PDA

View Full Version : 101 Ways to Determine if Something is Bogus Science


mythusmage
11th March 2003, 01:03 AM
1. It involves a secret ingredient that will only be revealed to serious investors.

2.It's a lost secret of the ancients passed down by hidden masters and available only to a select few.

3. He has to ask questions to get any information. ("You're the psychic, you tell me what the cat is thinking.")

4. The "costume" is behaving unlike any costume you've ever seen before.

5. He has a new definition of 'fly by wire'.

6. He keeps mistaking toes for bear claws.

7. Miracles are valid research tools.

8. It only works when nobody is watching.

9. Only those with the proper credentials can have anything of value to add to the field.

Only 92 more to go.

BillyJoe
11th March 2003, 01:52 AM
You're a sick man myth :cool:

BillyJoe
11th March 2003, 01:59 AM
.....but I'll play anyway.

10. It involves undetectable forces.

11. It only works if you believe in it.

12. It only sounds right if you don't have a clue.

okay, someone else can have 13. I'm not touching it.

rwald
11th March 2003, 04:30 AM
13. It presumes that anything ancient is better than anything modern, or that anything natural is better than anything synthetic.

14. They say that "more research is needed" to asses its effectiveness...but they've been saying that for 20 years, and all the research they've done in that time has been negative.

I'm assuming we're not to quote the 7 from that article that that judge wrote? If so, I'll add those later.

Filippo Lippi
11th March 2003, 04:51 AM
15. Non-believers in the vicinity can affect results

Denise
11th March 2003, 04:54 AM
16. They use the argument that people once thought the world was flat, so to not be as ignorant as ancient people you should believe their claim.

MRC_Hans
11th March 2003, 05:49 AM
17. It is a new invention that will revolutionize the World, yet it can be your's for 5000 $.

18. The inventor has already sold it to unnamed governments all over the world, yet he still drives a Nissan.

Hans

garys_2k
11th March 2003, 05:50 AM
19. It relies on vacuum energy for non-QM scale effects.

glee
11th March 2003, 06:00 AM
20. It was believed by an expert in another field.

21. There is anecdotal evidence available to read.

22. A patent has been applied for.

pgwenthold
11th March 2003, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by glee
20. It was believed by an expert in another field.

21. There is anecdotal evidence available to read.

22. A patent has been applied for.

23. The discoverer compares him/herself with Galileo

Ladewig
11th March 2003, 07:07 AM
24. Einstein was working on this theory all his life (but never wrote any of it down).

25. The conventional science bureaucracy is conspiring to suppress this theory.

jasonmccoy
11th March 2003, 07:14 AM
26. The phenomenon only occurs when you are "naked" and "alone"

27. Researchers for the Catholic Church suspect Kool-Aid may be involved.

28. George W. Bush is called on as an expert witness.

Filippo Lippi
11th March 2003, 07:15 AM
26. Low-rent celebrities were sceptical, but are now utterly convinced

No! You can't look at their bank statements!

MRC_Hans
11th March 2003, 07:15 AM
Ahh yes, and (colloquial to #25):

30: Big oil/automotive/aicraft/armament/mining/whatever companies are trying to suppress this invention.

Hans

Edited to add: Hey you guys are posting to fast! I have to keep changing the number, heheh.

Agammamon
11th March 2003, 07:26 AM
27: Aliens were involved in any way.

boooeee
11th March 2003, 08:26 AM
31. Liberal use of the word "quantum".

I like Fillipo's the best (the second 26.)

boooeee
11th March 2003, 08:34 AM
32. Announces creation of ground breaking, world changing, free energy device not through the process of peer review, but through an Amway-style seminar at $200 a head, where attendees are encouraged to buy "memberships".

Keneke
11th March 2003, 08:59 AM
33. At any point, the person says, "I am not crazy. I believe in this."

digitoxin
11th March 2003, 10:39 AM
35) No new equations are presented, just old ones are cited and said to be wrong

scotth
11th March 2003, 10:48 AM
36) They have to point out that it is NOT a perpetual motion machine. (Usually right after the description meets the definition perfectly)
37) The word "free" is anywhere in the statement.

