Forbidden Science

[bruto]

** A paper from the late 19th century is alleged by would be 'skeptic busters' to be science's claim that flying machines were impossible. In fact the paper merely pointed out that the engines of the age could not deliver sufficient power to obtain flight. They were correct, as several would-be flight pioneers discovered to their dismay. Later lighter and more powerful engines became available intime for the Wright brother's work.***

Indeed, though "available" may be a bit misleading. The Wrights, and their chief mechanic Charles Taylor, designed their own engine. Nowadays a 152 pound 16 horsepower engine seems pretty primitive, but at that time, it was a radical lightweight design using light alloys, tubular connecting rods and various other innovations.

[Rodney]

Love is another sad case of the historicly impaired.

Scientific American never, ever, ever, ever claimed that flying was impossible.*

They did however, express strong doubts that the Wright brothers flew. Not suprising as the evidence for their flight from 1902 to 1906 was a photograph and a handful of witnesses, none of whom were scientific experts.

The Wright brothers behavior, at the time, was definately indicative of the acts of con-artists. With hindsight we can see that they were legitimately trying to protect their patent in an age where rampant theft of inventions was a major issue. But at the time their refusal to fly was looked upon, rightly with suspicion.

Claiming that suspicion of the Wright Brothers is the equivelant of saying the flight was impossible is like claiming that someone thinks that Automobiles can't possibly work becuase they don't the used-car salesman down the street.

Love's idiocy is the tragedy of the historicly impaired.


*It is often claimed that it was a 'scientific fact' that planes could not fly. Lord Kelvin is claimed to have said flying machines were impossible. He never actually said this. He did say he had no faith in aeronautics to the aeronautic society, but this was less faith in the society than in the possibility of flight.**

** A paper from the late 19th century is alleged by would be 'skeptic busters' to be science's claim that flying machines were impossible. In fact the paper merely pointed out that the engines of the age could not deliver sufficient power to obtain flight. They were correct, as several would-be flight pioneers discovered to their dismay. Later lighter and more powerful engines became available intime for the Wright brother's work.***

*** As skeptics go, the least quoted skeptic of flight by self-styled 'skeptic busters' would be Wilbur Wright, who is quoted as saying "Man will not fly for a thousand years.".

Your attempt to pretend that the scientific establishment didn't actively oppose the Wright Brothers' claim of heavier than air flight is "historicly impaired." As Richard Milton notes at http:/www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm:
"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality. In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.' Powered flight, Newcomb believed, would require the discovery of some new unsuspected force in nature. Only a year earlier, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, wrote in the North American Review that attempting to fly was 'absurd'. It was armed with such eminent authorities as these that Scientific American and the New York Herald scoffed at the Wrights as a pair of hoaxers.

"In January 1905, more than a year after the Wrights had first flown, Scientific American carried an article ridiculing the 'alleged' flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. Without a trace of irony, the magazine gave as its main reason for not believing the Wrights the fact that the American press had failed to write anything about them.

"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"

In other words, the same attitude that most members of Randi's organization have today.

[Rolfe]

However, I'm beginning to harbour doubts about Richard Milton's factual accuracy. Do you have any other source for these assertions?

Rolfe.

[Chris Haynes]

However, I'm beginning to harbour doubts about Richard Milton's factual accuracy. Do you have any other source for these assertions?

Rolfe.

Especially since he is the author cited in the original post of this thread!!!!

Edit to add: Actually all one would have to do is go to a good library that had American Scientific magazine that goes back that far. Sorry, I am not volunteering.

Edit again... I did not even have look long to find out the Richard Milton quote is more full of hot air than a zeppelin: http://www.paperlessarchives.com/wbscrapbooks.html

[PixyMisa]

It's in Velikovsky's books.

As I said, most of the criticisms raised here can be resolved by reading Velikovsky.
Then do so, and tell us what it is.

Based on what you have told us so far, Velikovsky's ideas are irredeemable nonsense.

[bruto]

Your attempt to pretend that the scientific establishment didn't actively oppose the Wright Brothers' claim of heavier than air flight is "historicly impaired." As Richard Milton notes at http:/www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm:
"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality. In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.' Powered flight, Newcomb believed, would require the discovery of some new unsuspected force in nature. Only a year earlier, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, wrote in the North American Review that attempting to fly was 'absurd'. It was armed with such eminent authorities as these that Scientific American and the New York Herald scoffed at the Wrights as a pair of hoaxers.

"In January 1905, more than a year after the Wrights had first flown, Scientific American carried an article ridiculing the 'alleged' flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. Without a trace of irony, the magazine gave as its main reason for not believing the Wrights the fact that the American press had failed to write anything about them.

"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"

In other words, the same attitude that most members of Randi's organization have today.


That may well be, but there's a pretty obvious difference here. Many scientists guessed wrong before they saw the evidence. Considering how radical some of the technology was for its time skepticism was not so unexpected. The Wrights were very cautious, and anticipated patent problems (and not without cause); they did not publicize their test flights, and as far as I've seen they did not solicit support from the scientific community or anyone else during the time they were developing the airplane, preferring to work, if not in total secrecy, certainly without publicity. After the perfection of the 1905 flyer, the Wrights did not perform any flights at all while they applied for a patent. If dubious scientists were awaiting a demonstration, they can be excused for remaining dubious, because they certainly were not going to get one from the Wrights. They refused to demonstrate the machine at all until they had both a patent and a potential buyer. It was only in 1908, when other potential rivals appeared close to success (and after they had both their patent and a government contract), that the Wrights went public in Europe, and as soon as they did this, it obviously put a permanent end to all skepticism about the possibility of powered flight.

So what if Scientific American was wrong? Flight did happen, and it was real, and it was repeatable. Scientists wanted evidence. They got it. End of story. Skepticism did not survive past the public demonstration of flight, did it? The time period between the Wrights' first 12-second liftoff and the public trials was less than five years, including the two year hiatus during which they did not fly at all. A year after the Wrights flew publicly, the U.S. government was purchasing planes from the Wrights. Hardly an example of nasty old science and skepticism squashing the truth, when you think about it.

[CurtC]

The main issues with Pons & Fleischmann was when Quantum Mechanics say, that the process they have seen and claimed to have happened is impossible to take place at that sort of temperature, but the 2 inventors insisted that it did. That was what alarmed scientists of the day, because they have overthrown Quantum Mechanics. At the end Quantum Mechanics stayed true to its prediction and overthrew the 2 scientists from their academic professions.Not exactly. The idea of cold fusion wouldn't violate any known laws, and in fact would be the holy grail of fusion research. However, from the outset, it was very suspicious that P&F never published their techniques in any journal, but announced it via a press conference. That didn't win them any friends in the scientific community.

Pretty soon, the idea collapsed because a) the reaction didn't seem to give off neutrons, which would be required in fusion, and b) no other labs could replicate it.

[Chris Haynes]

...So what if Scientific American was wrong? Flight did happen, and it was real, and it was repeatable. Scientists wanted evidence. They got it. End of story. Skepticism did not survive past the public demonstration of flight, did it? The time period between the Wrights' first 12-second liftoff and the public trials was less than five years, including the two year hiatus during which they did not fly at all. A year after the Wrights flew publicly, the U.S. government was purchasing planes from the Wrights. Hardly an example of nasty old science and skepticism squashing the truth, when you think about it.

They also had good reason to worry. Since many competitors came by with their own heavier-than-air flying machines. The Wright brothers spent quite a bit of time protecting their patents... specifically the "wing warping" that allowed them to fly WHERE they wanted to be. It was one thing to get a plane off the ground, it was completely another problem keeping the aircraft stable AND to be able to be turned. But that was their downfall... in that OTHER innovators figured out better control services in the long than they did. See http://www.wrightstories.com/afterwards.html (and the guy who outdid the stabilizers ... his name was on the name of a company that made autopilots that almost survived to the 21st century, until a takeover).

[burrahobbit]

I believe I have learnt a few things from this discussion.


You believe wrong. As usual.

On the Wright Brothers story

I dont see what the Wright brothers have to do with this. While it may be true that some scientists were sceptical of the possibility of heavier than air flight, I seem to recall that at the time of the Wrights flight there were a number of people in Europe (Lilienthal et al) who were pursuing the same goal.

That does not look like "the establishment refusing to believe that powered flight is impossible"

[burrahobbit]

The objections to idea that man could survive the Earth slowing down remind seem similiar in character to earlier misconceptions. When steam trains were invented, it was claimed that man would die if he travelled above 15mph.

Not by anyone scientific (AFAIK). I think a galloping horse even carrying a rider exceeds 15mph.

Typical of the "factoids" thrown around by woo supporters. They successfully derail the conversation. In the ideal case, they even "win" an argument if no knowledgeable person is around. This last however, is astronomically improbable in this forum.:D

[Rolfe]

A thoroughbred racehorse can quite easily reach 40mph. I once tailed my Highland pony, not known for his turn of speed, at 30mph. Those who were allegedly making this silly claim had almost certainly gone faster than their assumed limit themselves, on horseback.

Rolfe.

[Mongrel]

I believe I have learnt a few things from this discussion.

It seems there is a tendancy for science to protect itself against change.

Part of this defensiveness manifests as a very real campaign to discredit authors who reveal dissenting information, rather than by simply pointing to the evidence.



I'd point out that proper scientists review their ideas when new evidence shows their pet projects to be wrong\misguided. If you wish to talk of authors I was re-reading some early Issac Asimov fiction, first printed 1952, of which I have 1970s reprints. He had inserted a foreword detailing that the book was based on the information he had at that time, it was wrong. He then detailed how it was wrong, quick summarys of how we knew it was wrong and hoped it wouldn't interfere with your enjoyment of the book.

[malbui]

I'd point out that proper scientists review their ideas when new evidence shows their pet projects to be wrong\misguided. If you wish to talk of authors I was re-reading some early Issac Asimov fiction, first printed 1952, of which I have 1970s reprints. He had inserted a foreword detailing that the book was based on the information he had at that time, it was wrong. He then detailed how it was wrong, quick summarys of how we knew it was wrong and hoped it wouldn't interfere with your enjoyment of the book.
I'm also aware of an example of Asimov doing that in his science books. His "Asimov's New Guide to Science" went to four editions (with name changes) over about 20 years, I think, and he cheerfully identified things that had altered since previous editions. A good example is continental drift, which was rejected out of hand at the beginning but which was firmly entrenched by the end. As Mongrel says, that's how proper scientists behave.

[Mojo]

As Mongrel says, that's how proper scientists behave.It's also one of the things about science that is most fun. There's always more stuff to find out; why bother with making stuff up?

[kookbreaker]

Your attempt to pretend that the scientific establishment didn't actively oppose the Wright Brothers' claim of heavier than air flight is "historicly impaired." As Richard Milton notes at http:/www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm:


I can now rank Richard Milton among the historicly impaired as well.


"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence.


