Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Science: hijacked by pseudo

It is obvious, that science has been perverted and hijacked. It is nothing but pseudoscience now.

Look at NASA. It is pretending to do scientific research.
How many people understand nowadays, that famous "rocket science" is nothing but engineering?

Look at social sciences. They teach Marxism as science.
How many people understand nowadays, that it is nothing but pile of hackery and nonsence?

The "science" can not be trusted anymore.

ES

I don't agree that social science is a science because there is never a corelation or a prevision-working-as-expected between what you have and what you should have after the experimentation. It's not because there is the word "science" in a stuff making it be a real science. Look at religious sciences, politic sciences, sociobiology... ect
This is an attempt to give some credibility to that stuff.

Is this pervertion or hijaking ? Just a question of name/terminology. IMHO, this bunch of disciplines are plain robbery and have nothing to do with science.

Science is a mathematical model of reality constrained by empirical observation.

NASA is political not scientific. The soft sciences are no more sciences than Christian Science or Scientology are sciences. They make noises then crap their pants.

You are incompetent.

sci?ence n.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

It is difficult to hold science as an absolute truth when even the definition allows for the perversion of interpretation. It is the human behind the process that drives it amuck. Face it kids, the same creative energies, pride, and personal motivations that drive individuals forward can also serve as a roadblock to advancement.

"They make noises then crap their pants."
"You are incompetent"

Stand on your pride. When has anyone ever failed for the excess of it?

So Hubble is not science?
So Spitzer is not science?
So the rovers on Mars are not science?
So the exploration of Saturn and Titan are not scien ce?

I will agree that psychology, sociology, economics, etc. are hardly sciences. But your continuing attacks on NASA seem to weigh heavily toward the thought that you have personal problem with them. What did they do ... refuse to take one of your ideas and use it?

A good thought, about "attempt to give some credibility".
But the result is that notion of "science" itself is being polluted.

ES

Polluted?

As in the term "creation science" that some people want to sneak in the high school text books while discrediting evil-lution.

"Science" is being confused in the minds of people barely capable of keeping their reality separate from the "reality" shows they waste their lives voyeuring. They have no concept of what science is and as long as someone they like (or is like them in their minds) says "rubbish" to issues like global warming and environmental degradation, then they can sleep blissful in that ignorance.

It goes to the head in this crazy partisan world, where the President stacks science committees with "right thinking individuals" and any organization that releases information that is counter to their pre-determined polices are putting out "bad science".

The interp I get is that "bad science" is anything that prevents higher profits. How the two got connected in the first place show how poor critical thinking has become in this country.

Speaking of that, the recent election goes to show just how many misguided people there are in this country. When phalanxes of Nobel Prize winning scientist, many claiming never to take a political stance before, came out in public papers condemned the politicization of science, when members of his own party came out and used words like "incompetent" to describe his handling of foreign affairs and THEN to find this ineffective bumbler elected by a groundswell of zealots and single issue short sighted selfish individuals...... (sigh)

Science will continue to advance outside of US borders as a reverse brain drain begins to kick in. Can NATO stand another 4 years of Bush and Condi's arrogance? What a great choice for Sec of State THAT was, the very person who held the file "Bin Laden Plans to Attack the US" a month before the attack and did not ask questions or raise alarms.

Grief is what we will inherit.

America gets the leadership it deserves.

It is all cyclic, the top dog will eventually be run to ground. We have already passed our zenith. One can see that reflection in the greater discussion of "returning to values" and lamentations about the "founding fathers". America is looking backwards, not forward. We confuse science with propaganda and legal maneuvering. Just a glance over the history of the tobacco industry shows how "science" has become a political toy to play legal semantics with. America is having her day and what a sad chapter we are adding now.

(sorry for the rant)

Well, I think you are the one who was too much influenced TV political spin. But you are a good example that people are misinformed

ES

Here is a good example of pseudoscience running mighty mad. Nature and NewScientist report about quantum computing and quantum teleportation. They think it is legit!

And they do not want to publish my discoveries of Martian life and civilization

Inmates are running asylum!

ES, So that's why you are so sad. Because you can't find any journal to publish your paper.
It's not a reason to get on your nerves like that. The whole creationist bunch of fake-scientists are in the same situation actually and all their revelation-papers are systematically rejected before reaching the review center. Why are they rejected ? Because they don't follow the author guidelines and nothing more.