DrMatt
11th March 2003, 10:58 AM
37) Halfway through the presentation, 3 shills offer their life savings for it.

38) It is pushed under one of the headings "complementary", "alternative", "holistic", "ayurvedic", or any combination thereof.

39) As soon as you ask the presenter a question which indicates that you haven't fully bought into the presentation, the presenter assaults your character rather than answering the question or demonstrating the alleged phenomena.

40) The primary proof of the effect is that it appears in a work of fantasy fiction.

41) After the allegation has been soundly disproved by protocols which were agreed upon in advance, the claimaint cries foul and threatens to sue. Bonus point if the crier/threatener is the claimant's mother.

Solitaire
11th March 2003, 11:17 AM
A Case Study (http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity07/ProblemOfFreeEnergy.html)

Sanamas
11th March 2003, 12:08 PM
42) Tesla is frequently mentioned in their spiel.

Blue Monk
11th March 2003, 12:31 PM
43) All relevant documentation has been notarized.

11th March 2003, 12:50 PM
44. It has NOT appeared in the Fox News website's "Junk Science" section.

Kiri
11th March 2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by rwald
13. It presumes that anything ancient is better than anything modern, or that anything natural is better than anything synthetic.


I always preferred LSD over mushrooms, myself...much more cost-effective!

45. The "astonishing new breakthrough" is announced in "The Weekly World News" and NOT "Scientific American".

spoonhandler
11th March 2003, 02:45 PM
46. They claim a 100% or very close to 100% success rate for response/correctness/cure and claim 'it' works for everybody, in every case, all the time.

rwald
11th March 2003, 04:35 PM
Stolen from someone who knew what they were talking about...

47. They keep mentioning quantum mechanics, but don't describe the mathematics behind their theory.

Denise
11th March 2003, 05:00 PM
48. They have their own room on Paltalk, and bounce skeptics left and right. Ouch!

OdderMensch
11th March 2003, 06:05 PM
49. "as anyone knows....."

50. They fail to worship Denise :mad:

51. They think putting more chemicals into your bodt is always a good idea.

52. They assume because it is done in a laboratory, by people in lab coats, it is science.

Thumbo
11th March 2003, 08:28 PM
53. The theory is described in a single paragraph. With 50,000 words in it.

rwald
11th March 2003, 08:40 PM
54. If their webpage makes you hearken back to the cogency of the Time Cube.

BillyJoe
12th March 2003, 01:15 AM
55. It must be right because myth says so. :cool:

(He has a major depressive disorder but this counts as a plus because it means he has all day to sit around and think about solutions to puzzles thereby justifying social security benefits generously donated through tax payments by the rest of us who can count ourselves lucky enough to be able to work for a living.)

regards,
BillyJoe

Ladewig
12th March 2003, 06:03 AM
56. The practioner is caught cheating on film and the "scientists" examining the practioner say, "sure, he cheated in this particular case, but that doesn't mean all the other demonstrations were faked." The practioner says, "I cheated here because I felt so much pressure to perform, but all the other cases were genuine."

ChuckieR
12th March 2003, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by John Lockard
A Case Study (http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity07/ProblemOfFreeEnergy.html) EXCELLENT link, which inspired this more general observation:

57. The explanation involves societal and/or emotional obstacles, rather than technical obstacles.

Of course, we know that all truly useful ideas are stolen, not suppressed, by large corporations. :)

DrMatt
12th March 2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by ChuckieR
57. The explanation involves societal and/or emotional obstacles, rather than technical obstacles.


corollary:

58????) You have to adopt a new paradigm.

People laughed at Galileo. People laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Denise
12th March 2003, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by DrMatt


corollary:

58????) You have to adopt a new paradigm.

People laughed at Galileo. People laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Your avatar reminds me of the negative of the shroud of Turin.