Nonsense. Complete and utter dreck. The Wright brothers were not the only ones working on flight at the time. They were merely the first to succeed.

As for the 'evidence', Milton should recall that the Wright brothers deliberately withheld the majority of the evidence from prying eyes. Particularly from those eyes of experts.


It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality.


Milton should perhaps seek to be confined in a special school for this level of impairment. He fails to acknolwedge those aviation pioneers whose planes took off years before those of the Wright brothers, proving flight possible, but lacking the control that the Wright brothers' machine posessed. He also ignores the clumsy, but working flying machines before the Wright brothers demonstrated their machine.


In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.' Powered flight, Newcomb believed, would require the discovery of some new unsuspected force in nature.


A deception, at best. The article in question can be found here:

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p167y1977-78.pdf

Newcomb's complaints, are with the level of technology, which he sorely underestimated. Never once decalring flight to be impossible.


Only a year earlier, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, wrote in the North American Review that attempting to fly was 'absurd'.


Melville's skepticism is always given with this one quote, and never in context. Before the Wright's, several folks had demonstrated flight principles, but the question at hand was if the Wright brother's machine could fly, and fly controlled.


It was armed with such eminent authorities as these that Scientific American and the New York Herald scoffed at the Wrights as a pair of hoaxers.

"In January 1905, more than a year after the Wrights had first flown, Scientific American carried an article ridiculing the 'alleged' flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. Without a trace of irony, the magazine gave as its main reason for not believing the Wrights the fact that the American press had failed to write anything about them.


This is deceptive to say the least. SciAm certainly acknowledged the accomplishments of the Wright Brothers. From their Jan. 1904 issue:


It should be noted that S.A. was hardly universal in its skepticism of the Wright brothers. From their Jan 2, 1904 issue:

[QUOTE]
As an offset to the failure of the aerodrome is to be recorded
the successful flight of a motor-driven aeroplane built by the
brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright--an event of supreme
importance in the history of aeronautics, insomuch as it is the
first case of a aeroplane, carrying its own engine and an
operator, making a trip over several miles of distance. The
machine, which has a surface of 510 square feet and is driven by
a 16 horsepower motor, is stated to have carried Mr. Wright for
a distance of 3 miles against a 20-mile-an-hour wind at a speed
of about 8 miles an hour--an actual speed of nearly 30 miles an
hour through the air. This feat marks the commencement of an
epoch in the history of the aeroplane; for now that an aeroplane
has been built that can fly, the work of gathering experimental
data will proceed with a rapidity which was impossible when
aeroplane flight, at least on a full-sized scale, had never gone
beyond the theoretical stage.

By 1905, the coyness of the Wright brother's had set off a wave of suspicion that they were perpetuating a hoax.


"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"

In other words, the same attitude that most members of Randi's organization have today.

Dreck and nonsense from Milton. If he learned history he might learn from it. Of course, Rodney swallowed every word as fact. Milton vomits, Rodney eats.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

(The last post.)
A great post, kookbreaker. Very informative and thorough!

[Chris Haynes]

A great post, kookbreaker. Very informative and thorough!

I agree with that sentiment... I kind of knew the stuff, but only did a cursery search. Kookbreaker did an excellent job (and his avatar fits the subject matter)!

[kookbreaker]

Thankew,

Its a pet peeve of mine when people flat out state "Science said people couldn't fly". It is the woowoo's latest version of "People thought the world was flat". A more than casual look at history at that time demonstrated that this idea is laughable! In fact, it was newspaper accounts of flying machines (uncontrolled ones) that inspired the Wright brothers to build their machine!

[Rodney]

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p167y1977-78.pdf

Newcomb's complaints, are with the level of technology, which he sorely underestimated. Never once decalring flight to be impossible.

The "utterly impossible" quote may have been picked up by Milton from the Internet, which earns him a demerit. However, if you bother to read Newcomb's 1903 article, he clearly believed that heavier than air flight was impossible in the foreseeable future. For example:

"We cannot have muscles or nerves for our flying machine. We have to replace them by such crude and clumsy adjuncts as steam engines and electric batteries. It may certainly seem singular if man is never to discover any combination of substances which, under the influence of some such agency as an electric current, shall expand and contract like a muscle. But, if he is ever to do so, the time is still in the future. We do not see the dawn of the age in which such a result will be brought forth."

"But I do think that success must await progress of a different kind from that of invention."

"But we have already seen that there is no mechanical combination, and no way of applying force, which will give to the aeroplanes the flexibility and rapidity of movement belonging to the wings of a bird. That this difficulty is insurmountable would seem to be a very fair deduction."

"If, therefore, we are ever to have aerial navigation with our present knowledge of natural capabilities, it is to the airship floating in the air, rather than the flying machine resting on the air, to which we are to look."

Melville's skepticism is always given with this one quote, and never in context..

So what was the context?

SciAm certainly acknowledged the accomplishments of the Wright Brothers.

I think a fair inference is that, while some of the SciAm staffers may have had an open mind toward the Wright Brothers' achievement, the editors of SciAm did not. Or are you challenging the accuracy of Milton's quote from the January 1905 SciAm?

"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"

By 1905, the coyness of the Wright brother's had set off a wave of suspicion that they were perpetuating a hoax.

What is your evidence that they were coy? According to http://www.wrightstories.com/history.html --

"First Flight News: When Loren Wright presented the telegram from Orville and Wilbur describing their first flight on Feb. 17, 1903, the editor of the Dayton paper didn’t publish the news because he didn’t he didn’t see anything significant enough to publish."

Dreck and nonsense from Milton. If he learned history he might learn from it. Of course, Rodney swallowed every word as fact. Milton vomits, Rodney eats.

Profound, and a great way to elevate the discussion.

[bruto]

The "utterly impossible" quote may have been picked up by Milton from the Internet, which earns him a demerit. However, if you bother to read Newcomb's 1903 article, he clearly believed that heavier than air flight was impossible in the foreseeable future. For example:

"We cannot have muscles or nerves for our flying machine. We have to replace them by such crude and clumsy adjuncts as steam engines and electric batteries. It may certainly seem singular if man is never to discover any combination of substances which, under the influence of some such agency as an electric current, shall expand and contract like a muscle. But, if he is ever to do so, the time is still in the future. We do not see the dawn of the age in which such a result will be brought forth."

"But I do think that success must await progress of a different kind from that of invention."

"But we have already seen that there is no mechanical combination, and no way of applying force, which will give to the aeroplanes the flexibility and rapidity of movement belonging to the wings of a bird. That this difficulty is insurmountable would seem to be a very fair deduction."

"If, therefore, we are ever to have aerial navigation with our present knowledge of natural capabilities, it is to the airship floating in the air, rather than the flying machine resting on the air, to which we are to look."



So what was the context?



I think a fair inference is that, while some of the SciAm staffers may have had an open mind toward the Wright Brothers' achievement, the editors of SciAm did not. Or are you challenging the accuracy of Milton's quote from the January 1905 SciAm?

"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"



What is your evidence that they were coy? According to http://www.wrightstories.com/history.html --

"First Flight News: When Loren Wright presented the telegram from Orville and Wilbur describing their first flight on Feb. 17, 1903, the editor of the Dayton paper didn’t publish the news because he didn’t he didn’t see anything significant enough to publish."



Profound, and a great way to elevate the discussion.


As for evidence that they were coy, just about any reputable source dealing with the history of the Wright brothers will give you the same general story. They were attempting to obtain patents, and their worries about patent infringement and contest were very real, and borne out later by patent disputes. They did not publicize the details of their flights. Skepticism about the level of technology that they had achieved was reasonable at the time, considering that they did not publicize the means by which they were able to achieve both flight and control, and these inventions were indeed both innovative and important.

One of the things that needs to be pointed out also, in case it has not become clear yet, is that "science" did not abandon the Wright brothers. The Wright brothers were scientists themselves. They were not just a couple of backwoods bicycle mechanics tinkering in the barn. The were serious, studious, scientific researchers doing both science and technology in a systematic way, which succeeded. When they reached a level of success that was both repeatable and patentable, they made it public and it was universally accepted.

I really don't know anything about the Newcomb quote, and have not researched it because I believe it is irrelevant. As I remarked earlier, the gap between the Wrights' first flight and the complete and general acceptance of their invention was less than five years, during two of which they did not make any flights at all. Even if Newcomb did make those statements, and even if they did reflect the general attitude of experts at the time (which I rather doubt), it is really simply irrelevant, because flight did occur and it was accepted when it was demonstrated.

However, I seriously doubt if a quotation like the one above reflects the general attitude of scientists at that time, because the preposterous notion that heavier-than-air flight required the imitation of birds had long been abandoned by all serious experimenters. The Wrights, Otto Lilienthal and others had been successfully gliding for a very long time, and the principles of lift from stationary wings were well demonstrated. The technological barriers involved control and the production of sufficient propulsive power to maintain lift and control. If, as the quotation above suggests, Newcomb was seriously considering that powered flight required an ornithopter design, he was woefully behind the times even in 1903.

Even if the Newcomb quote is genuine, and even if it did represent the attitude of the majority of the scientifc community at the time, the history to me shows a fine example of how well science, including skepticism, works. People can reasonably doubt that an unlikely thing has been done until they see it done. When they see it done, they change their minds. In this worst case, even assuming athat the Newcomb quote is significant, the transition from a total misconception of what would be required to achieve powered, heavier-than-air flight to a complete acceptance of it, even to the point where the U.S. government contracted to purchase airplanes, was less than five years. Hooray for science, and hooray for healthy skepticism.

[tracer]

if you bother to read Newcomb's 1903 article, he clearly believed that heavier than air flight was impossible in the foreseeable future. For example:

[ ... ]

"But we have already seen that there is no mechanical combination, and no way of applying force, which will give to the aeroplanes the flexibility and rapidity of movement belonging to the wings of a bird. That this difficulty is insurmountable would seem to be a very fair deduction."
And there, Newcomb was absolutely right. To this day, we still have not built any manned vehicle that flies like a bird by flapping its wings.

Newcomb wasn't denouncing airplanes in that paragraph, he was denouncing ornithopters.

[UrsulaV]

It's also worth noting that there's a huge difference between predictions about the future state of technology and claims about past.

Technology does weird stuff. Predicting the future is tricky, particularly when we reduce it to bite-sized quotes out of context.

There is, however, a huge difference between backing the wrong horse on the zepplin-vs.-manned flight thing at the dawn of aviation, and claiming that Venus was a freakin' comet. You can't test the future, except by waiting around, and once you're there, if your hypothesis is wrong, you don't get to go back and change all those nice quotes you left lying around for people to seize on, and sometimes, it cannot be denied, people are wrong.

Venus being a comet shot out of Jupiter and grazing the Earth, however, is an eminently testable question. One can examine the structure of comets, the structure of Venus, the respective orbits of the planets, the earth's crust--you have vast and myriad sources of data that you can test very quickly, and more shows up all the time, what with probes and whatnot. You don't have to just sit and wait for the future to happen, you can test it against the data right now.

