to put people in mental institutions? Or prisons?

<"Neither "God did it!" nor "It must be magic!" is an explanation. These kinds of assertions are not science; they are the opposite of science.">


The assertions are not science. But that does not mean they are incorrect.

If something can't be scientifically tested, it isn't science and science has nothing to say about it.

2+2=4 because that is how we define 2 and 4. It is not possible to say that something is wrong when those who claim it is right actually have the power to define the terms involved.



There are those who would claim that that is correct, and they could well be right. I have been responsible for the compulsory admission of many people to psychiatric hospitals, and have refused to apply for admission for many others, even when psychiatrists have been adamant that they should be admitted. Was I always right? With hindsight I can certainly say no, not always. However, I can also say that my decisions had nothing to do with “dogmatism”.

My definition of 2 is that when I move a rock I say I have moved one rock, when I move another rock I say I have moved 2 rocks, and so on. When I have moved another 2 rocks I have moved 4 rocks. Can you provide other definitions of 2 and 4 that are different and still make sense?

Bill Gill

Of course I can't. Like all numbers, 2 and 4 are defined in such a way that they cannot have any other meaning. This is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of definition.

As such, the numbers have no meaning, or existence, outside that definition. It is, therefore, meaningless to use 2+2=4 as an example of a dogmatic attitude towards belief.

Rede, when I tried it tonight it worked. Must have been the net that night. Good video, thanks for sharing.

Good link Rede, I shall be visiting that again.

However, polarisation seems to be a very common problem. Of course there are myriads of crackpots out there, of course there are lots of people who cash in on pseudo-science, of course people with clarity of vision should seek to protect the vulnerable from the snares of charlatans; but in so doing it is all too easy to pour scorn on everything that seems not to have an explanation that fits in with the current trends in science, or with that particular branch of science that provides a livelihood for the critic. There is a strong tendency to treat everything as though it were either black or white; absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

I thought so too, but TFF posted that

I should add a few thoughts on the topic...

Beliefs are our way of constructing a view of reality, i.e. what 'is'; so, we use the word 'is' but strictly speaking we're expressing a judgement based on available data. In the scientific ideology, verifiable data are not ignored; thus a rational, logically consistent belief system emerges, in which beliefs are subject to modification as new data becomes available. So, such beliefs are not dogmatic. In non-scientific ideologies verifiable data are ignored, thus irrational, logically inconsistent beliefs arise which are necessarily dogmatic - since dogmatic beliefs lack a foundation in verifiable data, they are supported by blind faith. Contradiction to such beliefs is a threat to the stability of the faith. The beliefs of non-dogmatic scientific ideology are not threatened in such a way, but their persistence and development is threatened by the ideologies of dogmatic faith. Polarisation is inevitable.

Rede, I agree with you about science not being dogmatic, but we have to remember that there are some scientists that will take a possessive attitude to a theory. For them the theory becomes sacrosanct and they will be offended if any body questions the theory, even if the questioner is correct. Sometimes they will be so convinced of the accuracy of the theory that they will fake data to support it. Fortunately these types of activities are usually spotted before very long. This sort of thing is an unfortunate part of being human.

Bill Gill

Yes, certainly, in those cases there's no ideological polarisation, just the usual flaws in human nature.

"... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." ~Isaac Asimov, The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Of course it is. The trouble comes when neither pole can accept that there might be any truth or value attached to the other pole, or that there can be any middle ground.

Should we just accept "the usual flaws in human nature", or should we make a stand against these flaws?

The problem is, facts are facts, and nonsense is nonsense. Where is the middle ground in the evolution v intelligent design issue? Or, similarly, with the claim "the moon is made of cheese" - how do you meet that halfway?

We have no choice but to live with the flaws of human nature, but we don't have to condone bad science, nor do we have to accept anti-science, pseudoscience, and quackery. Certainly a stand has to be taken (ask Richard Dawkins).

The fact that you, or anyone else, can find examples of sense and nonsense between which there is no reasonable middle ground does not prove that we live in a Universe in which we must be able to recognise everything as being absolutely right or completely wrong.

You ask: “Where is the middle ground in the evolution v intelligent design issue?”

How about an intelligent designer who planned and set in motion the process of evolution. That might not be what I believe, but how good is the proof that such is not possible? In the absence of such absolute proof, would it not be dogmatic if I simply said: “that’s wrong.”

Most ID advocates already largely accept evolution. Evolution is science; ID is not.