ChuckieR
12th March 2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by DrMatt
People laughed at Galileo. People laughed at Bozo the Clown. Yah, but Bozo knew what the hell he was doing :)

Here are 7 more from none other than Bob Park:

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html)

Keneke
12th March 2003, 08:20 AM
59. Their entire webpage is center-justified.

(This may be considered a corollary of the "cogency of Time Cube" entry.)

12th March 2003, 08:32 AM
60) The foundation of the theory starts by accepting another scientifically bogus theory as fact. A layering, or compounding, effect. My chief pet peeve.

61) Whether it is a free energy device, or a new medical breakthrough, or whatever, it is somehow connected to spiritual consciousness and the brotherhood of all mankind.

62) Any discussions of what the future holds are always gloomy, dire, and/or Armageddon-ish.



(edited to correct numbering since Keneke snuck one in there while I was typing mine.)

Kimpatsu
12th March 2003, 09:05 AM
Surely No. 13 should have been, "Utilizes lucky numbers"?

garys_2k
12th March 2003, 11:41 AM
61? It will save the planet because we are within a few years of running out of oil or food.

ArmchairPhysicist
12th March 2003, 03:18 PM
62. You can send away for the package, including the booklet that is filled with information that the government/corporations/doctors "Don't want you to know!"

Oso
12th March 2003, 03:29 PM
63) Lots of anecdotal evidence, just needs some more on the ground research, which you need to fund.

The Fool
12th March 2003, 09:56 PM
64) Chessmanskeptic owns two of them

BillyJoe
13th March 2003, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Surely No. 13 should have been, "Utilizes lucky numbers"? Yes, you naughty boy, rwald, and I gave you a nice lead in as well.

BTW, where's myth?
I hope I haven't pissed him off. :(

MRC_Hans
13th March 2003, 05:08 AM
Cool thread! I took the liberty to collect the whole list and fix the numbers:

101 Ways to Determine if Something is Bogus Science

1. It involves a secret ingredient that will only be revealed to serious investors.

2. It's a lost secret of the ancients passed down by hidden masters and available only to a select few.

3. He has to ask questions to get any information. ("You're the psychic, you tell me what the cat is thinking.")

4. The "costume" is behaving unlike any costume you've ever seen before.

5. He has a new definition of 'fly by wire'.

6. He keeps mistaking toes for bear claws.

7. Miracles are valid research tools.

8. It only works when nobody is watching.

9. Only those with the proper credentials can have anything of value to add to the field.

10. It involves undetectable forces.

11. It only works if you believe in it.

12. It only sounds right if you don't have a clue.

13. Utilizes lucky numbers.

13. It presumes that anything ancient is better than anything modern, or that anything natural is better than anything synthetic.

14. They say that "more research is needed" to asses its effectiveness...but they've been saying that for 20 years, and all the research they've done in that time has been negative.

15. Non-believers in the vicinity can affect results

16. They use the argument that people once thought the world was flat, so to not be as ignorant as ancient people you should believe their claim.

17. It is a new invention that will revolutionize the World, yet it can be your's for 5000 $.

18. The inventor has already sold it to unnamed governments all over the world, yet he still drives a Nissan.

19. It relies on vacuum energy for non-QM scale effects.

20. It was believed by an expert in another field.

21. There is anecdotal evidence available to read.

22. A patent has been applied for.

23. The discoverer compares him/herself with Galileo

24. Einstein was working on this theory all his life (but never wrote any of it down).

25. The conventional science bureaucracy is conspiring to suppress this theory.

26. Low-rent celebrities were sceptical, but are now utterly convinced. No! You can't look at their bank statements!

27. The phenomenon only occurs when you are "naked" and "alone"

28. Researchers for the Catholic Church suspect Kool-Aid may be involved.

29. George W. Bush is called on as an expert witness.

30: Big oil/automotive/aicraft/armament/mining/whatever companies are trying to suppress this invention.

31: Aliens were involved in any way.

32. Liberal use of the word "quantum".

33. Announces creation of ground breaking, world changing, free energy device not through the process of peer review, but through an Amway-style seminar at $200 a head, where attendees are encouraged to buy "memberships".