And if you're proved wrong, as Velikovsky was a hundred times over, you do the honorable thing and change your hypothesis and say "Whoops, guess the data proves that theory wrong! Dang, it was a nice one, too. Oh, well, que sera, sera," and print retractions. You do not cling to your theory and cry like a little girl and claim that the scientific establishment is crushing you. That's just kinda sad.

There is honest error, which can be forgiven. If you make a mistake about predicting flight--well, admit it, and learn from it, and get on with life.

And then there's just clingin' to your stupid and completely disproved idea because you like the idea that Venus was a comet and the Bible rully rully happened.

[bruto]

Rather than edit my post, I will simply add to the above that if one wishes for one corroboration of the Wrights' coyness, as well as the way the scientific community actually reacted, Rodney, you can go to the Wrightstories website you yourself cited, where it is noted that it was not until 1906 that the Wrights publicly declared that they had successfully flown significant distances, and that on publication of that letter, Scientific American sought input from witnesses and published a correction within a month of that letter's publication!

The article also goes on to corroborate my statement, gleaned from other sources, that after 1905 they did not fly again for over two years, largely in order to protect their invention until they had obtained patents and a contract, as their flights had begun to attract spectators. Although they did not keep their initial flights secret, they did not publicize them when they were made, and rightly feared that too many witnesses would compromise their secrets.

In other words, as I have said before, skepticism notwithstanding, the whole Wright story essentially shows both the scientific dedication of the Wrights, and the scientifc skepticism of others, at their best.

edit: forgot to mention also that the Wrightstories site also got the date of the first flight wrong, and of course Rodney's citation was thus also wrong, since he did not notice the error. The first flight was not February 17, 1903, but December 17, 1903.

[bruto]

Not entirely relevant to the discussion, but perhaps a good illustration of how good scientists and engineers work, I found a little snippet on how the Wrights developed their first propeller. Hoping at first to extrapolate data from marine propellers, they found that no such data actually existed, and that they must develop from theory alone. This proved quite difficult, and Orville's account of the process includes the following gem:

We engaged in innumerable discussions, and often after an hour or so of heated argument- , we would discover that we were as far from agreement as when we started, but that both had changed to the other's original position in the discussion.

[Dragon]

... snip

And if you're proved wrong, as Velikovsky was a hundred times over, you do the honorable thing and change your hypothesis and say "Whoops, guess the data proves that theory wrong! Dang, it was a nice one, too. Oh, well, que sera, sera," and print retractions. You do not cling to your theory and cry like a little girl and claim that the scientific establishment is crushing you. That's just kinda sad.
...Quite, or as Bob Park put it Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right.

[kookbreaker]

The "utterly impossible" quote may have been picked up by Milton from the Internet, which earns him a demerit. However, if you bother to read Newcomb's 1903 article, he clearly believed that heavier than air flight was impossible in the foreseeable future. For example:


And if your read quotes by Orville Wright you would hear the factual conclusion that he did not beleive man would fly for a thousand years. I guess that means the Wright Brothers never flew.


"We cannot have muscles or nerves for our flying machine. We have to replace them by such crude and clumsy adjuncts as steam engines and electric batteries. It may certainly seem singular if man is never to discover any combination of substances which, under the influence of some such agency as an electric current, shall expand and contract like a muscle. But, if he is ever to do so, the time is still in the future. We do not see the dawn of the age in which such a result will be brought forth."


Note the use of the terminology here. Newcomb is showing some ignorance of combustion engine technology...which was rapidly improving. His reference to only steam engines and batteries betrays this.


"But I do think that success must await progress of a different kind from that of invention."


Golly!


"But we have already seen that there is no mechanical combination, and no way of applying force, which will give to the aeroplanes the flexibility and rapidity of movement belonging to the wings of a bird. That this difficulty is insurmountable would seem to be a very fair deduction."


As other pointed out already, he was right in this regard. Ornithoptors do not work for human flight.

I would also point out, that even if Newcombe was declaring flight to be impossible, he was hardly in the majority. To date, several prominent scientists had acheived flight, but without control.


"If, therefore, we are ever to have aerial navigation with our present knowledge of natural capabilities, it is to the airship floating in the air, rather than the flying machine resting on the air, to which we are to look."


Note that he never said airplanes were impossible.


So what was the context?


You tell me.


I think a fair inference is that, while some of the SciAm staffers may have had an open mind toward the Wright Brothers' achievement, the editors of SciAm did not. Or are you challenging the accuracy of Milton's quote from the January 1905 SciAm?

"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"


That has little to do with anything, really. Again, the doubt in question is aimed at the Wright brothers, not in the possibility of flight in general


What is your evidence that they were coy? According to http://www.wrightstories.com/history.html --

"First Flight News: When Loren Wright presented the telegram from Orville and Wilbur describing their first flight on Feb. 17, 1903, the editor of the Dayton paper didn’t publish the news because he didn’t he didn’t see anything significant enough to publish."


Tell me how many public demonstrations of flight they made between Kitty Hawk and the Military Demonstration? That's what I mean about being coy. They weren't shy from publicity, they just weren't going to show their machine to everyone, only to have it copied.


Profound, and a great way to elevate the discussion.

I call them like I see them. Milton is an idiot, and you are twice the fool for following him. Both of you show rampant ignorance of history and you dare accuse others of the same thing.

[Rodney]

Even if the Newcomb quote is genuine, and even if it did represent the attitude of the majority of the scientifc community at the time, the history to me shows a fine example of how well science, including skepticism, works. People can reasonably doubt that an unlikely thing has been done until they see it done. When they see it done, they change their minds.

It's difficult to cling to a belief that heavier than air flight is impossible when an airplane is flying overhead, but some truths are more subtle; for example, meteorites. Now, in that case, meteorite debunkers in the French Academy of Sciences (FAS) had the misfortune of having a meteorite shower occur nearby in 1803, but what if that hadn't happened? How long would it have been before the FAS accepted the reality of meteorites?

More recently, Edgar Cayce demonstrated conclusively the reality of psychic phenomena in the first half of the 20th Century, but the scientific community largely ignored him. Today, Randi, Robert Carroll, Martin Gardner, and many participants in these forums, either because they have not undertaken a sufficient examination of Cayce or because accepting the reality of what he did is too disturbing to their worldview, make him out to be a charlatan. There is also the intriguing ongoing work of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) team -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ -- which debunkers claim must be flawed, even if they cannot demonstrate how.

[UrsulaV]

More recently, Edgar Cayce demonstrated conclusively the reality of psychic phenomena in the first half of the 20th Century,

Ya know, I've noticed something here, Rodney...you haven't said a word in support of Velikosky. You haven't presented a single fact about his theories that I've see, nor a single defense of his reasoning.

Instead you seem to think that because science is against him, he must be right--apparently because some people scoffed at lighter than air travel, and the scientific world doesn't think Cayce was anything but a crackpot. You appear to be arguing, not based on facts, but based on an emotional appeal that because science dismisses Cayce (whom you believe) and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, that Velikosky must be right, because ooo, science dismisses him, too!

You got any actual facts about worlds in collision, or are you just proceeding on the notion that if scientists think it's idiotic, it must be true?

Hmm...I wonder if the Wright Brothers made use of any ramps...

[kookbreaker]

More recently, Edgar Cayce demonstrated conclusively the reality of psychic phenomena in the first half of the 20th Century, but the scientific community largely ignored him. Today, Randi, Robert Carroll, Martin Gardner, and many participants in these forums, either because they have not undertaken a sufficient examination of Cayce or because accepting the reality of what he did is too disturbing to their worldview, make him out to be a charlatan. There is also the intriguing ongoing work of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) team -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ -- which debunkers claim must be flawed, even if they cannot demonstrate how.

And yet, PEAR admits that they haven't really found anything.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm

One can safely assume your asessment of Cayce is equally over-optimistic.

[bruto]

It's difficult to cling to a belief that heavier than air flight is impossible when an airplane is flying overhead, but some truths are more subtle; for example, meteorites. Now, in that case, meteorite debunkers in the French Academy of Sciences (FAS) had the misfortune of having a meteorite shower occur nearby in 1803, but what if that hadn't happened? How long would it have been before the FAS accepted the reality of meteorites?

More recently, Edgar Cayce demonstrated conclusively the reality of psychic phenomena in the first half of the 20th Century, but the scientific community largely ignored him. Today, Randi, Robert Carroll, Martin Gardner, and many participants in these forums, either because they have not undertaken a sufficient examination of Cayce or because accepting the reality of what he did is too disturbing to their worldview, make him out to be a charlatan. There is also the intriguing ongoing work of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) team -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ -- which debunkers claim must be flawed, even if they cannot demonstrate how.


It never fails to surprise me how people can use examples of real things being proven real as evidence that we ought to accept nonsense as real without proof.

So the French Academy doubted meteorites until they saw some. Then they stopped doubting, because they then knew the meteorites were real. If it hadn't happened in one place at one time it would have happened at another. It should be pointed out that since Isaac Newton had mistakenly believed that no such small objects would be adrift in space, there was some resistance to the idea, and occasional meteorites were explained away by other theories, so it took some time before the evidence overcame the theory. But it did, of course. As occurs so often, scientists learned from experience, changed their theories as required by evidence, and went ahead. In other words, here is another example of science working correctly used as an argument for abandoning science.

You can add me to the list of people who consider Cayce a charlatan. Needless to say if he had indeed "demonstrated conclusively" anything other than the gullibility of numerous people, then his prophecies and cures and other hokum would be accepted. That's what it means to demonstrate something conclusively.

[PixyMisa]

And yet, PEAR admits that they haven't really found anything.
More than that, they admit that their experimental and statistical methods are seriously flawed.

But then they discovered that rigorous controls and proper statistical analysis eliminated any positive results, so they decided not to do that. :rolleyes: (Read the meta-analysis paper. That's what it says.)

[PixyMisa]

More recently, Edgar Cayce demonstrated conclusively the reality of psychic phenomena in the first half of the 20th Century
:notm

[LW]

The "utterly impossible" quote may have been picked up by Milton from the Internet, which earns him a demerit. However, if you bother to read Newcomb's 1903 article, he clearly believed that heavier than air flight was impossible in the foreseeable future.

How did you miss this one from the third page of the article:
Quite likely the twentieth century is destined to see the natural forces which will enable us to fly from continent to continent with a speed far exceeding that of the bird.

[Rodney]

And yet, PEAR admits that they haven't really found anything.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm


Your skeptic's report picks a convenient strawman, rather than examining the great bulk of PEAR's tests. As this link -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html -- explains:

"The most substantial portion of the PEAR experimental program examines anomalies arising in human/machine interactions. In these studies human operators attempt to bias the output of a variety of mechanical, electronic, optical, acoustical, and fluid devices to conform to pre-stated intentions, without recourse to any known physical influences. In unattended calibrations all of these sophisticated machines produce strictly random data, yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the consciousness of their human operators.