Whether some god exists is outside the scope of science. Science does not handle the supernatural. The problem comes in that ID advocates and other creationists insist that "intellectual integrity" insists that scientists accept supernatural explanations. "It must be magic" is never an explanation and it's never science; It's the opposite of science.

We don't need absolute proof to know that some assertions are either inconsistent with the facts or simple nonsense. And it's not dogmatic to insist that views that are inconsistent with science are, in fact, inconsistent with science.

I would be inclined to agree with that, but would have to ask how you distinguish between accepting something without proof, and accepting something on faith?



Obviously it would be absurd to deny such a tautology, but that is not quite the same as saying that everything that our current scientific understanding cannot explain is necessarily nonsense. That does seem to have a feeling of dogma to it.



If science does not handle it, on what grounds could science say it was all nonsense?

Indeed, and it's not offered as a proof. It's intended to suggest that, as you acknowledge, there are many instances where middle ground doesn't exist. The beauty of science is, as I mentioned above, that it's beliefs are provisional and mutable; whereas superstitious/metaphysical/religious beliefs are generally very much opposed to modification, often in deadly earnest. In the latter case, every non-believer must be completely wrong.


It is dogmatic to declare that no god of any kind exists. Science doesn't deal with gods, except insofar as claims regarding them can be shown to be wrong by scientific means.

To some extent we are continually returning to the point I raised about polarisation.

Obviously, polarisation is inevitable and valuable, but, so often it leads to an attitude in which it changes from saying: “A” accords with current evidence, and “B” is demonstrably wrong, to saying: everything that is not “A” must be wrong. From there it can go very easily to: everything that I cannot equate with “A” is a load of rubbish.

BTW, in another thread I gave a personal example of an experience that might have been explained by what has become known as the stone tape effect. I was looking for a possible scientific explanation. I wonder how I should interpret the reticence of scientific posters.

Haha, some light(-humour) in the darkness. Simple home truths. Ty TFF.

Clamping my "devil's advocate horns" firmly back on my head, I would say that amusing as this link is, it falls short as any sort of scientific proof.

It could be argued that all that is established by the chart is that the phenomena in the list from remote viewing to hexes are not sufficiently understood to be of commercial value.

It could also be argued that, for example, drug companies are already making sufficient of a killing to ensure that they throw their considerable weight against any form of alternative medicine.

I've just found the post I referred to in which I was looking for a scientific explanation. I am re-posting it here in the hope of getting a scientific response.

Some 40+ years ago I was driving at about 3am on my second consecutive night without sleep. Strangely I didn’t feel tired, I seemed wide awake and everything appeared normal until I entered an area of street lighting. I then began to hallucinate. Nothing strange about that, in view of my lack of sleep, but this is the odd bit.

Walking towards me, on my side of the road, on the pavement (sidewalk) I saw two young women. I saw them very clearly, even now I could tell you what they were wearing. They were talking and laughing; when they were just a few feet away, the one on the outside turned her ankle on the curb and lunged out in front of the car. I braked hard, but there was no one there. Later, I discovered that a young woman had been killed on that exact spot, in precisely the circumstances I saw. She was hit by an Army vehicle towards the end of WW2.

No mysticism! Let’s have a scientific explanation.
_________________________
"An infinite, unchanging reality exists hid behind the illusion of ceasless change." Bhagavad Gita.

Bill, I could give you a few examples from my own experience. In fact, a few years ago, I posted details of a similar one in order see what kind of response I could elicit. One regular poster, who considered himself a scientist, sort of wiped the floor with me. No else responded - and little wonder.

As far as I know there is, as yet, no explanation in terms of known science that satisfies the people who have these experiences, myself included. Personally, I'm pretty sure that will change at some point in the future.

Having said that, the fact that one has momentarily gained knowledge of events - be they past, present, or future - by mysterious means, might inspire an unjustified confidence that all kinds scientifically inexplicable hocus pocus are real and reasonable.

I do take your point, and I'm with you in the knowledge that these things happen; but it's essential to maintain a strong scepticism and a scientific approach, without which the flood gates are wide open to self-deception, not to mention charlatans and profiteers.

P.S. I mentioned elsewhere that two people I've known, of high intelligence, claimed some kind of clairvoyance. There was another person, a good friend and work colleague, perhaps remarkably also a woman, who could take herself to a quiet place and 'see' what her mother was doing at the time. Incidentally, she too was no intellectual slouch, having degrees from Cambridge.

I agree completely, but I also think the opposite perspective needs to be maintained. Just because there is a lot of hocus pocus out there does not necessarily mean that everything for which we cannot find a scientific explanation is necessarily hocus pocus. From your last post, I guess you are already in that camp.