The thread says "Science:hijacked by pseudo", and this decribes what you are doing,to the letter.

Which means that you are part of the Quack Gallery of this forum: Paul (he invented a perpetuum mobile, and complained about being shummed by the scientific community), Orion (he wants to use nuclear blasts - a more powerful offspring of the Orion proposal - to jumpstart massive space exploration, and complained about being shummed by the scientific community), Thorlord (which has just recently discovered the known fact that there is indeed something called a mathematical syllogysm), Cathy (she was just against logic of any sort as long as it did not fit her views), and finally you, Extrasense (you still don't know what a mathematical syllogysm is but you claim to have mathematical proof of the existence of life on Mars from what you euphemistically call image analysis, and of course, you also claim that you are being shunned by the scientific community)

Do you see a pattern?[Hint: Paul, Orion, you]

What you are doing is in principle commendable, but it is the "how you are doing it" that is flawed. Let's then review the how.Who knows, maybe it ill serve a good purpose though I doubt it.

a)First of all, you lack perspective on the entire issue, in the sense that the ideea of proving based on mathematical theorems that life exists in any context is ridiculous in itself, for the obvious reason. If memory serves me well, Fermat also claimed that he mathematically proved the existence of God, but unfortunately, he never wrote the proof...Hope you see my point.

b)You have negligible mathematical knowledge, and even more negligible prctice. You have become encroached in a mathematical syllogysm with the ardor of someone who thinks that mathematical arguments are supreme, because he lacks practice in applying them, and furthermore you are incapable of admitting or seeing the flaws of your logic (we discussed in quite detail these issues, so please refere to the now archived thread). Moreover, no one with an ounce of practice lists in the refs theorems on the Wolfram Res. website, for the simple reasons that there are much better refs than that (and don't tell me you did that because you wanted to make the theory available to the public, because my next question is what book did you use to study them, with a 6 hours time for the answer - just so that you don't have the time to find people kid enough to tell you).

c)You have negligible knowledge or practice in image analysis of any kind.Otherwise you would have realized that even if your math was OK, the best algorithms existing do not offer but roughly a 60% or so reliability in recognizing patterns (known patterns, that is, which is much simpler than what you are attempting to do). You don't need to be a genius to look up the internet for general pattern recognition, face pattern recognition, palm recognition to at least research the issue. But I guess you have seen much too much Star Trek.

d)You lack the scientific methodology in approaching the issue you claim to be investigating(please do your homework and research what the scientific method means and why is it so important)

d) You have absolutely no knowledge in writing up an article, or report. This relating to your publishing issue.I suggest you go on arxiv.org, get a paper from there, and try to follow its plan.That could be the least you could do. Furthermore, you must also specify for example what image processing software you used, describe in detail the technique for analyzing the surface pattern, down to the filtration algorithms and pixel interpolation algorithms, including errors and so on and so forth.

So what are we left with from your arguments? Precisely nothing, except your entusiasm. And because of the lack of other attributes (see above), you polute the internet and whine continuously of being rejected by the scientific community.

Well, of course you are rejected, since there is no science in what you claim.Enthusiasm does not count, and knowledge is lacking excessively. So what do you do? Instead of trying to revise and improve your knowledge and arguments, you start preaching to whoever listens to you (or doesn't), wherever you can. You call this scientific method? It is not. There is no such thing as preaching science, and if you actually practiced it even a little bit, you would know.

In fact, returning to the title of the thread, you are exacly the pseudo that tries to hijack science, but I doubt you will ever admit it.

It just happens, that issue is much bigger than my problem with publishing of Martian discoveries.

While trying it, I have discovered that the whole science has been hijacked by the pseudoscience - like quantum entanglement, Marxism, creationism, NASA science, and such.

Those get money and are being reported upon, thus enriching the pseudoscience parasites.