"Over the laboratory’s 27-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, have been performed by several hundred operators. The observed effects are usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average, but they compound to highly significant statistical deviations from chance expectations. These results are summarized in 'Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention' and 'The PEAR Proposition'."

One can safely assume your asessment of Cayce is equally over-optimistic.
Even if I were wrong about PEAR's research, that does not logically follow. You might try researching Cayce for yourself. If you do, you'll be one up on Randi.

[Rodney]

More than that, they admit that their experimental and statistical methods are seriously flawed.

But then they discovered that rigorous controls and proper statistical analysis eliminated any positive results, so they decided not to do that. :rolleyes: (Read the meta-analysis paper. That's what it says.)

Here is what the abstract of the "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program" states:

"Strong correlations between output distribution means of a variety of random binary processes and prestated intentions of some 100 individual human operators have been established over a 12-year experimental program. More than 1000 experimental series, employing four different categories of random devices and several distinctive protocols, show comparable magnitudes of anomalous mean shifts from chance expectation, with similar distribution structures. Although the absolute effect sizes are quite small, of the order of 10 –4 bits deviation per bit processed, over the huge databases accumulated the composite effect exceeds 7? (p a 3.5 × 10 –13 ). These data display significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent serial position effects in individual and collective results. Data generated by operators far removed from the machines and exerting their efforts at times other than those of machine operation show similar effect sizes and structural details to those of the local, on-time experiments. Most other secondary parameters tested are found to have little effect on the scale and character of the results, with one important exception: studies performed using fully deterministic pseudorandom sources, either hard-wired or algorithmic, yield null overall mean shifts, and display no other anomalous features."

[kookbreaker]

Your skeptic's report picks a convenient strawman, rather than examining the great bulk of PEAR's tests. As this link -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html -- explains:

"The most substantial portion of the PEAR experimental program examines anomalies arising in human/machine interactions. In these studies human operators attempt to bias the output of a variety of mechanical, electronic, optical, acoustical, and fluid devices to conform to pre-stated intentions, without recourse to any known physical influences. In unattended calibrations all of these sophisticated machines produce strictly random data, yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the consciousness of their human operators.

"Over the laboratory’s 27-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, have been performed by several hundred operators. The observed effects are usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average, but they compound to highly significant statistical deviations from chance expectations. These results are summarized in 'Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention' and 'The PEAR Proposition'."


That's nice. So why did they admit that their work has not produced anything above chance levels.



Even if I were wrong about PEAR's research, that does not logically follow. You might try researching Cayce for yourself. If you do, you'll be one up on Randi.

Oh, I might then know more about what a con-artist he was than Randi? Possible I suppose.

Cayce hasn't produced diddley-squat for decent evidence. Just more woowoo junk.

[Rodney]

How did you miss this one from the third page of the article:

I didn't miss it; it's irrelevant. Newcomb unequivocally believed that heavier than air flight was impossible given the technology that existed in 1903. What he was talking about there was the possibility that such flight could eventually take place many years in the future given a quantum leap in technology. No such leap was needed.

[Rodney]

That's nice. So why did they admit that their work has not produced anything above chance levels.

3.5 × 10 –13 is not above the chance level?

Oh, I might then know more about what a con-artist he was than Randi? Possible I suppose.

Cayce hasn't produced diddley-squat for decent evidence. Just more woowoo junk.

How do you know if you haven't examined Cayce's documented record?

[kookbreaker]

I didn't miss it; it's irrelevant. Newcomb unequivocally believed that heavier than air flight was impossible given the technology that existed in 1903. What he was talking about there was the possibility that such flight could eventually take place many years in the future given a quantum leap in technology.

Interesting that he states categoricly that he beleives that such technology would come avaialble in the 20th century. Wheras that skeptical doubter Orville Wright predicted scientificly that Man would not fly for another thousand years. WHy is Newcomb taken to task for his relative optimism?


No such leap was needed.

No it was not. As I pointed out Newcomb was woefully ignorant of IC engine technology. The fact that the Wright's had to have a very carefully built special IC engine to boot it is easy to see how such an oversight could be made. Predicting technology is always a nasty game to play, but it is a far cry from declaring that Flying Machines are Impossible as Milton claims.

Incidently, some folks might want to go look at Milton's brief forays into USENET around 2000 or so. He really made quite a show of ignorance in that little display, as bad as he was taken to task for his ineptness on the Wright brothers, he got reamed for his ignorance surrounding Galileo.

[kookbreaker]

3.5 × 10 –13 is not above the chance level?


Its pretty fracking weak, actually. Do you understand those numbers?

Why did they admit to having levels no better than chance?


How do you know if you haven't examined Cayce's documented record?

oooh! Like Posidea rising in 1968?

[PixyMisa]

Acutally, that's PEAR's calculated probability that it happened by chance, so what they are saying is that it is very very unlikely.

What Rodney doesn't mention is that the meta-analysis paper admits that both their experimental design and their statistical methods were suspect, and that when they corrected for this, all positive results disappeared.

[PixyMisa]

How do you know if you haven't examined Cayce's documented record?
What in Cayce's documented record is other than woowoo junk?

[Ladewig]

What in Cayce's documented record is other than woowoo junk?

Rodney, how's chances of answering this question in a new thread? I think Cayce deserves his own thread.

[Rodney]

Acutally, that's PEAR's calculated probability that it happened by chance, so what they are saying is that it is very very unlikely.

Yes. P = 3.5 x 10^-13 means that there is a probability of only 1 in 35 trillion of the results happening by chance.

What Rodney doesn't mention is that the meta-analysis paper admits that both their experimental design and their statistical methods were suspect, and that when they corrected for this, all positive results disappeared.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please supply an excerpt from the paper.

[Rodney]

Rodney, how's chances of answering this question in a new thread? I think Cayce deserves his own thread.

I agree, and as a matter of fact there already is one. It's titled "Edgar Cayce - for real, or a lucky guesser?" in the General Skepticism and The Paranormal category. I have made several posts in that thread, with the last one on December 16, 2005. No one responded to my last post, and so perhaps PixyMisa can have the honor. :)

[PixyMisa]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please supply an excerpt from the paper. There was a detailed discussion of the PEAR meta-analysis paper on these forums about three years ago. I posted one lengthy item that dissected the paper; there were quite a lot of other good posts.

Unfortunately, the whole thing was lost in the Great Purge, and all you can find now is references to the original threads. I know someone kept copies of some of the posts, though, so maybe they will comment here.

Right now I can't even download the paper, but I'll try again later.

Edit: Found it! But it was not so lengthy as all that.

[PixyMisa]

Aha! Yes, Ed saved a copy of it and re-posted it in a later thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=480414#post480414).

But everything you need to know is contained in this one short quote from the paper:

Yet, like so much of the research in consciousness-related anomalies, replication, enhancement, and interpretation of these results proved elusive. As the program advanced and the analytical techniques became more sophisticated, the empirical results became weaker. It appeared as if each subsequent refinement of the analytical process, intended to improve the quality and reliability of the “information net,” had resulted in a reduction of the amount of raw information being captured. This diminution of the experimental yield prompted extensive examination of numerous factors that could have contributed to it, but after exploring and precluding various possible sources of statistical or procedural artifact, we concluded that the cause of the problem most likely lay somewhere in the subjective sphere of the experience.

As I said at the time:

In other words:

1. We performed an experiment with lousy controls and indifferent analytical methods and got a strong positive result.
2. Every time we tighten the controls or refine the analysis, the result gets statistically weaker.
3. Therefore the problem lies "somewhere in the subjective sphere of the experience".

Ignoring the First Rule of Holes, they went on:

As we pondered this paradox, we became cognizant of a number of subtler, less quantifiable factors that also might have had an inhibitory effect on the experiments, such as the laboratory ambience in which the experiments were being conducted. For example, during the period in which the FIDO data were being generated, we were distracted by the need to invest a major effort in preparing a rebuttal to an article critical of PEAR’s PRP program. Most of the issues raised therein were irrelevant, incorrect, or already had been dealt with comprehensively elsewhere, and had been shown to be inadequate to account for the observed effects. Notwithstanding, preparation of a systematic refutation deflected a disproportionate amount of attention from, and dampened the enthusiasm for, the experiments being carried out during that time. Beyond this, in order to forestall further such specious challenges, it led to the imposition of additional unnecessary constraints in the design of the subsequent distributive protocol. Although it is not possible to quantify the influence of such intangible factors, in the study of consciousness-related anomalies where unknown psychological factors appear to be at the heart of the phenomena under study, they cannot be dismissed casually. Neither can they be interpreted easily.

My response:

In other words: While we were busy addressing our previous stuff-ups, our latest experiment went to Hell. Further, tight experimental control places "unnecessary constraints" on our research, and this "intangible factor" is inhibiting the "phenomena under study".

[Rodney]

Aha! Yes, Ed saved a copy of it and re-posted it in a later thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=480414#post480414).

But everything you need to know is contained in this one short quote from the paper:

As I said at the time:

In other words:

1. We performed an experiment with lousy controls and indifferent analytical methods and got a strong positive result.
2. Every time we tighten the controls or refine the analysis, the result gets statistically weaker.
3. Therefore the problem lies "somewhere in the subjective sphere of the experience".

Ignoring the First Rule of Holes, they went on:

My response:

In other words: While we were busy addressing our previous stuff-ups, our latest experiment went to Hell. Further, tight experimental control places "unnecessary constraints" on our research, and this "intangible factor" is inhibiting the "phenomena under study".

The prior thread was discussing a different PEAR paper. I suggest you read the paper that I referenced: "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program." The summary of that paper states:

"The extensive databases described above, comprising more than 1500 complete experimental series generated over a period of 12 years in rigid tripolar protocols by over 100 unselected human operators using several random digital processors, display the following salient features:

1. Strong statistical correlations between the means of the output distributions and the pre-recorded intentions of the operators appear in virtually all of the experiments using random sources.
2. Such correlations are not found in those experiments using deterministic pseudorandom sources.
3. The overall scale of the anomalous mean shifts are of the order of 10^–4 bits per bit processed which, over the full composite database, compounds to a statistical deviation of more than 7 sigma (p a 3.5 × 10^ –13 ).
4. While characteristic distinctions among individual operator performances are difficult to confirm analytically, a number of significant differences between female and male operator performance are demonstrable.
5. The series score distributions and the count population distributions in both the collective and individual operator data are consistent with chance distributions based on slightly altered binary probabilities.
6. Oscillatory series position patterns in collective and individual operator performance appear in much of the data, complicating the replication criteria.
7. Experiments performed by operators far removed from the devices, or exerting their intentions at times other than that of device operation, yield results of comparable scale and character to those of the local, on-time experiments. Such remote, off-time results have been demonstrated on all of the random sources.
8. Appropriate internal consistency, and inter-experiment and inter-laboratory replicability of the generic features of these anomalous results have been established.
9. A much broader range of random-source experiments currently in progress display a similar scale and character of anomalous results."

