Not Woo, really Unwoo [Archive]

Complexity

27th February 2006, 08:25 PM

T'ai Chi - You are one ignorant, twisted bitch.

Not only do you falsely regard yourself a god of statistics, but you've got no sense of what it is to be a skeptic.

You also don't know how to spell 'transcendental'.

Most skeptics would not be as shallow and ignorant as you believe us to be, and as you yourself are.

Do you have any idea how 'imaginary numbers', 'irrational numbers', and 'transcendental numbers' got their names?

Do you have any respect for the history of words and for language?

Do you have any respect for anything?

You're a waste of space.

AnotherSillyAlias

27th February 2006, 08:35 PM

I like to think of myself as a skeptic, although I will admit that my skills in this area are modest and require development, but I cannot imagine why I might refer to irrational numbers as woo. I'm assuming that this is what you are infering.

T'ai Chi

27th February 2006, 09:21 PM

T'ai Chi - You are...
(snipped the snipes; not much left)

Thanks for sharing your beliefs.

For those of us who'd like to talk about the topic, the is to list some things that at first blush sound like they are "woo" because of their names, but really aren't.

T'ai Chi

27th February 2006, 09:32 PM

, but I cannot imagine why I might refer to irrational numbers as woo. I'm assuming that this is what you are infering.

Well regardless if you disagree with that example, surely you see what I mean by referring to the remote sensing eaxmple.

Nyarlathotep

27th February 2006, 11:30 PM

Mojo

28th February 2006, 01:08 AM

From http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52868

I thought it would be fun to post some things in different fields that sounds like what people calling themselves skeptics would call "Woo", but really isn't.

In mathematics one has "imaginary" numbers, "irrational" numbers, and "trancedental" numbers.

Anyone have some from other areas of study?This is a classic woo tactic: they find some area of real science that sounds a bit wierd, and that many people don't really understand (and that they don't understand themselves), and just make stuff up to make it appear to someone who doesn't understand the subject that it supports their position. In fact, I'm amazed that I haven't seen anyone doing this with statistics, given the apparent lack of understanding of the subject on the part of the general public. ;)

CFLarsen

28th February 2006, 01:23 AM

Which skeptic has said that "imaginary" numbers, "irrational" numbers, and "trancedental" numbers are woo?

None. It's a transparent attempt of attacking skeptics, that's all.

He creates new threads instead of answering questions in these threads:

Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=14784&page=2)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=18635)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50556&page=3)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51358&page=12)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51603&page=3)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51606&page=4)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52005)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52098&page=2)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52155)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52775)

When the going gets tough, T'ai is gone...

articulett

28th February 2006, 02:52 AM

It is bothersome when woos use scientific terms in an effort to prove obtuse concepts--like Behe, Deepak Chopra, and that DaVinci Code guy...such woos are a staple of society it seems never failing to harvest dewey eyed followers

Although none of the woo "theories" ever advance, develop evidence in support of them (except anecdotal), etc., there is a world of suckers like Thai eager to believe that there is some great truth available to an "enlightened" few.

I wonder why they post here? Are they trying to convince themselves? Or maybe they want to really have their woo theories challenged so they can weedle out the truth. But I suspect that they think they are tossing out nuggets of wisdom that haven't been pondered by intelligent folks.

I think I was like Tai as a teen. But that was in the 70's. And I had a mood ring.

Rasmus

28th February 2006, 03:09 AM

It is bothersome when woos use scientific terms in an effort to prove obtuse concepts--like Behe, Deepak Chopra, and that DaVinci Code guy...

This is the second time now that I read serious criticisms on the "theories" of Dan Brown. I was under the impression I was reading a fictional story and that the author didn't try to pass it as anything but his imagination.

Granted, he has collected a great many woo theories to write the book - but that seems okay to me.

Care to enlighten me?

Rasmus.

brodski

28th February 2006, 03:48 AM

This is the second time now that I read serious criticisms on the "theories" of Dan Brown. I was under the impression I was reading a fictional story and that the author didn't try to pass it as anything but his imagination.

Granted, he has collected a great many woo theories to write the book - but that seems okay to me.

Care to enlighten me?

Rasmus.
The problem is, there a great many people out there who can't separate fact from fiction. I have come across a number of (seemingly intelligent) people who "believe" the DaVinci code. I'm not sure that it's Dan Browns fault though. No artist should be held accountable for the stupidity of (spoke of) his audience. However, I hold him fully accountable for the terrible writing.

T'ai Chi

28th February 2006, 04:03 AM

Which skeptic has said that "imaginary" numbers, "irrational" numbers, and "trancedental" numbers are woo?

I don't think any person calling themself a skeptic has. Of course, it wasn't claimed that they do. Though, Pythagoras was quite skeptical of irrational numbers. I'm sure he used some clever Greek word though, and not "woo".

The point, again, the last time I'll be repeating it, is that it "sounds" like it is "woo" but really isn't. Because "irrational" is not rational, it "sounds" like it is "woo". See the remote sensing example if you disagree with this example.

