The worst idea of all is skepticism:

[NullPointerException]

I find this article interesting, essentially accusing skeptics of being worse than mystics.
http://www.quackgrass.com/worst.html

[HarryKeogh]

I think the author has different views depending on the type of skeptic you are. At the bottom of the page he distinguishes between skeptics and philosophic skeptics...

quote:
Skepticism as a technical term in philosophy means the outright denial of knowledge, of your mind's power to know reality. Many people call themselves skeptics precisely because they value knowledge, and so rigorously demand evidence or proof. By "skepticism," they mean stick-to-the-facts, no BS, prove-your-case rationality. They are the opposite of philosophic skeptics, but by calling themselves skeptics they help to camouflage that noxious doctine.
endquote.

This doesn't seem to be an attack on those of us who call ourselves "skeptics" (at least in the context that most of us here use it)

[magicflute]

Substitute the word 'believer' for the word 'skeptic' in that article and you will get a much better fit.

[Yahweh]

What was the point of the authors rant?

[No Answers]

Originally posted by Yahweh
What was the point of the authors rant?

To get you to put up a link to it. ;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by No Answers
To get you to put up a link to it. ;)
*Yahweh's million shards of reality on the floor suddenly reassemble, a bright light looms over Yahweh's head*

I understand, I can see now...

[NullPointerException]

Well the point is that Skepticism and Skeptics are two different groups of people and that one is rational and the other is not. Basically pointing out how "skeptics" may be thought to believe in "skepticism" by those easily manipulated or with little interest in the distinction.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

"Philosophical skepticism" as discussed in that article is logically contradictory - we don't need to consider it further.

General skepticism, when used properly, involves the recognition that no conclusion that can be reached binds the behavior of the universe. Therefore skeptics always consider the possibility that a line of argumentation can be incorrect, and they never conclude that a particular conclusion is beyond questioning and examination.

[magicflute]

Posted by WRath of the Swarm
Therefore skeptics always consider the possibility that a line of argumentation can be incorrect, and they never conclude that a particular conclusion is beyond questioning and examination.
And those are the principles by which I live. However that does not mean that as a skeptic I have any kind of obligation to investigate every claim put forth. I would be spinning my wheels forever. Any claim to warrant investigation needs to at least possess some merits that separates it from the haystack. Most believers I have personally encountered tend to think that because you will not consider their pet belief that you are a cynic. This is often said but warrants repeating. Its not up to me to prove or disprove your claim. It is up to the one making it.
I will not deal with something already disproven unless new evidence warrants a reopening of the case. There is always enough interesting new things to chase after, no need to keep threading over a worn path.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by magicflute
Any claim to warrant investigation needs to at least possess some merits that separates it from the haystack.


In other words, you've already made up yor mind, at least in part, about some claims, despite saying you are really open-minded. Could you state specifically what separates it from the haystack?

[NullPointerException]

The thing about skepticism is that is ironic. I mean they say that no conclusion that binds the universe together can be found which automatically negates their "open-mindness" concept.

[thaiboxerken]

Which skeptics have said that no conclusion that binds the universe together can be found?

[iain]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
The thing about skepticism is that is ironic. I mean they say that no conclusion that binds the universe together can be found which automatically negates their "open-mindness" concept. I think you mean no conclusion that binds the universe together has yet been proven.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

In other words, you've already made up yor mind, at least in part, about some claims, despite saying you are really open-minded. Could you state specifically what separates it from the haystack?
For me it's little things. It should not violate any well-established laws of physics, like conservation of energy (like free-energy machines) or the inverse squares rule of signal transmission (like telepathy). I would prefer some solid, documented evidence, not just anecdotes. Also, it is best if the evidence is at least potentially repeatable.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
The thing about skepticism is that is ironic. I mean they say that no conclusion that binds the universe together can be found which automatically negates their "open-mindness" concept.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. There are lots of principals which are pretty much universal. If that is what you mean by "binds the universe" together, then skeptics do indeed accept some of these conclusions. (I'm quite partial towards the theory of gravity.)

If you are talking about a TOE (Theory Of Everything), then you are asking us to accept that a single theory accounts for all of the phenomena that exist. While such a mechanism may exist, it is simply not possible for one human to know it. You may understand astrophysics well, but if you try to speak with authority on molecular biology, well please understand if I give a lot less weight to your molecular biology theories.