[UrsulaV]

But ya know, no matter how many experimental controls one slaps or doesn't slap on PEAR, and no matter how many times Cayce predicted Atlantis rising, Venus still isn't a comet.

Y'ever gonna address the point about Velikovsky, Rodney, or are you still just defending anything that science considers crackpot because the crackpot theory of my enemy's enemy is my friend?

[Rodney]

But ya know, no matter how many experimental controls one slaps or doesn't slap on PEAR, and no matter how many times Cayce predicted Atlantis rising, Venus still isn't a comet.

Y'ever gonna address the point about Velikovsky, Rodney, or are you still just defending anything that science considers crackpot because the crackpot theory of my enemy's enemy is my friend?

Velikovsky is only peripherally relevant to this thread. As far as I can tell, the author of "Forbidden Science" -- Richard Milton -- never mentions him on Milton's website -- http://www.alternativescience.com

I don't subscribe to the theory that anyone who is treated contemptuously by mainstream scientists must be on to something of importance, but why do so many mainstream scientists have such contempt? Could it possibly be that they are insecure and are worried that their most cherished beliefs are flat out wrong? :(

[PixyMisa]

The prior thread was discussing a different PEAR paper. I suggest you read the paper that I referenced: "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program." The summary of that paper states

Blah blah.

Yeah. But we know, by their own admission, no, by their detailed analysis, that every experiment that PEAR runs is poorly designed and that their statistical work is shoddy. All special pleading aside ("skeptic effect" my butt), I see no reason whatsoever to expect that any other study is going to produce results that are both positive and meaningful.

PEAR always claims that they ave found something, and that something always disappears when proper experimental control and statistical methods are introduced. Their current work with the EGGs is an example; it is complete and irredeemable crap from both the perspective of experimental design (no controls; not even the possibility for controls) and statistical methods (cherry-pickers have nothing on these guys).

Why, honestly, why should I even look at this particular paper?

[PixyMisa]

I don't subscribe to the theory that anyone who is treated contemptuously by mainstream scientists must be on to something of importance, but why do so many mainstream scientists have such contempt?
Because Velikovsky was an idiot, as has been copiously demonstrated.

Could it possibly be that they are insecure and are worried that their most cherished beliefs are flat out wrong? :(
No.

Because we know perfectly well that science is not "flat out wrong". If it was, we wouldn't be here (for many different senses of here).

Science is right, because it works. Velikovsky is a nut, and Cayce a fraud, because what they claimed doesn't work.

[Mojo]

Velikovsky is only peripherally relevant to this thread. As far as I can tell, the author of "Forbidden Science" -- Richard Milton -- never mentions him on Milton's website -- http://www.alternativescience.com
Apart from here (http://www.alternativescience.com/alternative-science-chapter11.htm), of course. At the height of the Velikovsky affair described in the previous chapter...He's just chosen not to publish the previous chapter of the book on his website.

In any case, according to love, who started this thread, the thread is about his book Forbidden Science (incidentally, there's no book of this title listed on his "Books" page (http://www.alternativescience.com/richard-milton-books.htm). Is "Forbidden Science" an alternative title for "Alternative Science"?): I am currently reading a book by Richard Milton called Forbidden Science. Has anyone else here read it?

I think he makes some interesting points.
And what did love think the interesting points in the book include?
Perhaps the most interesting story in the book is about Velikovsky. He actually made several bold predictions, that were regarded as impossible at the time. These predictions were later confirmed by science, yet his theories are still not generally accepted.

[Rodney]

Blah blah.

Yeah. But we know, by their own admission, no, by their detailed analysis, that every experiment that PEAR runs is poorly designed and that their statistical work is shoddy. All special pleading aside ("skeptic effect" my butt), I see no reason whatsoever to expect that any other study is going to produce results that are both positive and meaningful.

PEAR always claims that they ave found something, and that something always disappears when proper experimental control and statistical methods are introduced. Their current work with the EGGs is an example; it is complete and irredeemable crap from both the perspective of experimental design (no controls; not even the possibility for controls) and statistical methods (cherry-pickers have nothing on these guys).

Why, honestly, why should I even look at this particular paper?

If your mind is open, you might learn something.

[Rodney]

Because Velikovsky was an idiot, as has been copiously demonstrated.


No.

Because we know perfectly well that science is not "flat out wrong". If it was, we wouldn't be here (for many different senses of here).

Science is right, because it works. Velikovsky is a nut, and Cayce a fraud, because what they claimed doesn't work.

If you believe Cayce is a fraud, you are woefully ignorant.

[Rodney]

Apart from here (http://www.alternativescience.com/alternative-science-chapter11.htm), of course.

He's just chosen not to publish the previous chapter of the book on his website.

Sorry, I missed that, and I haven't read Milton's book.

In any case, according to love, who started this thread, the thread is about his book Forbidden Science (incidentally, there's no book of this title listed on his "Books" page (http://www.alternativescience.com/richard-milton-books.htm). Is "Forbidden Science" an alternative title for "Alternative Science"?):
And what did love think the interesting points in the book include?

Having now looked into this matter a little more, it appears that Love misstated the title of Milton's book. The main point here is that Milton has an extensive discussion of many subjects on his website, but he accords Velikovsky only a passing mention.

[kookbreaker]

If you believe Cayce is a fraud, you are woefully ignorant.

Wow...there's stunning proof right there. :rolleyes:

[kookbreaker]

If your mind is open, you might learn something.

He already did: He learned that PEAR prefers sloppy work so they can get results to trumpet.

[UrsulaV]

If you believe Cayce is a fraud, you are woefully ignorant.

Oh, well, now that you've said THAT of course I believe you! All those facts and evidence I was hoping for are just swept away by that brilliant statement!




*RAMPS!*



(ahem.)

[Genesius]

If you believe Cayce is a fraud, you are woefully ignorant.

We are talking about the same Edgar Cayce who predicted that Atlantis would rise again in 1968 or 1969. Why yes, obviously he was the real thing! I'm leaving tomorrow on a Carnival Atlantis Cruise, complete with souvenir power crystal!

Never mind pesky things like geology and oceanography telling us that a giant mid-ocean continent never existed. If Cayce said it was there, he must be right!

:rolleyes:

[Hawk one]

Genesius: And wasn't New York and another major city supposed to sink into the ocean as well? And wasn't the poles supposed to shift?


Gee, who could ever doubt the credibility of a person that's so accurate in his predictions?

[BillHoyt]

How do you know if you haven't examined Cayce's documented record?
There are far too many woos out there. If we had to respond to each of these challenges we'd never get anything done. If Cayce has a documented record worthy of investigation, then I'd expect it to have attracted enough interest for a researcher to follow up on it. Virginia Beach is home to the Edgar Cayce Foundation, an organization with enough funds to command somebody's attention. For some reason, though, no investigator has come in and found enough evidence for a peer-reviewed paper. It is a wonder, isn't it? What with a publish-or-perish academic world, it is a wonder somebody hasn't made him- or herself full professor with peer-reviewed papers showing strong evidence there really was something to Cayce!

[Rodney]

There are far too many woos out there. If we had to respond to each of these challenges we'd never get anything done. If Cayce has a documented record worthy of investigation, then I'd expect it to have attracted enough interest for a researcher to follow up on it. Virginia Beach is home to the Edgar Cayce Foundation, an organization with enough funds to command somebody's attention. For some reason, though, no investigator has come in and found enough evidence for a peer-reviewed paper. It is a wonder, isn't it? What with a publish-or-perish academic world, it is a wonder somebody hasn't made him- or herself full professor with peer-reviewed papers showing strong evidence there really was something to Cayce!

Cayce has been thoroughly investigated by many researchers, past and present, and none of those thorough researchers (as opposed to the Martin Gardners, James Randis, and Robert Carrolls of the world) have concluded that he was a fraud. Sidney Kirkpatrick's 2000 book "Edgar Cayce -- An American Prophet" states at p. 170: "[In December 1911] a . . . thorough investigation [of Cayce] was . . . conducted by Dr. Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard University, former president of the American Psychology Association, and a friend and associate of William James . . . There was no question what his intentions were, for he told his students and faculty members at Harvard before he left that the reason for his trip was 'to expose Cayce to the world.'"

At p. 171, Kirkpatrick's book notes that Munsterberg observed a Cayce reading and interviewed the family of Aime Dietrich (a 6-year old girl whom Cayce had cured of a supposedly incurable condition) and Cayce patients over a two-day period. P. 171 states: "At the end of his visit, Munsterberg admitted to Edgar that he had no explanation for what he had seen and heard, but he had to conclude that Edgar was the real thing. He also urged Edgar to continue: 'If you never do another case other than the little Dietrich child, your life has not been in vain,' he said. 'I believe you will go far.'"

[PixyMisa]

He already did: He learned that PEAR prefers sloppy work so they can get results to trumpet.
And also that they are honest enough to admit that their work is sloppy, but not honest enough to themselves to admit that this is the only reason they ever get positive results.

The PEAR researchers are, for the most part, deluded like dowsers, rather than out-and-out frauds like, oh, Edgar Cayce, just to pick a name out of the air.

[burrahobbit]

At p. 171, Kirkpatrick's book notes that Munsterberg observed a Cayce reading .....

Hows that for direct evidence!!

What if anything did Munsterberg PUBLISH.

[bruto]

Hows that for direct evidence!!

What if anything did Munsterberg PUBLISH.

I think Munsterberg published a great deal, because he was a very prominent psychologist. It appears he did not, however, publish anything on his purported investigation of Cayce. Just about every Cayce-related woo site on the net mentions this supposed encounter, but it doesn't add up to much. Without a published report by Munsterberg himself, the entire statement attributed to him is hearsay, and it should be pretty obvious to anyone thinking about it that if the question before us is whether or not Cayce was a charlatan and a liar, this question will not be well answered by his own statements!

Even if Munsterberg did think highly of Cayce it would still not add up to much. If he followed in the footsteps of his mentor William James, it is likely he was pretty non-critical about psychic phenomena. Many people have been. We just might have learned a thing or two in the intervening 95 years, too. In any case, since Munsterberg did not see fit to publish his opinion, we can only guess whether or not it was given as we hear it now, whether it was a considered opinion or just a polite and enthusiastic reaction to a good show, and whether or not he changed his mind later.

[BillHoyt]

Cayce has been thoroughly investigated by many researchers, past and present, and none of those thorough researchers (as opposed to the Martin Gardners, James Randis, and Robert Carrolls of the world) have concluded that he was a fraud. Sidney Kirkpatrick's 2000 book "Edgar Cayce -- An American Prophet" states at p. 170: "[In December 1911] a . . . thorough investigation [of Cayce] was . . . conducted by Dr. Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard University, former president of the American Psychology Association, and a friend and associate of William James . . . There was no question what his intentions were, for he told his students and faculty members at Harvard before he left that the reason for his trip was 'to expose Cayce to the world.'"