ES

Oh, stop finding excuses for your own lack of knowledge. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Let's take them one by one:
1.Quantum entanglement: there is experimental evidence of it, and I would suggest you look up the papers of R. Laflamme and the refs therein(www.arxiv.org). For some more popular accounts of what quantum entamnglement means, see the PI website at www.perimeterinstitute.ca. Unless canadians also conspire against you in one way or another.
2.Marxism: don't publish in Pravda and related "journals"
3.Creationism: don't publish in creationist "journals".
4.NASA science: develop strong arguments of your own that invalidate NASA claims (although both you and NASA make similar claims - they claim the existence of water on Mars, but in a lower voice than you claim the existence of life on Mars).
5"...and such":please bring them on,I can' wait to see more of your excuses.

The truth is that you are only facing the scientific community with claims backed by "bad science", so whining that you would like to "do science" but "they won't let you". First do it, do it properly, and then see if "they" let you do it or not.

You make this claims from the position of someone "doing" science from popular magazines and internet. Sure you are confused about the different "currents".The difference between you and true scientists is that "they" can sort out quite easily the science from quackery, while you cannot.

I AM the true scientist. And I spot the pseudo science faster than the crooks who do it recognize they are that - like quantum computer BS.

The main "difference between" me and crooked "true" scientists is that they are organized and entrenched to make money of the crap they produce.

ES

No, you are as far from being a scientist as I am from being Peter Pan. And you are promoting the very same BS you claim others are are promoting. In other words you are a hack, and as a matter of fact, the worst kind of hack.

As I said, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when it comes to quantum computing, and you know even less about what you claim you are researching. You are right in one aspect though. There are others, calling themselves reporters,who understand such topics as much as you do (that means nothing else except the fact that certain subjects are "cool")and who promote them blindly exactly because of the "coolness". Which is what happens with quantum computing and teleportation. They write only about what is primarily accessible to their narrow minds (like you do) and capacity of understanding like teleportation (without actually understanding the meaning of it), but I have seldom seen so much nonsense published about say, the Higgs particle, or the neutrino mass. And you know why?Because similar to your case, they simply cannot understand the issue, nor do they see why it would be important.

As I said before, get your finds published in a scientific journal, I gave you plenty of titles of journals where you could actually post your "findings". It is not difficult to meet their standards for publishing, so get your paper going. Or alternatively, if you already tried that and failed, please post for everyone to see the rejection letters from such journals (not from popular science magazines, from scientific journals, although not even popular science magazines take you seriously).

I doubt however that such rejection letters from scientific journals actually exist in your case, since in fact you prefer whining and complaining than actually doing something to prove yout theories (except preaching of course). Science is not done by popular demand (or by popular support for that matter) as all the 2-penny shows you watch on TV. But then you wouldn't actually understand that, as the "true scientist" that you are.

It is funny that you would say that. A MS in theoretical physics with minor in computer science, years of work as a physicist and as a sofware developer, two years in PhD program in physics - are under my belt.

And if I tell you that quantum computing is a hoax, you can take it straight to the bank.

As to what the reviewers are writing about my Mars images research - they are saying that there is no "scientific" content in the Martian statues or flowers. I suggest to you that parasites are simply protecting their turf.

ES

Aha, so you claim you are a physicist, or more precisely, a physicist in rising. Then let's clear some of the issues in what you are saying.

MS in theoretical physics with a minor in physics?And you want me to believe you? Since when have grad degrees minors? But I will do you a favor and I will take you up on your claim that you have a major in something and a minor in CS, an MS in physics, experience as a physicist and experience in some sort of programming and 2 years as a PH.D student in Physics.

I belive that you do realize that you listing some degrees still does not give you the expertise you need for your research, and furthermore does not explain your lack of method in your research (which bewilders me, if your claims are real). Major in something with a minor in CS means almost nothing. As does your software development experience. Building software for soem internet application for example does not give you any insight in building software for patern recognition or image analysis.
Therefore, let me ask you this.What was the subject of your MS research? What type of software development did you do? What is the field of your PH.D research? So that we are clear about your "official" expertise at least, though as a physicist, I would expect your true expertise to be much more extensive than the "official" one.

Once we have cleared these issues, and since you made the claim you are a physicist, let's turn the discussion up a few notches. Although it is absolutely unbelievable that with 2 years of PH.D you could make such a gross error in logic as the one you did in your math background for your image analysis. It's simply unbelievable. Not to mention your obvious lack in knowledge as much as the rest of your research on Martian life is concerned. But then, Dyson & Co. also came with a stupid ideea when they started the Orion Project.