The funny thing is that most people who propose a TOE don't have expertise in any scientific dicipline. What they have is this "feeling of how it must work", usually incorporating some unknown, untestable hypotheses. People who truly understand the complexity of our universe are humbled by it, and would not even pretend to understand more than a tiny fraction of it.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Yahweh
What was the point of the authors rant?

Reading the whole rant, including the disclaimer at the bottom, I think it is a rant against the type of person who calls themselves a skeptic under the conclusion that we can't really know anything and therefore is willing to accept anything. You know ,the type that refers to our type of skeptic as "pseudo-skeptics"

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by magicflute
And those are the principles by which I live. However that does not mean that as a skeptic I have any kind of obligation to investigate every claim put forth. I would be spinning my wheels forever. Any claim to warrant investigation needs to at least possess some merits that separates it from the haystack. Yes, it's called 'valid argumentation'. You ARE obligated to investigate every bit of valid argumentation you come across. You don't get to coast on your own judgments, since re-evaluating your own judgments is a large part of skepticism.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Tricky
It should not violate any well-established laws of physics, like conservation of energy (like free-energy machines) or the inverse squares rule of signal transmission (like telepathy). Quark binding forces don't obey the inverse square rule - they're constant, no matter how far apart the quarks are brought. So I take it you don't believe in modern particle physics, then?

[Dancing David]

Kind of very strange;

If you go the the home page you will find this

You needn't despair!

Governments take half your earnings, and use them to fund goofy orthodoxies that wage war on you. A welfare orthodoxy, an anti-discrimination orthodoxy, a green orthodoxy, an anti-smoking orthodoxy, a feminist orthodoxy, a gun-control orthodoxy. The list seems endless. It should all be labelled your tax dollars at work.
If you expose the goofiness of an orthodoxy, everybody seems to become a knucklehead. They tell you that they're not sure, that you can't be sure, that that's just your opinion, that nobody can know anything.
If you rear up on your hind legs and protest that you're being ruined by these tax eating orthodoxies, everybody seems to become a scold. They tell you to stop being so selfish.
If you propose to rebel, to pay no more taxes, everybody seems to become a thug. They tell you that the government has prisons for guys like you!
The world is full of knuckleheads, scolds and thugs!
If you're still not an optimist, then you just don't understand the situation!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Then they reference Ayb Rand as some sort of savior.

The world's best ideas are reason, egoism and capitalism.

That is:
Your own mind is fully able to know reality.
You should live your own life.
You have the right to live your own life.



Reason, egoism and capitalism have been growing underground for about 50 years.

We calculate that their growth began with publication of Ayn Rand's novel, The Fountainhead. Her discovery that reason, egoism and capitalism go together--each of them both needs and supports the other two--is one of history's jackpot combinations. We estimate that their market share has been doubling every decade since then. They have already spread far beyond the formal Objectivist movement.
They have been propelled by the individual actions that we call quackgrass activism.
They are about to emerge from underground, and that will change the world!
Orthodox establishment culture is a goner!


A renaissance of reason, egoism and capitalism is dawning!

You need good vision to see its first rosy streaks. Growing ideas grow exponentially, like compound interest, and the early stages of exponential growth are deceptively slow.
In 10 or 20 years the dawn will be obvious. Exponential growth accelerates as it goes along.
In 40 years, it will be high noon! The later stages of exponential growth are spectacular!
If you are young, you will live in the full sunlight of the new renaissance! (No prophetic powers required! Anyone can apply the Fisher-Pry rule to the market share of ideas!)



Maybe the timecube guy is here?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Yes, it's called 'valid argumentation'. You ARE obligated to investigate every bit of valid argumentation you come across. You don't get to coast on your own judgments, since re-evaluating your own judgments is a large part of skepticism. [/B]

Valid is the key word there. Determining what is valid is purely a judgement call and is going to vary from person to person. If you claim to be able to flap your arms and fly to the moon, for example, I am going to judge that to be so silly as to not be worth investigating. Someone else though, may decide to give you a shot. It's puely subjective.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Quark binding forces don't obey the inverse square rule - they're constant, no matter how far apart the quarks are brought. So I take it you don't believe in modern particle physics, then?