I have experienced both hallucination and delusion and the hallucination was brought on by lack of sleep. It was extremely real and it took me some to realize it was not. Poor memory of events - that you remember something very well does not mean that you remember it correctly.

Intelligence is irrelevant. Nobody is so smart they can't be fooled - not matter what they think they say. We don't see things correctly the first time and we don't recall things correctly - particularly when we're under stress. This is not a function of intelligence, or honesty, or sanity. It's function of being human.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLGXrviy5Iw

The woman wasn't lying and wasn't stupid. She was mistaken. But *WE* are stupid, if accept eyewitness testimony at face value - no matter how strongly believed and no matter how honest the claimant. It's a sensitive subject.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153864/eye..._id?page=entire

Of course other processes can affect the brain ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/1...5bEQ_story.html

Yes, Bill, it's the camp that acknowledges (a) the importance of the scientific method as the most rational and effective means of discovering truths about the physical world, (b) that scientific knowledge regarding how the universe works is incomplete, has far to go, and may perhaps remain incomplete no matter how far it goes, (c) - and to the point - that there are events concerning one of the great mysteries, i.e. consciousness, that are not yet accessible to proper scientific analysis.

The Enlightenment....


And... On a more personal note: Paranoia (often mistaken as reason) strikes deep.

If we change accessible to acceptable would be just as correct..

And putting on *my* DA horns:

Considering lots of people make lots of money from remedies that don't work (homeopathy, faith-healing, antivaxx approach to preventing autism, facilitated communication), the cartoon could much more easily be explained by ineffective marketing.

Lots of people make lots of claims - many of which are thoroughly inconsistent. This was the standard in philosophy for a long time.

I was reading Descartes' "Discourse on Method" a few months back and came across this:

"I shall say nothing of Philosophy, but that seeing it hath been cultivated by the most excellent wits, which have liv’d these many ages, and that yet there is nothing which is undisputed, and by consequence, which is not doubtfull."

Brilliant observation but, of course, in the very next chapter he went on to give his own version of a proof of God's existence, one that I refer to as "that argument than which nothing more inane can be conceived."

This is not to say that Descartes was stupid after all, but brilliant people stay stupid crap all the time.

One of the things about science is the reliance on *PHYSICAL* explanations for *PHYSICAL* evidence and phenomena. It's not sufficient to have "good reasons" to say that something is science. We need recourse to the evidence. Science as a cultural phenomenon doesn't answer all questions and doesn't pretend to. That, of course, doesn't mean that when questions are outside the purview of science that we are intellectually justified in accepting answers without evidence.

Of course, the practice of science does require some assumptions - but those assumptions are few and necessary to have a thing called science. We can't, for example, prove the existence of reality. We have to assume it.

The contradiction of the human instrument to assume within science, and yet alternately dictate the mechanical instrument of measure outside of the human instrument as superior and more accurate, is in itself a comedy.

On another note, the majority assumption seems to weigh more heavily on the determination of reality when the group that assumes is self prescribed as superior to other groups of thought and practice.

Dogma is dogma...

Sour grapes. Most people see and acknowledge the benefit of actual science, even when they don't understand very well what it is. The obscurantists meanwhile sit on the sidelines, speak gibberish, node sagely, and play with their feces.

RD explains it to his daughter:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/richar...rrational_world

Conversely, some scientists acknowledge the reality of that which they do not have a manufactured instrument for, while engaging the human instrument with an open mind.

Some (of a less adventurous nature).... like to play with others feces, because their own has become too familiar.


It's all relative...

Ah, well, in any distribution of ability or understanding of any population (including scientists), there are always a few at the far left of the distribution that obscurantists can pin their egos on.

In any distribution of abilities or understandings within any population (of labeled groups or individuals), there are always a few within the distribution, that prescribe idealisms to claim a title of righteousness... That is ego.

It's all relative...

"But, like, yea, man, I know guys who have PhDs who agree with me and it's just ego that says that all the other scientists know more than my scientists!"

Some few in any distribution make little contribution other than words and confusion.

Here's a good video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MHAO4JE0G0

Informative and hilarious - particularly in the first 9 minutes.

Gibberish is not an argument against actual science.

Everything within the relative... is subjectively, relative.

One can pursue the absolute box or the absolute within all boxes.

Life is a discovery of self.
Unless one worships that, which is a product of life.

Exclusivity is nothing new when it comes to righteousness or dogma as ego.

Facts are so inconvenient.

And they are always changing...

I guess that was just a burst of sarcasm. Would you agree that facts don’t change; it is only our understanding that changes?