At p. 171, Kirkpatrick's book notes that Munsterberg observed a Cayce reading and interviewed the family of Aime Dietrich (a 6-year old girl whom Cayce had cured of a supposedly incurable condition) and Cayce patients over a two-day period. P. 171 states: "At the end of his visit, Munsterberg admitted to Edgar that he had no explanation for what he had seen and heard, but he had to conclude that Edgar was the real thing. He also urged Edgar to continue: 'If you never do another case other than the little Dietrich child, your life has not been in vain,' he said. 'I believe you will go far.'"
I'm going to hazard a guess that you missed an essential bit of my quote:
For some reason, though, no investigator has come in and found enough evidence for a peer-reviewed paper. It is a wonder, isn't it? What with a publish-or-perish academic world, it is a wonder somebody hasn't made him- or herself full professor with peer-reviewed papers showing strong evidence there really was something to Cayce!

The key here is "peer-reviewed," as in a scientific journal. Not a popular-press book.

[Psiload]

If you believe Cayce is a fraud, you are woefully ignorant.
How about we take a quick look at Cayce's legacy, shall we? First, we'll take a peek at Cayce's unique contributions to modern medicine:

-Bupkis

Now we'll go right to the source:

http://www.edgarcayce.org/

Impressive...

-Past life readings, the (neverending) search for Atlantis, astrology charts, etc...

Here's an example of Cayce's legacy of cutting edge medical advice:

"Q. Please give me the cause and cure for the so-called psoriasis with which I am troubled."

"A. The cause is the thinning of the walls of the intestinal system, which allows the escaping of poisons - or the absorption of same by the muco-membranes which surround same, and becomes effective in the irritation through the lymph and emunctory reactions in the body. The conditions that exist through the thinning of the walls of the intestines allow the poisons to find expressions in the lymph circulation; thus producing the irritation to and through the epidermis itself..."

Here is a basic treatment protocol for psoriasis:

SPINAL ADJUSTMENT: One of the primary causes of thinned intestinal walls identified by Edgar Cayce are problems with the spine. Pressures on certain spinal nerves (particularly the mid-dorsal area) can compromise the nerve energy to the intestinal tract. Osteopathic or chiropractic treatment can help correct the misalignment of spinal vertebrae and improve nerve functioning.

Genius. Sheer genius. :nope:

[Starrman]

[QUOTE=love;1383913] When steam trains were invented, it was claimed that man would die if he travelled above 15mph. QUOTE]

This has to be the single dumbest thing I have ever read. I suppose it is possible that this could be something that maybe someone said at some time when the steam trains were first invented (around 1804) - but apparently that person had never heard of people sprinting, riding horses or perhaps rolling on a cart down a hill. Certainly plenty of people thorugh history had already gone that fast and survived just fine. So, did you make that up or what?

Also - you questioned why we believe NASA and not Voaidfasky. NASA just completed shooting a projectile and landing it on a comet based on the mathematics they use. How close do you think they could have gotten using that dude's book?

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
Also - you questioned why we believe NASA and not Voaidfasky. NASA just completed shooting a projectile and landing it on a comet based on the mathematics they use. How close do you think they could have gotten using that dude's book?

Uhm...
Planet X?

[blutoski]

Velikovsky is only peripherally relevant to this thread. As far as I can tell, the author of "Forbidden Science" -- Richard Milton -- never mentions him on Milton's website -- http://www.alternativescience.com

I don't subscribe to the theory that anyone who is treated contemptuously by mainstream scientists must be on to something of importance, but why do so many mainstream scientists have such contempt? Could it possibly be that they are insecure and are worried that their most cherished beliefs are flat out wrong? :(

No, it's because they started out very polite, but realized the critics were not sincere. You see this on this forum from time to time. The critic pretends to be just curious, then over time, their agenda reveals itself, they make ugly accusations (such as the snarky accusation that curtness must be evidence that somebody is "insecure").

People ask the same thing about why, for example, JR comes across as so cranky. The answer is: because he's met the lowest of the low and has concluded that patience and politeness are rarely reciprocated.

Once bitten; twice shy.


This isn't an excuse for outright rudeness, but when confronted with "only idiots or robots refuse to accept that I can fly", there's no obligation to provide a polite response.

[blutoski]

When steam trains were invented, it was claimed that man would die if he travelled above 15mph.

This has to be the single dumbest thing I have ever read.

It's an exaggeration, and vague anyway. It was not a scientific claim: it was the claim of altmed quacks, religous nuts, and blowhards with newspaper columns that travelling over 60mph was very dangerous. This is why the public called them "locomotives" - "crazy motion". It was the cat-in-the-microwave urban legend of its day. It didn't impact their ongoing scientific development. "you'll leave your soul behind" didn't sound very persuasive to engineers.

There are other "cards" that get played:

* the Galileo card - people seem to think that Galileo was vilified by his scientific peers. Galileo was a scientific celebrity, and ran into trouble when he contradicted the Vatican.

* the bee's can't fly card - obscure comment that is exaggerated by antiscience critics as having been an actual claim

* the Columbus card - scientists *did* laugh at Columbus. As it turns out, they were right - Japan isn't 1,000km West of Spain after all.

* the Einstein card - the portrayal of a scientist railing against a stubborn system. Does this make sense? The paradigm shift was swift and he was given Nobel prizes. The only time he really ran into grief was when altmedders and antiscience cranks took over the German government and he had to flee for his life.

[brodski]

The only time he really ran into grief was when altmedders and antiscience cranks took over the German government and he had to flee for his life. :D

yeah, a predilection for herbalism and crystal healing was the very worst thing about the Nazis.

Mind you The reich to last 1000 years, does seem to have been the original "new age" :p

[blutoski]

Venus being hot, and having a hydrocarbon atmosphere are evidence for Venus having been comet.


That's ridiculous. Comets are cold (a good shorthand description of a comet is: "an iceball") They are too small to have atmospheres. They originate from the perimeter of the solar system and have very long orbits. They are composed mostly of a mushy mix of small rocks glued together with material that was probably liquid when the comet was formed (back to the "iceball" analogy). They are never solid rock.

The sun is hot and has a hydrocarbon atmosphere. Is it a comet? These criteria are irrelevant to comet-ness.


Venus:
* does not have a "hydrocarbon" atmosphere anyway

* the surface temperature is hotter than expected, which has a perfectly ordinary explanation, but the overall planetary temperature is cooler than Velikovsky predicted, and his theory cannot explain that

[bruto]

It's an exaggeration, and vague anyway. It was not a scientific claim: it was the claim of altmed quacks, religous nuts, and blowhards with newspaper columns that travelling over 60mph was very dangerous. This is why the public called them "locomotives" - "crazy motion". It was the cat-in-the-microwave urban legend of its day. It didn't impact their ongoing scientific development. "you'll leave your soul behind" didn't sound very persuasive to engineers.

There are other "cards" that get played:

* the Galileo card - people seem to think that Galileo was vilified by his scientific peers. Galileo was a scientific celebrity, and ran into trouble when he contradicted the Vatican.

* the bee's can't fly card - obscure comment that is exaggerated by antiscience critics as having been an actual claim

* the Columbus card - scientists *did* laugh at Columbus. As it turns out, they were right - Japan isn't 1,000km West of Spain after all.

* the Einstein card - the portrayal of a scientist railing against a stubborn system. Does this make sense? The paradigm shift was swift and he was given Nobel prizes. The only time he really ran into grief was when altmedders and antiscience cranks took over the German government and he had to flee for his life.


Nice, except I think you'll find the root word for "locomotive" is "locus" for place, not "loco" for crazy. And of course the Nazis hated Einstein because he was Jewish.

[blutoski]

The issue is not whether there are traces of Hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of venus (AFAIK there are not but I am not an expert). The issue is whether there is enough to explain manna etc.


And whether the connection is even plausible. When hydrocarbons are exposed to Earth's atmosphere, what happens today?

eg: when you spill gasoline, does it turn into manna?


Also, note: the claim has shifted akwardly:

"fact: venus has a hydrocarbon atmosphere"
"possibility: venus may have traces of hydrocarbons somewhere in its atmosphere, although we haven't found them for looking"

Yet, these are both considered 100% consistent with Velikovsky's claims!

[blutoski]

Nice, except I think you'll find the root word for "locomotive" is "locus" for place, not "loco" for crazy. And of course the Nazis hated Einstein because he was Jewish.

re: locomotive. Duly noted.

re: Einstein. Einstein was not the only scientist persecuted by the Reich for supporting Quantum and Relativity, and only a few of them were Jewish. German scientific progress ground to a halt in the 1930s because only 'German' theories were given support. eg: the resurgence of homeopathy.

[blutoski]

It was also claimed by Scientific American that manned flight was impossible when the Wright brothers started making their experimental flying machines.

I didn't see this one. This is also a 'card'. Similar to the bees-can't-fly card (I guess it's a people-can't-fly card)

SA claimed that the Wright brothers were lying, but not about flight being "possible". They were at the time, offerenig a prize for demonstrating manned flight, because they were so confident it was an emerging technology.

The controversy was that the Wright brothers made their announcement after some other inventors had publicly demonstrated flight, but their claim was that they had flown *first*. They had conducted their tests in secret, and SA felt they were claiming to be first in order to grab prize money and patents.

Fortunately, the Wright brothers were able to substantiate their claim, and were ultimately vindicated.

[blutoski]

It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality.

Yes, but be aware that Dumont had been flying since 1905 in front of everybody. Roosevelt 'ordered' trials, because he wanted a proper demo before buying. The Army had already agreed to purchase several Wright planes.


"In January 1905, more than a year after the Wrights had first flown, Scientific American carried an article ridiculing the 'alleged' flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. Without a trace of irony, the magazine gave as its main reason for not believing the Wrights the fact that the American press had failed to write anything about them.

I think their exact quote was about the press not being present at the demonstrations, and the Wrights had refused to do demos in front of reputed witnesses. I'd have been skeptical, too.

Remember, the dispute was not about whether flight was possible: it was doubting their claim to having secret success before their competiors went public.



In other words, the same attitude that most members of Randi's organization have today.

Maybe you could keep the insults to yourself.

[bruto]

Yes, but be aware that Dumont had been flying since 1905 in front of everybody. Roosevelt 'ordered' trials, because he wanted a proper demo before buying. The Army had already agreed to purchase several Wright planes.

I think their exact quote was about the press not being present at the demonstrations, and the Wrights had refused to do demos in front of reputed witnesses. I'd have been skeptical, too.

Remember, the dispute was not about whether flight was possible: it was doubting their claim to having secret success before their competiors went public.

Maybe you could keep the insults to yourself.

We beat this subject about for a while earlier in the thread. Don't count on Rodney or Love to have actually understood, though. Of course, looked at the right way, the early skepticism of some people, until the Wrights demonstrated their ability to fly with control, and the subsequent retraction by S.A., would, to anyone but Rodney and Love, suggest that scientific skepticism was working just as it ought to. Somehow the alternative-science guys just don't get it. If someone once doubted that flight was possible, this must mean that skepticism is wrong, and we should accept every crackpot theory that comes down the pike.