There is a difference between evidence based physics and retarded claims (psychic powers, telepathy..etc.). New scientific discoveries make us re-evaluate our understanding of they laws of physics based on EVIDENCE. Try not to confuse real science with pseudoscience.

[Ed]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


In other words, you've already made up yor mind, at least in part, about some claims, despite saying you are really open-minded. Could you state specifically what separates it from the haystack? [/B]

On some things (like that silly chalk burning thing) yes, my mind is made up. Would I be open to additional information? Depends.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Valid is the key word there. Determining what is valid is purely a judgement call and is going to vary from person to person. Um, no. Determining what is valid is the function of logic, which is objective.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Um, no. Determining what is valid is the function of logic, which is objective.
Inquiry: If you neglect all subjective criteria to judgment, and merely remark upon the objective outcome in logic, does that make a person who breaks 2 glass plates in the process of stealing them less guilty than a person who breaks 10 glass plates accidentally?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Guilty as in legally responsible, culpability, or the emotion of self-blame?

[Moglandor]

Originally posted by Yahweh
What was the point of the authors rant?

If you look further into this person's site, it reveals itself:

(From the "best ideas" section of the same site) "Reason, egoism and capitalism have been growing underground for about 50 years. We calculate that their growth began with publication of Ayn Rand's novel, The Fountainhead. Her discovery that reason, egoism and capitalism go together--each of them both needs and supports the other two--is one of history's jackpot combinations. We estimate that their market share has been doubling every decade since then. They have already spread far beyond the formal Objectivist movement."

(S)He is a devotee of Ayn Rand, prominently listing Rand first in a list of must-read philosophers.

[Tez]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Quark binding forces don't obey the inverse square rule - they're constant, no matter how far apart the quarks are brought. So I take it you don't believe in modern particle physics, then?

You have a way to send signals with quarks?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Quark binding forces don't obey the inverse square rule - they're constant, no matter how far apart the quarks are brought. So I take it you don't believe in modern particle physics, then?

I thought quark binding force(the stronger force) grew asymptoticaly with distace, I didn't know that it was constant, could you show me where I can find out more about this? I's swear the strong froce got stronger the farther apart the quarks were pulled, but was zero at close distances.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I could be mistaken about this, but I believe the force between quarks doesn't diminish with distance. That's why quarks are never seen "free": no matter how much energy you put into the system to keep them apart, they'll always spring back together again, releasing your energy in the process.

[Kopji]

There's a whole chapter on Ayn Rand in Shermer's 'Why People Believe Weird Things'. A bit harsh, but I've met several of Rand's followers on the Internet and I think Shermer has the nail pounded about right.

A lot of firm Rand believers though, and some very good debaters.

As far as I can tell, Karl Popper refutes the sites' assertion that if we can never know objectively, we can't learn. We can learn, and in fact all of science pretty much works this way.
Popper's discussion in 'Conjectures & Refutations' about 'falsification', and also the dangers of 'self evident truth' are worth reading.

[Tez]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I could be mistaken about this, but I believe the force between quarks doesn't diminish with distance. That's why quarks are never seen "free": no matter how much energy you put into the system to keep them apart, they'll always spring back together again, releasing your energy in the process.

The force between quarks increases as you try and separate them. Well, thats what we predict, noone has ever managed to prove rigorously that the equations of quantum chromodynamics actually say that, however numerical work in lattice guage theory seems to confirm what we call "quark confinement".

That has nothing to do with your reply to Tricky, unless you propose a way to signal using quarks(*). Tricky's comment was directed to the inverse square falling off of signals. So, either propose a way to signal using quarks and the color force and I'll check if it makes sense, or apologise to him and stop being childishly polemic.

*(To give this post some worthwhile physical content: Within quantum theories a signal is more or less definable as a locally measurable (amplifyable to classical data) nonanalytic disturbance in a field which results in a nontrivial correlation function between two different space time points. Tunneling, for example, does not allow faster than light signalling because the wavefunctions are analytic. Bell inequalities/quantum nonlocality does not allow signalling because the correlation is not locally measurable)

[Tricky]

Thank you Tez. That is in fact what I meant. I do confess to being fairly ignorant of particle physics, but I also admit that I was of the opinion that forces (gravity, magnetism, electromagnetism) diminished from the source according to the inverse square law.