Both...
for instance.
If you learned chemistry or biology in high school, you were probably taught that there are six chemical elements known as the “building blocks of life.” They are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus. These components make up the chemical composition of DNA and without them, life isn’t possible…or at least, we thought it wasn’t possible.
Scientists discovered a bacteria species living in a salt lake in California that was missing one of the building blocks of life, phosphorus, and instead had arsenic in its place. For some people, this might not seem like such a huge deal, particularly considering that arsenic is very close to phosphorus in its physical and chemical properties, but it’s a huge deal to scientists who suddenly saw a massive expansion in the scope of potential living things. It really makes a difference in intergalactic research, since the discovery opens up whole new planets as potential life-supporting ecosystems.

In the extremest case, quantum mechanics may mean that there are no true facts at all in the universe, only a set of self-consistent but mutually-inconsistent explanations.

Well, the arsenic based life forms are very doubtful. A new study of bacteria in the lake hasn't been able to find any with arsenic in their DNA.

I am not going to come out and say that our DNA is the only way that life can evolve. From our point of view this is the most probable form of inheritance. But we do only have one example of life to look at. So it is possible that someplace in the universe there is life that uses some other molecule in place of DNA. It may be a while before we get confirmation one way or the other.

In the mean time we know that DNA works, so that is one thing to look for as we start being able to determine what is going on on extra solar planets. Finding out that other life forms do or do not use DNA would really be a major contribution to science.

Bill Gill

It's true. Even facts are open to question in science. They don't always change, but they do change. And, yet, Asimov had the perfect comment to the childish implication that somehow all mistaken views were equal or scientific knowledge never grows.

Repeated from above:
"... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." ~Isaac Asimov, The Relativity of Wrong, The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44 , http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Moreover, the fact that science as a cultural activity is actively looking for errors does remotely imply that others who claim to have less malleable "knowledge" actually do have the knowledge they profess to have.

Or it implies that the subject of knowledge is based upon what each individual makes it to be.
Importance being relative to what is desirable to the personality rather than assumed as imperative to the whole.

When one looks for something and they look hard enough they can find it.
You can find what is wrong or right with anything, and the boundaries of belief always inspire the instruments (inherent, or of manufacture) to work within those boundaries.

You then give two examples, both of which demonstrate that it is our understanding that changes, not facts.

TT, looking again at your Asimov quote, and keeping in mind your comment about QM; I suppose there is way in which facts could change.

Perhaps, when people believed the world was flat - it was flat, and when they believed it was spherical - it was spherical.

On the other hand, that could just be some of he "stupid stuff" we should be filtering out.

Haha, very good, Bill. Do you think it would be democratic? - you know, if 49% believed it was round, and 51% flat, then the flats would have it? - or would the folks with more willpower win the day, irrespective of numerical majority?

'Moreover, the fact that science as a cultural activity is actively looking for errors does remotely imply that others who claim to have less malleable "knowledge" actually do have the knowledge they profess to have.'

should have read

Moreover, the fact that science as a cultural activity is actively looking for errors does NOT remotely imply that others who claim to have less malleable "knowledge" actually do have the knowledge they profess to have.

"In the extremest case, quantum mechanics may mean that there are no true facts at all in the universe, only a set of self-consistent but mutually-inconsistent explanations."

Or it could mean that many people gibbering about QM don't know anything about it.

"Facts" are not "Truth."

I think you've got me there TFF, what sort of fact is untrue, but still a fact?

Good thing I didn't understand it first time.

I'm not sure about that, but if the moon is there only when you look at it, does that mean that it is there for those who are looking, but not for others? That could give a whole new perspective on "facts".

If there is an objective reality in the universe, it exists regardless of anything we know or think we know. In the simplest case, "facts" are observations we make. Recorded observations are a "kind of truth," but using that language can lead to confusion, because, for example, sometimes scientists cheat ... but even correct, honest, fair processes can introduce error. Most scientific papers include a section on sources and quantification of error.

I accept that objective truth exists - and so does everyone else who is not insane. Even people who claim to reject objective reality, act as though it exists, but do not think clearly enough to realize it.

This would be the reverends determination of G0D and how G0D would change the universe thru democratic process.

Nevermind whether the world would actually become flat.. it would be enough to believe that the resolute orderliness of will would become so.

That would be one way to create a system of order, but in the light of a more expanded state of mind, and universal mind of a different order, the projected order of belief or "ism", would eventually change/collapse.

Truth is relative in a subjective world.

Absolute in an absolute reality.