[Rodney]

How about we take a quick look at Cayce's legacy, shall we? First, we'll take a peek at Cayce's unique contributions to modern medicine:

-Bupkis

Now we'll go right to the source:

http://www.edgarcayce.org/

Impressive...

-Past life readings, the (neverending) search for Atlantis, astrology charts, etc...

Here's an example of Cayce's legacy of cutting edge medical advice:



Genius. Sheer genius. :nope:

How exactly, do you know, that Cayce's recommended psoriasis treatment doesn't work? Do you know of a study refuting it?

[Rodney]

I'm going to hazard a guess that you missed an essential bit of my quote:

The key here is "peer-reviewed," as in a scientific journal. Not a popular-press book.

How many "scientific journals" are open to concepts that radically undermine the conventional wisdom that those journals have promoted for years?

[bruto]

How exactly, do you know, that Cayce's recommended psoriasis treatment doesn't work? Do you know of a study refuting it?

There's no study refuting the assertion that there's a pink giraffe in my closet either. You have it backwards.

You don't need a study refuting a crackpot theory. You need a study (not a bunch of anecdotes from the people promiting it) confirming it. Do you know of such a study? I very much doubt it.

[burrahobbit]

There is also no study refuting the theory that drinking your own urine every day cures you of all ills. There is anecdotal evidence of at least one guy who did it every day living to past 90 in perfect health.

Maybe Rodney should try it :D

[burrahobbit]

Einsteins theory was revolutionary and did undermine the "conventional wisdom" He was also a patent clerk in an obscure office and not linked with any University.

He did not seem to have that much trouble getting published in "Annalen der Physik" which was a fairly reputable journal.

Genuine scientific breakthroughs always get published. I know of no currently accepted theory that was totally rejected in the early stages. Treated with some skepticism yes, but it was published in peer reviewed journals and argued out there.

[PixyMisa]

How many "scientific journals" are open to concepts that radically undermine the conventional wisdom that those journals have promoted for years?
All of them - if you have actual physical evidence of your claims.

[PixyMisa]

How exactly, do you know, that Cayce's recommended psoriasis treatment doesn't work? Do you know of a study refuting it? Simple: His description of the cause of the disease is wrong in every possible way, and his treatment can have no possible effect on either his supposed cause or on the disease as it actually is.

The cause is the thinning of the walls of the intestinal system Thinning of the intestinal walls is not correlated with psoriasis.

which allows the escaping of poisons Psoriasis is not caused by, and does not cause, poisons or poisoning of any sort.

or the absorption of same by the muco-membranes which surround same Psoriasis does not involve the mucous membranes.

and becomes effective in the irritation through the lymph and emunctory reactions in the body. Psoriasis does not involve the lymphatic system.

The conditions that exist through the thinning of the walls of the intestines allow the poisons to find expressions in the lymph circulation; thus producing the irritation to and through the epidermis itself... A restatement of previous points, every single one of which is wrong.

One of the primary causes of thinned intestinal walls identified by Edgar Cayce are problems with the spine. Spinal problems do not cause thinning of the intestinal walls.

Pressures on certain spinal nerves (particularly the mid-dorsal area) can compromise the nerve energy to the intestinal tract. There is no such thing as "nerve energy" to be compromised.

Osteopathic or chiropractic treatment can help correct the misalignment of spinal vertebrae and improve nerve functioning. No it can't. It can, however, cause nerve damage.

[Rodney]

Simple: His description of the cause of the disease is wrong in every possible way, and his treatment can have no possible effect on either his supposed cause or on the disease as it actually is.

Thinning of the intestinal walls is not correlated with psoriasis.

Psoriasis is not caused by, and does not cause, poisons or poisoning of any sort.

Psoriasis does not involve the mucous membranes.

Psoriasis does not involve the lymphatic system.

A restatement of previous points, every single one of which is wrong.

Spinal problems do not cause thinning of the intestinal walls.

There is no such thing as "nerve energy" to be compromised.

No it can't. It can, however, cause nerve damage.

Where do you get your expertise? Are you a medical doctor? You might try checking out the following link: http://www.meridianinstitute.com/projects.htm#PSORIASIS

The Meridian Institute is run by a medical doctor named Eric Mein, who applies the principles set forth in the Cayce Readings. The above link cites a document titled "Psoriasis Case Reports", which states:

"The Edgar Cayce readings say that, although it appears to be a skin disease, most cases of psoriasis are caused by toxins from the digestive system. There is a thinning of the walls of the small intestine, and this thinning allows toxins to leak from the intestinal tract into the circulation. These eventually find their way to the superficial circulation, and trigger an immune response in the skin.

"In the past several years, medical research has provided some evidence supporting the Cayce perspective, but the only person to have systematically applied the Cayce recommendations for treatment is Dr. John Pagano, a New Jersey chiropractor who wrote the book Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative. Dr. Pagano has many well-documented cases of complete healing of severe psoriasis."

[Mojo]

Where do you get your expertise? Are you a medical doctor? You might try checking out the following link: http://www.meridianinstitute.com/projects.htm#PSORIASIS

The Meridian Institute is run by a medical doctor named Eric Mein, who applies the principles set forth in the Cayce Readings. The above link cites a document titled "Psoriasis Case Reports", which states:

"The Edgar Cayce readings say that, although it appears to be a skin disease, most cases of psoriasis are caused by toxins from the digestive system. There is a thinning of the walls of the small intestine, and this thinning allows toxins to leak from the intestinal tract into the circulation. These eventually find their way to the superficial circulation, and trigger an immune response in the skin.

"In the past several years, medical research has provided some evidence supporting the Cayce perspective, but the only person to have systematically applied the Cayce recommendations for treatment is Dr. John Pagano, a New Jersey chiropractor who wrote the book Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative. Dr. Pagano has many well-documented cases of complete healing of severe psoriasis."A site dedicated to the validation of Cayce's ideas, apparently. Statement of Purpose:

The goal of Meridian Institute is to expand the meeting ground between science and spirit by conducting and sponsoring clinical and basic science research. We intend to examine concepts about the body compatible with the premise that we are spiritual beings, and to approach the healing process from this perspective.

The body of information that will be researched and used as a guide for directing our work will be the Edgar Cayce health readings. Now over fifty years old, they provide a coherent and consistent physiology of how the body functions in health and disease. These health readings have never been fully researched in a modern, scientific manner that would provide data acceptable to all healthcare professionals and agencies. Do you have anything a little more independent? If Pagano can really do this sort of thing via chiropractic, his work is truly ground-breaking. Has he managed any peer-reviewed publication of his findings?

[bruto]

Where do you get your expertise? Are you a medical doctor?

Are you?


"In the past several years, medical research has provided some evidence supporting the Cayce perspective, but the only person to have systematically applied the Cayce recommendations for treatment is Dr. John Pagano, a New Jersey chiropractor who wrote the book Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative. Dr. Pagano has many well-documented cases of complete healing of severe psoriasis."

A chiropracter is not a medical doctor either, you know.

It's really pretty simple. If this treatment were not quackery, and if it made any sense, these "well documented" cases would in fact be well documented, which means that they would be suitable for peer review, publishable, repeatable by others, and if they worked, they would be a medical breakthrough heartily welcomed by the medical community at large and practiced by more than one single chiropracter. Are they? It sure doesn't look that way. Any quack can write a book.

[Starrman]

Where do you get your expertise? Are you a medical doctor? You might try checking out the following link: http://www.meridianinstitute.com/projects.htm#PSORIASIS

The Meridian Institute is run by a medical doctor named Eric Mein, who applies the principles set forth in the Cayce Readings. The above link cites a document titled "Psoriasis Case Reports", which states:

"The Edgar Cayce readings say that, although it appears to be a skin disease, most cases of psoriasis are caused by toxins from the digestive system. There is a thinning of the walls of the small intestine, and this thinning allows toxins to leak from the intestinal tract into the circulation. These eventually find their way to the superficial circulation, and trigger an immune response in the skin.

"In the past several years, medical research has provided some evidence supporting the Cayce perspective, but the only person to have systematically applied the Cayce recommendations for treatment is Dr. John Pagano, a New Jersey chiropractor who wrote the book Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative. Dr. Pagano has many well-documented cases of complete healing of severe psoriasis."

Great - I had a zit on my forehead last week. On Saturday I drank about 9 beers, and by Sunday - it was gone! BEER CURES ACNE!

So - just so my sarcasm isn't wasted, do you have any links to the studies that validated that the 'Natural Alternative' applied to the sufferer cured the psoriasis and the replications that verified it? This isn't just another anecdote, is it?

[Psiload]

This device is used to treat multiple sclerosis and epilepsy at the Meridian Institute:

http://www.meridianinstitute.com/imageA9G.JPG

A "Radial Appliance"...

that would be a fake battery sitting in a tub of ice. The "electrodes" are connected to wrist and/or ankle.

Here's the theory:

According to the (Cayce) readings, placing the appliance in a nonmetallic container full of ice water for about 20 minutes prior to attachment to the body chills the carbon steel core of the appliance. The steel core then becomes "electronized by ice or cold or water" (1800-4). Acting as a "radio magnet" (1800-28), the appliance can then affect the body's energy system when attached at definite anatomical centers on the surface of the body.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so flippin' sad.

[bruto]

ONe of the things I find hard to reconcile in the arguments of the alternative science guys is their consistent belief that there is some gigantic conspiracy among scientists and the medical profession to hide the truth, while it must be abundantly obvious to any rational person that if an idea actually has enough validity to be repeatable, testable, etc. the person, institution or corporation that comes up with it first will stand to gain enormously. Doctors don't hide their discoveries when they make a breakthrough. There are most likely medical researchers right now devoting their entire careers to finding the cause and cure for psoriasis. Do you really think that if thinning of the intestinal walls were actually, consistently present in psoriasis patients nobody but one New Jersey chiropracter would have figured that out? Drug companies look far and wide for ideas. They spend billions on research. Do you really think they would pass up opportunities to make, patent, and sell at their customary piratical prices, drugs that work better than anybody else's?

[Rodney]

This device is used to treat multiple sclerosis and epilepsy at the Meridian Institute:

http://www.meridianinstitute.com/imageA9G.JPG

A "Radial Appliance"...

that would be a fake battery sitting in a tub of ice. The "electrodes" are connected to wrist and/or ankle.

Here's the theory:



This would be hilarious if it weren't so flippin' sad.

Maybe, but I take it that you have no medical expertise either?