Still, if telepathy is a transmitted effect, we ought to see some strong relationship between telepathy and proximity of sender and receiver. If a telepath scores hits across a room, then they ought to dramatically increase hits when in a foot of each other. If telepathy is not a transmitted effect, then I would like to see another explanation (which does not defy the laws of physics) as to how the signal is carried.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Forces are not required to follow an inverse-square law. It's just that they have a definite tendency to do so (because of how they're transmitted and the number of dimensions of normal space).

http://www.benbest.com/science/standard.html

[Tez]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Forces are not required to follow an inverse-square law. It's just that they have a definite tendency to do so (because of how they're transmitted and the number of dimensions of normal space).

http://www.benbest.com/science/standard.html

Don't try and teach your grandmother to suck eggs mate.

I told you that quarks do not obey an inverse square law, I claimed only that you couldnt, as per your implicit assertion, signal with color forces (for good reasons that I'm not going to bother getting into). So go off and try and google yourself an education, you're not impressing me....

FYI (although I wonder if I'm wasting my time) there are several effective field theory forces that fall as 1/r, all fundamental forces that extend over any distance fall either as 1/r^2 (for trivial geometric reasons - think flux and spheres) or faster (Yukawa potential is exp(-m*r)/r for instance).

None of which negates Tricky's point that if telepathy exists and shows no 1/r^2 distance dependence it must be mediated by something somewhat bizarre. Personally I'll worry about it when I have any evidence for telepathy whatsoever...

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Tez
I told you that quarks do not obey an inverse square law, I claimed only that you couldnt, as per your implicit assertion, signal with color forces (for good reasons that I'm not going to bother getting into). So go off and try and google yourself an education, you're not impressing me.... I'm neither trying to impress you nor asserting that quarks can be used to generate signals. That link wasn't for your benefit, mate.

I am pointing out that there may be forces that aren't constrained by inverse-square laws, unlike the implied suggestion that any signalling must have that limitation. I can't really imagine such a thing, but at present we can't say it's impossible.

None of which negates Tricky's point that if telepathy exists and shows no 1/r^2 distance dependence it must be mediated by something somewhat bizarre. Personally I'll worry about it when I have any evidence for telepathy whatsoever... Or it could just be that the mediating stuff isn't sent out in all directions. [shrugs] We can at least be reasonably certain that electromagnetic waves couldn't be involved in any standard sense, as we would have detected photons.

And all of this discussion puts the cart before the horse, as there's never been good evidence of telepathy in the first place. It's an amusing diversion, though.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I am pointing out that there may be forces that aren't constrained by inverse-square laws, unlike the implied suggestion that any signalling must have that limitation. I can't really imagine such a thing, but at present we can't say it's impossible.
Which is fine. I don't say telepathy (or any other psychic phenomena) are impossible. My point was that they don't seem to obey the kind of physical principals we observe every day. Perhaps quark forces are here, but they are so obscure that it practically requires a degree in partical physics to understand them, as opposed to things like light and magnetism, which most laymen can at least grasp.

And no apology necessary. WOTSy and I are buds. I don't object to having my education increased, and this sort of discussion is just the ticket, thanks to WOTS and Tez.

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Or it could just be that the mediating stuff isn't sent out in all directions. [shrugs] We can at least be reasonably certain that electromagnetic waves couldn't be involved in any standard sense, as we would have detected photons.
Hmm... Laser telepathy maybe? ;)

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
And all of this discussion puts the cart before the horse, as there's never been good evidence of telepathy in the first place. It's an amusing diversion, though.
Yes, this has been an educational derailment. To get back to where we jumped the track though, Tai Chi asked what we needed to separate the ideas worth study from the "haystack" and I suggested that they should have some basis in known science. This is not to say that there are things outside of known science, but that there are so many of them, it is impossible to check them all out, therefore I tend to high-grade the things which I would spend time studying to those which have a plausible mechanism.

As WOTS suggests, another "haystack sifter" would be whether or not an effect could be consistantly demonstrated. Few if any paranormal phenomena are able to do this. Thus, a lot of paranormal research involves twiddling your thumbs while waiting for something paranormal to happen.