Objectivity is relative to states of consciousness.

Insanity (a relative/subjective measure of cognitive functioning) is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it is just a perception of reality that the majority will refuse to accept. This puts the majority and the person outside of that perceptive mindset at odds with each other.
If the beliefs and ideas of the majority change and eventually open to something someone has claimed to be insane prior to that, insanity then becomes normal cognitive functioning.

It was once considered insane to sail so far out to sea where one would fall off the edge of the world...

"Insanity--a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world."

Richard Feynman explains this idea in a different way. In this essay which was a chapter of his book "Surely you're Joking, Mr. Feynman" adapted from a commencement address at CalTech, he discusses "Cargo Cult Science."

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

Bill S opined;
'I'm not sure about that, but if the moon is there only when you look at it, does that mean that it is there for those who are looking, but not for others? That could give a whole new perspective on "facts"'

OR--
If the moon is only there if you are looking at it would mean that it is always there because someone else is looking at it and so, therefore, it is always there as someone somewhere is always looking at it.

We could have a roster.

TFF- In the interests of my sanity and to stop me wondering -- please, give an example of an untrue fact.

Take an everyday scene (romantic, for good measure):

- "Oh, darling, look, isn't the moon beautiful tonight"
- "Sorry, luv, I'm not looking, so you must be hallucinating; and this high tide is an illusion, which is why I'm not bothered about the water lapping around my ears."

I understand it's confusing. Some simple examples of untrue facts:

1. Data that are deliberately fudged.
2. Transcription errors.

Suppose I am reading an instrument and marking down a value. On one occasion (and perhaps more), I am tired. I read "73" from the instrument, but I write it down as "37."

This is purely a definitional thing - facts are observations, which can be colored (figuratively AND literally) by our interaction with the environment.

I understand that most people view the words "fact" and "truth" as practical synonyms, or at least that facts are a subset of truths. I'm not utterly averse to using this terminology, but I think it's confusing (more so than otherwise).

You didn't ask for it, but I will also include an example of how we interact with our environment as we are collecting facts (recording observations). Here's an interesting thing. Every year my colleagues and I put on a "Science Night" for local kids and I have an exhibit of illusions that includes this exact example:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badast...roy-your-brain/

"1. Data that are deliberately fudged."

That's not a fact, it' a lie! If I make up some "data" to "prove" that God exists, does that make his/her existence a fact?

"2. Transcription errors."

I'm 71, that's a fact. If someone inadvertently writes my age as 17, that is not a fact - unfortunately.

As far as the coloured squares are concerned (good video, by the way), the comment later in the link says it all: "In this illusion, though, you do not perceive the “true” color correctly."

The only fact here is that it is an illusion.

Wouldn't you say that a fact is a concept, or piece of information, that has been verified as correct? Seems that what we accept as a 'fact' depends upon the degree of verification that we think is sufficient. So, I agree that facts are not necessarily truth. What is initially taken to be satisfactory verification can later be shown to be flawed. In that case the supposed fact is no longer a fact - at best, it could be slightly at variance with reality, and at worst, completely false.

But it's still not a fact if I, (I'll use age too), state I am 72. I nearly am, it's only a slight variance as to-morrow I will be! But at the moment I am still 71.

Is this because there is such a thing as an absolute truth? So even if you wrote my age as 17 (please feel free to do so!), and published as a mistake to all the world on Twitter, I would still be 72 to-morrow! Truth is not an honest opinion.

And surely an inadvertent inaccuracy does not make a mistake into a truth. Actually having read that last statement-- imagine what a joy-filled world this would be for politicians if it were to be true.

Penblwydd Hapus, Ellis!

Just to keep on topic with "stupid stuff"; I think that makes you an Aquarian Dragon.

On the subject of stupid stuff; my wife wants to know if you have trouble with your candles if your cake is upside down.

There seems to be some confusion between what is a fact, and what is mistakenly believed to be a fact.

Looks like we are heading into the samantics mire once more.

When we believe something to be a fact, being confident that we have good reason to do so, we refer to it as a fact; but taking it to the extreme, you might say that there are no facts, except perhaps, "I think, therefore I am".

Who or what is the "I" and what is "Am-ness"? Does it extend beyond the flesh or is it contained and born of the flesh? What facts will support the fact?

You walked into that, Rede. Step into the mire and who do you find there?

It says nothing about what it is and doesn't assume the existence of anything else, including the flesh. Simply cogito ergo sum.

So it (the"I") is separate from the flesh, and am-ness being related to thinking, is or isn't of or related to the flesh?