34. At any point, the person says, "I am not crazy. I believe in this."

35. No new equations are presented, just old ones are cited and said to be wrong.

36. They have to point out that it is NOT a perpetual motion machine. (Usually right after the description meets the definition perfectly)

37. The word "free" is anywhere in the statement.

38. Halfway through the presentation, 3 shills offer their life savings for it.

39. It is pushed under one of the headings "complementary", "alternative", "holistic", "ayurvedic", or any combination thereof.

40. As soon as you ask the presenter a question which indicates that you haven't fully bought into the presentation, the presenter assaults your character rather than answering the question or demonstrating the alleged phenomena.

41. The primary proof of the effect is that it appears in a work of fantasy fiction.

42. After the allegation has been soundly disproved by protocols which were agreed upon in advance, the claimaint cries foul and threatens to sue. Bonus point if the crier/threatener is the claimant's mother.

43. Tesla is frequently mentioned in their spiel.

44. All relevant documentation has been notarized.

45. It has NOT appeared in the Fox News website's "Junk Science" section.

46. The "astonishing new breakthrough" is announced in "The Weekly World News" and NOT "Scientific American".

47. They claim a 100% or very close to 100% success rate for response/correctness/cure and claim 'it' works for everybody, in every case, all the time.

48. They keep mentioning quantum mechanics, but don't describe the mathematics behind their theory.

49. They have their own room on Paltalk, and bounce skeptics left and right. Ouch!

50. "as anyone knows....."

51. They fail to worship Denise

52. They think putting more chemicals into your bodt is always a good idea.

53. They assume because it is done in a laboratory, by people in lab coats, it is science.

54. The theory is described in a single paragraph. With 50,000 words in it.

55. If their webpage makes you hearken back to the cogency of the Time Cube.

56. It must be right because myth says so.

57. He has a major depressive disorder but this counts as a plus because it means he has all day to sit around and think about solutions to puzzles thereby justifying social security benefits generously donated through tax payments by the rest of us who can count ourselves lucky enough to be able to work for a living.

58. The practioner is caught cheating on film and the "scientists" examining the practioner say, "sure, he cheated in this particular case, but that doesn't mean all the other demonstrations were faked." The practioner says, "I cheated here because I felt so much pressure to perform, but all the other cases were genuine."

59. The explanation involves societal and/or emotional obstacles, rather than technical obstacles.

60. You have to adopt a new paradigm. People laughed at Galileo. People laughed at Bozo the Clown.

61. Their entire webpage is center-justified.

62. The foundation of the theory starts by accepting another scientifically bogus theory as fact. A layering, or compounding, effect. My chief pet peeve.

63. Whether it is a free energy device, or a new medical breakthrough, or whatever, it is somehow connected to spiritual consciousness and the brotherhood of all mankind.

64. Any discussions of what the future holds are always gloomy, dire, and/or Armageddon-ish.

65. It will save the planet because we are within a few years of running out of oil or food.

66. You can send away for the package, including the booklet that is filled with information that the government/corporations/doctors "Don't want you to know!"

67. Lots of anecdotal evidence, just needs some more on the ground research, which you need to fund.

68. Chessmanskeptic owns two of them.

OK, fellas, only 33 to go, keep them coming!:p

Hans

TechHead
13th March 2003, 05:47 AM
69. It was predicted by Nostradamos.

70. It cannot be tested by JREF (we don't need his stinkin' money).

71. Works on e-rays.

72. Used a Radio Shack handheld multimeter to measure power output.

73. Established science is entirely refuted in their theory (i.e., Science doesn't know everything).

74. Inventor's credentials involve "formal 9th-grade educashun", "self-educated scientist", or "collaborated with (unnamed) top research scientists at UCLA". [UCLA: Upper Corner of Lower Alabama]

garys_2k
13th March 2003, 05:52 AM
75. Working prototypes have been made and just a little more money is needed to begin actual production versions.