[thaiboxerken]

I think you guys are losing the topic here. As a skeptic, I will dismiss most paranormal claims because the tend not to have ANY credible evidence associated with them AND they also require a rethinking of the conventions of science already established. Yes, science changes.... but only when evidence requires it to do so.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Tez
Within quantum theories a signal is more or less definable as a locally measurable (amplifyable to classical data) nonanalytic disturbance in a field which results in a nontrivial correlation function between two different space time points. Tunneling, for example, does not allow faster than light signalling because the wavefunctions are analytic. Bell inequalities/quantum nonlocality does not allow signalling because the correlation is not locally measurableAnalytic?

I mean, I know it means all derivatives exist or something like that, but what does that have to do with signalling?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tez


Don't try and teach your grandmother to suck eggs mate.

I told you that quarks do not obey an inverse square law, I claimed only that you couldnt, as per your implicit assertion, signal with color forces (for good reasons that I'm not going to bother getting into). So go off and try and google yourself an education, you're not impressing me....

FYI (although I wonder if I'm wasting my time) there are several effective field theory forces that fall as 1/r, all fundamental forces that extend over any distance fall either as 1/r^2 (for trivial geometric reasons - think flux and spheres) or faster (Yukawa potential is exp(-m*r)/r for instance).

None of which negates Tricky's point that if telepathy exists and shows no 1/r^2 distance dependence it must be mediated by something somewhat bizarre. Personally I'll worry about it when I have any evidence for telepathy whatsoever...


I strongly suspect that telepathy is not mediated by anything. Why suppose it is? Consciousness, and a fortiori telepathy, cannot in principle be subsumed under a physical description of the world.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I think you guys are losing the topic here. As a skeptic, I will dismiss most paranormal claims because the tend not to have ANY credible evidence associated with them AND they also require a rethinking of the conventions of science already established. Yes, science changes.... but only when evidence requires it to do so.

We have 70 years of scientific evidence for psi. What's wrong with it?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We have 70 years of scientific evidence for psi. What's wrong with it?
A) Most of the evidence is anecdotal
B) By your own admission (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870356291&highlight=perturbation#post1870356291) you don't even know what psi is. You only know what it isn't.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
BTW psi refers to anomalous perturbation (psychokinesis) as well as anomalous cognition (esp). But they both are only defined negatively ie nothing positive is said about them. So you have "70 years of evidence" for something and yet you still cannot say anything positive about it. I'd say there's quite a bit wrong with that.

[Tez]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Analytic?

I mean, I know it means all derivatives exist or something like that, but what does that have to do with signalling?

Its one of the things that you realise once you start asking why quantum tunneling cannot be used to signal FTL. Basically an analytic disturbance in a field extends smoothly to infinity, both spatially and temporally - a signal you want/need to create quasi-locally. When you examine actual physical mechanisms for signalling you find that the "signal-velocity" is the front velocity of the non-analytic piece of the disturbance, and if your disturbance is analytic then you can't actually signal with it! The signal velocity in tunneling experiments is always less than c.

I'm trying to think of a good practical example, but its sunday afternoon and my mind won't function, sorry.

[69dodge]

Thanks, Tez.

Is it kind of like what's discussed here (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-07/msg0027006.html) and here (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-07/msg0026990.html)?

[Tez]

Yep, thats the sort of stuff. Rears its ugly head in various giuses...

[Wrath of the Swarm]

In the case of tunneling photons:

The photons aren't points, but ripples of uncertainty. The location of the photon is somewhat uncertain, as is the time at which it was emitted, so we can imagine it as a fuzzy, blurry ball. The center of the ball is where we can loosely consider the photon to be located.

Now, tunneling occurs when the photon passes through a small barrier because part of its uncertainty extends past it (well, basically). Every time that happens, the ball changes shape: more of it becomes concentrated at the front, and less at the back. It becomes teardrop-shaped. But the probability is never shifted past the front edge of the wave.

In other words, all tunneling accomplishes is increasing the chance that we'll perceive the photon as having been emitted earlier within its uncertain time of creation. The wave packet itself still moves at the speed of light. Thus, tunneling doesn't allow us to send signals faster than that speed.