Let's talk about QC. I will grant you that the media has gone rather crazy on the topic, but then it has also done so with string theory, black-holes, DNA, superluminal velocities, and a plethora of other glitzy topics. You being a physicist, should make this media aspect irrelevant to our discussion.So, let's get back to QC, entanglement, teleportation and so on and so forth. Why is it a hoax? And come up with refs please,so that they can be discussed, not with rantings.

As for your research on Mars photos,let's nt talk about parasites, since your comment applies to you equally well. You are protecting your turf without even willing to admit that you actually made an error. What happened with the open-mindedness you desire from the others, when it refers explicitly to you?
Up to this moment I do agree with the reviewers, as I told you before. And this based only on your website. But I would be happy to read the drafts you sent for reviewing. You can upload them on your website, in any format including LaTex.

And you know, your claim of being associated to a university simplifies things, actually. You can take your mathematical proof, put it in a different and more appropriate setting, and go talk to someone from your math department about it. I am pretty surethat if you insist, someone wil be willing to discuss yout math proof with you. Maybe in this way you will actually understand where your reasoning is flawed.

I do not claim any such thing, read and understand what I am saying precisely as I am saying it.
As to my mistakes, everyone makes mistakes.
I know how to correct them, but what is the point throwing more pearls in front of pigs? I have number of even more of astonishing things discovered on Mars, than I display on my site.

This work is not accepted, not because of mistakes or bad style, it can be corrected, but because nitwits can not stand someone showing them how small minded they are.


Now, if someone cares about understanding why quantum computing is a hoax, read this thread by me:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=650&st=0

ES

"As to my mistakes, everyone makes mistakes."

This is most likely true. Some of us even learn from them. That's called "experiential redirection".

"I know how to correct them, but what is the point throwing more pearls in front of pigs? I have number of even more of astonishing things discovered on Mars, than I display on my site."

Knowing how to correct mistakes is called potential. Many people with high IQ's have a great deal of potential. A rock high on a mountainside has lots of potential too. Neither the rock nor the genius develops any of their potential until and unless they come down from their lofty heights and interact with the valleys, whether geological or human.

AS for casting pearls before swine, from what I have seen you present here, your "pearls" appear to have about the substance and consistency of tapioca, and I can buy that at the supermarket for $1.29.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever suffered a hard blow to your skull, or an extraordinary electrical voltage contact? Have you ever engaged in recreational pharmacology, legal or illegal? I can't help but feel there is some reason you act as you do.

>>I do not claim any such thing, read and >>understand what I am saying precisely as I am >>saying it.

You are not a very bright one, are you? I was doing you a favor in assuming that since you mentioned 2 PH.D years "under your belt" to quote you (BTW, physics and science in general begins from shoulders up not from belt down), you are still enrolled in the program. Which automatically means that you were associated with a university.
You've made it clear now that you are a dropout, so I apologize for my mistake.

>>As to my mistakes, everyone makes mistakes.

True, but those like you making only mistakes are usually called stupid.

>>I know how to correct them, but what is the >>point throwing more pearls in front of pigs? I >>have number of even more of astonishing things >>discovered on Mars, than I display on my site.

What a bunch of baloney.Not only are you stupid, you are also very infatuated with yourself (it's called nymphomania, an I think it might be treatable).

>>This work is not accepted, not because of >>mistakes or bad style, it can be corrected, but >>because nitwits can not stand someone showing >>them how small minded they are.

Ah, whinig again. Serves you well, in your state of intelectual stupor.


>>Now, if someone cares about understanding why >>quantum computing is a hoax, read this thread >>by me:http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?>>showtopic=650&st=0

You moron, I asked you for refs not quotes of more of your ramblings. But its good to see that you make a fool of yourself on other forums too. At leat in this sense you are consistent in your nymphomania. You claim you have invested years in understanding quantum theory, and yet you have no clue of it. What a waste of time and money for your M.S. I can only hope your supervisor did not pay for it.

But let's get back to business.Clue me in again, why is quantum computing impossible? How is thermodynamics violated? How do Hesienberg's inequalities prevent that? Come on, let's get down to the hardcore science, don't be shy. I can't wait to understand in more detail the extent to which someone wasted mones on your (claimed) degrees.