76. The original working model was lost under strange circumstances, but the inventor's notes are still available.

Dr. Popalot
13th March 2003, 07:53 AM
77. It's Doctor recommended.

scotth
13th March 2003, 08:14 AM
78) They point out that the USPTO does not grant patents on non working inventions.
79) It requires additional dimensions (beyond 3 spatial + time) to operate.
80) Magnet and health appear within the same paragraph.
81) A measurement is expressed in an unsuitable unit, such as a measure of energy expressed in units of power.
82) There is no contact information.
83) There are many scientists, but none of them are named.
84) Licensing is offered before a working model is demonstrated.

boooeee
13th March 2003, 10:05 AM
85) When their methods fail in a most spectacular fashion, they simply remove all evidence of these failures and blame it on the fact that their technology is "new" and still "developing". (see the threads on Elizabeth Smart and PsiTech in Banter)

garys_2k
14th March 2003, 07:09 AM
86) The only place you can buy this world changing, breakthrough technology is on eBay.

Oso
14th March 2003, 08:52 AM
87) Penn & Teller are able to make money off of it.

88) It appeared on South Park

Phaycops
14th March 2003, 02:06 PM
89? (Note: I know this really only applies to dowsing, but I think it's worthwhile anyway) The person claims that water is flowing through the subsurface in "streams" or "rivers."

espritch
14th March 2003, 03:10 PM
90. Unnamed Scientists from a major unnamed University have tested it and declared it to be authentic.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe
14th March 2003, 04:09 PM
91) The inventors have been advised by the 300+ (nameless) scientific minds consulted that the historical, world changing, and state of the art modern scientific device should not be registered at a patent office. The device and knowledge should be made available to all for the good of mankind.

92) Note that the 300+ scientists must remain nameless, otherwise they will be targeted for assasination by oil hungry corperations or bought "puppet" governments, giving more proof that their device is an oustanding feat that busted through the "so called" impossible to breach frontiers of science.

espritch
14th March 2003, 04:23 PM
93. Einstien was wrong.

espritch
14th March 2003, 04:47 PM
94. We have vast amounts of annectdotal evidence supporting this. It can't all be wrong.

BillyJoe
15th March 2003, 06:54 AM
96. The scientific establishment says this is false therefore, by definition, it must be true.

[Come back, myth, all was in jest.]

MRC_Hans
15th March 2003, 02:50 PM
97. All "technical" explanations are made using analogies, like water waves to explain electromagnetics, animal behaviour to explain signal processors, etc.

Ladewig
15th March 2003, 06:00 PM
I think this one is different enough from 56 to get a separate number.

98. A popular science-fiction story is used as evidence, a reference source, or an appeal to authority.

(AKA It's Doctor (Who) recommended)

99. A ten-year-old can design, implement, and publish an experiment that undermines the entire theory.

justsaygnosis
15th March 2003, 06:11 PM
100: Three toothless rednecks, whacked on crystal-meth and Jack Daniels stole it from the UFO that abducted them.

Kimpatsu
15th March 2003, 06:23 PM
We've reached 100. Does this mean we have to stop? We're having too much fun... ;)

GreyWanderer
15th March 2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
We've reached 100. Does this mean we have to stop? We're having too much fun... ;)

No, you can make one more. The title said 101.

Kimpatsu
15th March 2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by GreyWanderer
No, you can make one more. The title said 101.
And then we have to stop?
After we reach 101, is anybody going to collate them neatly, and weed out potential duplication? Then we might have a better idea of where we really stand.

Oso
15th March 2003, 07:04 PM
and.... Drum roll...

101) You have to believe in (my) god for it to work.

Oso
15th March 2003, 07:29 PM
Actually

70) I won't take the JREF challenge because it's rigged, plus I don't need the money.

should probably be moved to 101. It just seems a nice way to wrap it up.

Kimpatsu
15th March 2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Oso
70) I won't take the JREF challenge because it's rigged, plus I don't need the money.
Interestingly enough, I've been debating a Reiki woo-woo on e-budo, (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15432&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) and this is the latest excuse he's trotted out. I even quoted the JREF statement:
The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place.
but he's ignored it completely, and now the debate is going round in circles. Come on over and join the fun!