[Rodney]

ONe of the things I find hard to reconcile in the arguments of the alternative science guys is their consistent belief that there is some gigantic conspiracy among scientists and the medical profession to hide the truth, while it must be abundantly obvious to any rational person that if an idea actually has enough validity to be repeatable, testable, etc. the person, institution or corporation that comes up with it first will stand to gain enormously. Doctors don't hide their discoveries when they make a breakthrough. There are most likely medical researchers right now devoting their entire careers to finding the cause and cure for psoriasis. Do you really think that if thinning of the intestinal walls were actually, consistently present in psoriasis patients nobody but one New Jersey chiropracter would have figured that out? Drug companies look far and wide for ideas. They spend billions on research. Do you really think they would pass up opportunities to make, patent, and sell at their customary piratical prices, drugs that work better than anybody else's?

It's usually not just a question of taking a drug. One of the things that the Cayce medical readings stress is the patient doing a fair amount to help him/her self.

[Psiload]

ONe of the things I find hard to reconcile in the arguments of the alternative science guys is their consistent belief that there is some gigantic conspiracy among scientists and the medical profession to hide the truth, while it must be abundantly obvious to any rational person that if an idea actually has enough validity to be repeatable, testable, etc. the person, institution or corporation that comes up with it first will stand to gain enormously. Doctors don't hide their discoveries when they make a breakthrough. There are most likely medical researchers right now devoting their entire careers to finding the cause and cure for psoriasis. Do you really think that if thinning of the intestinal walls were actually, consistently present in psoriasis patients nobody but one New Jersey chiropracter would have figured that out? Drug companies look far and wide for ideas. They spend billions on research. Do you really think they would pass up opportunities to make, patent, and sell at their customary piratical prices, drugs that work better than anybody else's?

I'm always amazed by the sheer audacity of their claims:

http://www.meridianinstitute.com/article5.htm

Chiropractor John Pagano, of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, claims nearly a 100 percent cure rate in treating psoriasis patients based on the Cayce readings.

This is from an article published in 1995. Ten years ago he developed a nearly 100% effective cure for psoriasis. A decade has passed and Dr. Pagano is now... a household name? A bazillionaire? winner of The Nobel Prize for medicine?

Author of a cheesy cookbook?

Bingo!

http://www.psoriasis-healing.com/images/cookbook-tilt.gif

http://www.psoriasis-healing.com/cookbook.htm

[Chris Haynes]

It's usually not just a question of taking a drug. One of the things that the Cayce medical readings stress is the patient doing a fair amount to help him/her self.

Gee whiz.... so does my family doctor. Things like eating a balanced diet, not smoking, wearing a seat belt, exercising, keeping aware of stressful events (the form asked about big changes during the year), getting screened for various things and other things that happen during an annual exam.

[Psiload]

Maybe, but I take it that you have no medical expertise either? I'm a clinical engineer. I design medical equipment.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/nhs-knowledge_base/data/4846.html

Real medical equipment... not the make-believe medical quacktronics silliness shown in that laughable picture.

***edited to add***

Seriously though... is "medical expertise" really needed?

A block of nothing with some wires sticking out of it sitting in a beer cooler bucket? The cure for MS? Seriously, dude... if you buy into that, I've got a peach of a bridge in the Brooklyn area you might want to make me an offer on.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Maybe, but I take it that you have no medical expertise either?
I say that elephants can fly. I will not listen to your opinion on the matter unless you are a zoologist.

[Rodney]

I say that elephants can fly. I will not listen to your opinion on the matter unless you are a zoologist.

A rather weak strawman. Eric Mein is a medical doctor and he believes Cayce's psoriasis treatment is efficacious. Perhaps he's wrong, but his opinion counts for more than someone who has no medical training, but who makes sweeping pronouncements regarding how worthless Cayce's treatment is.

[Psiload]

***snip*** Eric Mein is a medical doctor ***snip***

So was Josef Mengele.

[Hellbound]

A rather weak strawman. Eric Mein is a medical doctor and he believes Cayce's psoriasis treatment is efficacious. Perhaps he's wrong, but his opinion counts for more than someone who has no medical training, but who makes sweeping pronouncements regarding how worthless Cayce's treatment is.

Argument from authority. He may believe this, but where's the evidence? Opinion is all well and good, but I'm not going to base my health on one opinion, especially if it seems, by all accounts, to contradict everything else I know.

Considering that the opinion of almost every other medical doctor on the planet contradicts his opinion, especially as to the causes and effective treatments for psoriasis, I think we can safely say that his opinion, as an M.D., is, in this particular case, wrong.

That's what you don't get. We aren't doubting him because we think he's wrong, we're doubting him because he contradicts a huge body of research and literature supported by the vast mjority of medical doctors, researchers, and professionals in practice today.

[PixyMisa]

Where do you get your expertise? Are you a medical doctor?
No.

I don't need to be.

All you need to tell the difference between frauds like Cayce and Mein and the real world is the ability to read and an insistence on evidence.

"The Edgar Cayce readings say that, although it appears to be a skin disease, most cases of psoriasis are caused by toxins from the digestive system. There is a thinning of the walls of the small intestine, and this thinning allows toxins to leak from the intestinal tract into the circulation. These eventually find their way to the superficial circulation, and trigger an immune response in the skin.
Cayce said nothing about an immune response.

"In the past several years, medical research has provided some evidence supporting the Cayce perspective, but the only person to have systematically applied the Cayce recommendations for treatment is Dr. John Pagano, a New Jersey chiropractor who wrote the book Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative. Dr. Pagano has many well-documented cases of complete healing of severe psoriasis."
If they had evidence, they would be publishing the evidence, not cookbooks.

[PixyMisa]

A rather weak strawman. Eric Mein is a medical doctor and he believes Cayce's psoriasis treatment is efficacious. Perhaps he's wrong, but his opinion counts for more than someone who has no medical training, but who makes sweeping pronouncements regarding how worthless Cayce's treatment is.
I don't make sweeping pronouncements on the worthlessness of Cayce's treatment.

Well, okay, I do, but based on evidence that other people have provided.

1. According to the medical literature, everything Cacye said about psoriasis is wrong. Not me, the medical literature.
2. By following what they actually know, doctors can successfully treat psoriasis, and can show that their treatments are effective.
3. Topical corticosteroids and immunosuppressants work.
4. Spinal manipulation doesn't.

Therefore, Cayce was full of rule 8.

[Rodney]

I'm always amazed by the sheer audacity of their claims:

http://www.meridianinstitute.com/article5.htm



This is from an article published in 1995. Ten years ago he developed a nearly 100% effective cure for psoriasis. A decade has passed and Dr. Pagano is now... a household name? A bazillionaire? winner of The Nobel Prize for medicine?

Author of a cheesy cookbook?

Bingo!

http://www.psoriasis-healing.com/images/cookbook-tilt.gif

http://www.psoriasis-healing.com/cookbook.htm

While confirmation of the efficacy of the Cayce/Pagano psoriasis regime is necessarily a difficult undertaking, one might think if Dr. Pagano is a fraud, the Psoriasis Foundation would say so, or at a minimum not mention him at all, on its website -- http://www.psoriasis.org/treatment/psoriasis/diet/references.php

Instead, the website states: "For further information, the following publications offer additional nutritional theories, or are references used to prepare this section. The Psoriasis Foundation does not recommend or endorse any diet for psoriasis at this time. Most of the books should be available in your local library, or try an online bookseller for harder-to-find volumes.

An Edgar Cayce Health Anthology, Selections from The A.R.E. Journal, A.R.E. Press, Virginia Beach, Va. . . .

Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative, Dr. John O.A. Pagano, The Pagano Organization, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J."

[Rodney]

No.

I don't need to be.

All you need to tell the difference between frauds like Cayce and Mein and the real world is the ability to read and an insistence on evidence.


Cayce said nothing about an immune response.


If they had evidence, they would be publishing the evidence, not cookbooks.

Maybe you should read this link and see if you can repudiate the claims:

http://www.meridianinstitute.com/psorias5.html

[Rodney]

I don't make sweeping pronouncements on the worthlessness of Cayce's treatment.

Well, okay, I do, but based on evidence that other people have provided.

1. According to the medical literature, everything Cacye said about psoriasis is wrong. Not me, the medical literature.
2. By following what they actually know, doctors can successfully treat psoriasis, and can show that their treatments are effective.
3. Topical corticosteroids and immunosuppressants work.
4. Spinal manipulation doesn't.

Therefore, Cayce was full of rule 8.

Please document your assertions. For example, what is your source for the assertion that "everything Cayce said about psoriasis is wrong."

[Psiload]

While confirmation of the efficacy of the Cayce/Pagano psoriasis regime is necessarily a difficult undertaking, one might think if Dr. Pagano is a fraud, the Psoriasis Foundation would say so, or at a minimum not mention him at all, on its website -- http://www.psoriasis.org/treatment/psoriasis/diet/references.php

Instead, the website states: "For further information, the following publications offer additional nutritional theories, or are references used to prepare this section. The Psoriasis Foundation does not recommend or endorse any diet for psoriasis at this time. Most of the books should be available in your local library, or try an online bookseller for harder-to-find volumes.

An Edgar Cayce Health Anthology, Selections from The A.R.E. Journal, A.R.E. Press, Virginia Beach, Va. . . .

Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative, Dr. John O.A. Pagano, The Pagano Organization, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J."

The Psoriasis Foundation's official stance on "psoriasis cure diets":

The Psoriasis Foundation does not recommend or endorse any diet for psoriasis at this time.
I wonder why that is? I mean, a nearly 100% effective cure for psoriasis was developed over ten years ago, right? You'd think The Psoriasis Foundation would be all over that like stink on a monkey.

Let's see what The Psoriasis Foundation has to say about Dr. Pagano, shall we?

The Psoriasis Foundation is not aware of any clinical studies on the usefulness of chiropractic in treating psoriasis. However, John O.A. Pagano, D.C., a New Jersey chiropractor, has published a regimen for treating psoriasis that includes spinal manipulations. For more information about the Pagano regimen, please see diet.
and:

The regimen is spelled out in his book, Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative. It includes a special diet, spinal adjustments and internal cleansing (enemas).

The Pagano diet is specifically aimed at psoriasis and has been tried by many people over the years. Some have reported great success, while others say it has not worked. In some cases, psoriasis improves initially, but the results cannot be maintained.

Dr. Pagano also has a mention in the Jan/Feb 2005 edition of Advance Psoriasis, the magazine of the The Psoriasis Foundation... actually, it's not so much a mention as a 3 inch square paid advertisement for Dr. Pagano's cookbook.

Baffling... the guy came up with a nearly 100% effective cure for psoriasis, and this is all the love he gets from The Psoriasis Foundation? A skeptical blurb, one free plug for his cookbook, and one they make him pay for?

It just doesn't seem fair. You'd think they'd slap a medal on his chest and put his grinning face on the cover of every edition of Advance Psoriasis. :confused:

The Psoriasis Foundation also offers this sage advice:

Evaluating a diet claim for psoriasis
Remember: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Hmmmmm... let's apply this sound advice to the following claim:

Chiropractor John Pagano, of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, claims nearly a 100 percent cure rate in treating psoriasis patients based on the Cayce readings.

'nuff said.