MRC_Hans
16th March 2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Kimpatsu

And then we have to stop?
After we reach 101, is anybody going to collate them neatly, and weed out potential duplication? Then we might have a better idea of where we really stand. I did it the first time. You are very welcome to make the next compilation. I would suggest we weed out those that refer to named JREF posters, heheh.

Hans

Walter Wayne
16th March 2003, 12:51 PM
By my count we still new 6 (or 7) more including
48,49,51,67,83,92 (and possibly 55)

Does anybody want to supply missing ones, or commenting on why my edits are wrong?

Two 13's.

Similar or somewhat similar
21 and 67
30 and 92
32 and 48
83 and 90

51 and 68 mention forum members
49 Paltalk may be a bit woo obscure
55 How obscure is Time Cube (I haven't heard of it) though I think it should be kept as people will get the point anyway.

So new list with changes bolded. (still some spelling fixes to be made).

101 Ways to Determine if Something is Bogus Science

1. It involves a secret ingredient that will only be revealed to serious investors.
2. It's a lost secret of the ancients passed down by hidden masters and available only to a select few.
3. He has to ask questions to get any information. ("You're the psychic, you tell me what the cat is thinking.")
4. The "costume" is behaving unlike any costume you've ever seen before.
5. He has a new definition of 'fly by wire'.
6. He keeps mistaking toes for bear claws.
7. Miracles are valid research tools.
8. It only works when nobody is watching.
9. Only those with the proper credentials can have anything of value to add to the field.
10. It involves undetectable forces.
11. It only works if you believe in it.
12. It only sounds right if you don't have a clue.
13. Utilizes lucky numbers.
14. They say that "more research is needed" to asses its effectiveness...but they've been saying that for 20 years, and all the research they've done in that time has been negative.
15. Non-believers in the vicinity can affect results
16. They use the argument that people once thought the world was flat, so to not be as ignorant as ancient people you should believe their claim.
17. It is a new invention that will revolutionize the World, yet it can be your's for 5000 $.
18. The inventor has already sold it to unnamed governments all over the world, yet he still drives a Nissan.
19. It relies on vacuum energy for non-QM scale effects.
20. It was believed by an expert in another field.
21. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence available to read (just needs more research funding). :combined with 67
22. A patent has been applied for.
23. The discoverer compares him/herself with Galileo
24. Einstein was working on this theory all his life (but never wrote any of it down).
25. The conventional science bureaucracy is conspiring to suppress this theory.
26. Low-rent celebrities were sceptical, but are now utterly convinced. No! You can't look at their bank statements!
27. The phenomenon only occurs when you are "naked" and "alone"
28. Researchers for the Catholic Church suspect Kool-Aid may be involved.
29. George W. Bush is called on as an expert witness.
30. Big oil/automotive/aicraft/armament/mining/whatever companies are trying to suppress this invention.
31. Aliens were involved in any way.
32. Liberal use of the word "quantum" (though no mathematics used). :48 added in
33. Announces creation of ground breaking, world changing, free energy device not through the process of peer review, but through an Amway-style seminar at $200 a head, where attendees are encouraged to buy "memberships".
34. At any point, the person says, "I am not crazy. I believe in this."
35. No new equations are presented, just old ones are cited and said to be wrong.
36. They have to point out that it is NOT a perpetual motion machine. (Usually right after the description meets the definition perfectly)
37. The word "free" is anywhere in the statement.
38. Halfway through the presentation, 3 shills offer their life savings for it.
39. It is pushed under one of the headings "complementary", "alternative", "holistic", "ayurvedic", or any combination thereof.
40. As soon as you ask the presenter a question which indicates that you haven't fully bought into the presentation, the presenter assaults your character rather than answering the question or demonstrating the alleged phenomena.
41. The primary proof of the effect is that it appears in a work of fantasy fiction.
42. After the allegation has been soundly disproved by protocols which were agreed upon in advance, the claimaint cries foul and threatens to sue. Bonus point if the crier/threatener is the claimant's mother.
43. Tesla is frequently mentioned in their spiel.
44. All relevant documentation has been notarized.
45. It has NOT appeared in the Fox News website's "Junk Science" section.
46. The "astonishing new breakthrough" is announced in "The Weekly World News" and NOT "Scientific American".
47. They claim a 100% or very close to 100% success rate for response/correctness/cure and claim 'it' works for everybody, in every case, all the time.
48. :became part of 32
49. : obsure reference to paltalk removed
50. "as anyone knows....."
51. :member referenced
52. They think putting more chemicals into your body is always a good idea.
53. They assume because it is done in a laboratory, by people in lab coats, it is science.
54. The theory is described in a single paragraph. With 50,000 words in it.
55. If their webpage makes you hearken back to the cogency of the Time Cube. :should we keep this reference
56. It must be right because myth says so.
57. He has a major depressive disorder but this counts as a plus because it means he has all day to sit around and think about solutions to puzzles thereby justifying social security benefits generously donated through tax payments by the rest of us who can count ourselves lucky enough to be able to work for a living.
58. The practioner is caught cheating on film and the "scientists" examining the practioner say, "sure, he cheated in this particular case, but that doesn't mean all the other demonstrations were faked." The practioner says, "I cheated here because I felt so much pressure to perform, but all the other cases were genuine."
59. The explanation involves societal and/or emotional obstacles, rather than technical obstacles.
60. You have to adopt a new paradigm. People laughed at Galileo. People laughed at Bozo the Clown.
61. Their entire webpage is center-justified.
62. The foundation of the theory starts by accepting another scientifically bogus theory as fact. A layering, or compounding, effect. My chief pet peeve.
63. Whether it is a free energy device, or a new medical breakthrough, or whatever, it is somehow connected to spiritual consciousness and the brotherhood of all mankind.
64. Any discussions of what the future holds are always gloomy, dire, and/or Armageddon-ish.
65. It will save the planet because we are within a few years of running out of oil or food.
66. You can send away for the package, including the booklet that is filled with information that the government/corporations/doctors "Don't want you to know!"
67. :combined with 21
68. It presumes that anything ancient is better than anything modern, or that anything natural is better than anything synthetic. :member referenced, changed to one of the 13s
69. It was predicted by Nostradamos.
70. You have to believe in (my) god for it to work. :was 101
71. Works on e-rays.
72. Used a Radio Shack handheld multimeter to measure power output.
73. Established science is entirely refuted in their theory (i.e., Science doesn't know everything).
74. Inventor's credentials involve "formal 9th-grade educashun", "self-educated scientist", or "collaborated with (unnamed) top research scientists at UCLA". [UCLA: Upper Corner of Lower Alabama]
75. Working prototypes have been made and just a little more money is needed to begin actual production versions.
76. The original working model was lost under strange circumstances, but the inventor's notes are still available.
77. It's Doctor recommended.
78. They point out that the USPTO does not grant patents on non working inventions.
79. It requires additional dimensions (beyond 3 spatial + time) to operate.
80. Magnet and health appear within the same paragraph.
81. A measurement is expressed in an unsuitable unit, such as a measure of energy expressed in units of power.
82. There is no contact information.
83. duplicate of 90
84. Licensing is offered before a working model is demonstrated.
85. When their methods fail in a most spectacular fashion, they simply remove all evidence of these failures and blame it on the fact that their technology is "new" and still "developing". : parenthetical remark removed
86. The only place you can buy this world changing, breakthrough technology is on eBay.
87. Penn & Teller are able to make money off of it.
88. It appeared on South Park
89. The person claims that water is flowing through the subsurface in "streams" or "rivers." : parenthetical remark removed
90. Unnamed Scientists from a major unnamed University have tested it and declared it to be authentic.
91. The inventors have been advised by the 300+ (nameless) scientific minds consulted that the historical, world changing, and state of the art modern scientific device should not be registered at a patent office. The device and knowledge should be made available to all for the good of mankind.
92. :was somewhat similar to 30
93. Einstien was wrong.
94. We have vast amounts of anecdotal evidence supporting this. It can't all be wrong.
96. The scientific establishment says this is false therefore, by definition, it must be true.
97. All "technical" explanations are made using analogies, like water waves to explain electromagnetics, animal behaviour to explain signal processors, etc.
98. A popular science-fiction story is used as evidence, a reference source, or an appeal to authority. (AKA It's Doctor (Who) recommended)
99. A ten-year-old can design, implement, and publish an experiment that undermines the entire theory.
100. Three toothless rednecks, whacked on crystal-meth and Jack Daniels stole it from the UFO that abducted them.
101. It cannot be tested by JREF (we don't need his stinkin' money). :was 70

Walter Wayne
16th March 2003, 12:53 PM
48. Well Heizenburg says we can't know anything absolutely.

espritch
16th March 2003, 03:50 PM
49. All scientific references used to support position are 30 years out of date. All more recent work that refutes the claim is ignored.
51. Quotes by famous scientists (often in fields unrelated to the subject at hand) are taken out of context and presented to support the claim.
67. Quotes by famous people who are not scientists are presented to support the claim.

espritch
16th March 2003, 04:03 PM
83. It's "all natural".

rwald
16th March 2003, 04:05 PM
83 is sort of similar to 68...

But the other three you suggested were very good. I'm surprised we didn't think of them before.

espritch
16th March 2003, 04:16 PM
You're right about 83. The other 3 were Creationist SOP.

Ladewig
16th March 2003, 04:56 PM
I was going to add something that would describe the polygraph's special brand of pseudo-science, but I guess "new" 49 (All scientific references used to support position are 30 years out of date. All more recent work that refutes the claim is ignored.) covers it.

Then again, it is not that the science is out of date, it's more a matter of no one has conducted any positive scientific tests for the 70 years that the theory has been in use.

Walter Wayne
16th March 2003, 06:10 PM
83. The documentary is hosted by Jonathan Frakes (or other Star Trek alumni)

or maybe, the censor the aliens crotch area, when the original footage showed no genitalia there

Walt

Walter Wayne
17th March 2003, 06:56 AM
92. The website is hosted by Tripod. ?

Credit to Billy Joe

Walt

espritch
17th March 2003, 09:30 PM
92. The website is hosted by Tripod. ?

:D I like it! Gentlemen, I think we have the full century plus 1.

BillyJoe
18th March 2003, 05:06 AM
Thanks for the credit but I wouldn't have had a clue what you were talking about if I hadn't read the other thread first (forget the name). I swear the image I posted there was different from the one that appears there now - some **** about the website being hosted by tripod???

MRC_Hans
18th March 2003, 05:18 AM
Most of those free or semi-free hosts want to discourage direct linking because it uses bandwidht without them getting their name out. So they have a way of detecting direct links and reroute them to a little advertisment instead.

So you link a pnice picture, and after a couple of accesses, all you see is their little ad.

And this is a good test of the sincerety of a business or scientific organisation: A good stable host with no advertizing and unlimited traffic costs about 200$ per annum, so if they cant afford that to promote their great invention, well -------

Hans

Walter Wayne
18th March 2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by BillyJoe
Thanks for the credit but I wouldn't have had a clue what you were talking about if I hadn't read the other thread first (forget the name). I swear the image I posted there was different from the one that appears there now - some **** about the website being hosted by tripod??? Some people strive to greatness, some stumble into it by a quirk of the internet.

Walt

BillyJoe
19th March 2003, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Some people strive to greatness, some stumble into it by a quirk of the internet.Some peoples' greatness lies in recognizing the greatness that others have stumbled into.

Actually, Walt, the series of connections necessary to produce your really quite excellent post (the previous one) is quite impressive. Too bad it's probably a bit too obscure for most people to bother to try to work out.