Rasmus

28th February 2006, 04:07 AM

The problem is, there a great many people out there who can't separate fact from fiction. I have come across a number of (seemingly intelligent) people who "believe" the DaVinci code. I'm not sure that it's Dan Browns fault though. No artist should be held accountable for the stupidity of (spoke of) his audience.

That I can happily agree with.

However, I hold him fully accountable for the terrible writing.

Trust me, for that kind of money I'd let worse be published under my name ...

Jekyll

28th February 2006, 04:08 AM

I don't think any person calling themself a skeptic has. Of course, it wasn't claimed that they do. Though, Pythagoras was quite skeptical of irrational numbers. I'm sure he used some clever Greek word though, and not "woo".

Ahh, the joys of boundless ignorance.
Mindless assertion after mindless assertion.

What reason do you have to believe that Pythagoras was skeptical of the existence of irrational numbers?

brodski

28th February 2006, 04:27 AM

That I can happily agree with.

Trust me, for that kind of money I'd let worse be published under my name ...
Me too, however I would not expect to be free from criticism.
I often wonder how those that criticize Dan Brown fro promoting woo feel about the film "Fargo", a film which is a complete work of fiction, but which claims in its opening scene to be absolutely true, however, as that claim is contained within a work of fiction…

CFLarsen

28th February 2006, 04:43 AM

I don't think any person calling themself a skeptic has. Of course, it wasn't claimed that they do. Though, Pythagoras was quite skeptical of irrational numbers. I'm sure he used some clever Greek word though, and not "woo".

The point, again, the last time I'll be repeating it, is that it "sounds" like it is "woo" but really isn't. Because "irrational" is not rational, it "sounds" like it is "woo". See the remote sensing example if you disagree with this example.

So why mention skeptics at all, if not to attack them, as you usually do?

Sheesh, you are so transparent, T'ai....

ClusterBoy

28th February 2006, 05:13 AM

sphenisc

28th February 2006, 05:32 AM

antimatter

Rasmus

28th February 2006, 05:37 AM

Regarding Dan Brown, or The Da Vinci Trial as it was billed in todays papers, he is being sued by the authors of the holy blood and the holy grail. Mainly for stealing their idea. However, i believe under copyright law they have to show it is a work of fiction, in order to claim the money. I wouldn't describe this level of conspiracy theory as 'woo' per se, but they do have to admit in court it is fiction. I.E. there is not a shred of evidence for it, yet the book purported to be a true historical tract when it was published. This rather amuses me. Money or credability? You decide.

Would that be enough?

I mean, if the works were blublished as non-fictional, wouldn't they be a legitimate basis for a fictional story? And is it Dan Brown's fault that they lied when first publishing it?

Not that I am familiar with that case at all, mind you ..

Rasmus.

ClusterBoy

28th February 2006, 05:45 AM

Would that be enough?

I mean, if the works were blublished as non-fictional, wouldn't they be a legitimate basis for a fictional story? And is it Dan Brown's fault that they lied when first publishing it?

Not that I am familiar with that case at all, mind you ..

Rasmus.

dunno about lied. its a strong word. The case is weird. They aren't suing dan brown, they are suing his publishers, Random House. And only 2 of the 3 authors of holy blood etc are suing.
No prizes for guessing who the publishers of holy blood are either.

roger

28th February 2006, 06:23 AM

Ahh, the joys of boundless ignorance.
Mindless assertion after mindless assertion.

What reason do you have to believe that Pythagoras was skeptical of the existence of irrational numbers?Would it be because Pythagoras ordered Hypasus drowned for finding an irrational solution to the Pythagorean theorem (he applied it to a triangle with sides of 1)? Though I don't think that has anything to do with 'woo'.

drfrank

28th February 2006, 06:26 AM

...
I'm not sure that it's Dan Browns fault though. No artist should be held accountable for the stupidity of (spoke of) his audience. However, I hold him fully accountable for the terrible writing.

My friend read a passage to me from DVC that she thought was great. It was the bit in the lecture theatre about the Golden Ratio.

That short piece pained me more than enough to never want to read the entire book :covereyes

sphenisc

28th February 2006, 06:27 AM

Jekyll

28th February 2006, 07:03 AM

Would it be because Pythagoras ordered Hypasus drowned for finding an irrational solution to the Pythagorean theorem (he applied it to a triangle with sides of 1)? Though I don't think that has anything to do with 'woo'.
That doesn't make him sceptical of the irrationality of root 2, even if it was true.
You don't see me drowning Bigfoot hunters.
This link seems more balanced than the Wikipedea stub, http://www.stormloader.com/ajy/irrational.html

Jaggy Bunnet

28th February 2006, 07:12 AM

dunno about lied. its a strong word. The case is weird. They aren't suing dan brown, they are suing his publishers, Random House. And only 2 of the 3 authors of holy blood etc are suing.
No prizes for guessing who the publishers of holy blood are either.

Lets see:

Movie version of book about to hit the cinemas;

Same publisher for both parties to the court action;

Dan Brown decides to attend court on Monday (despite not being a party to the action and the fact that only initial submissions were being heard), conveniently giving lots of lovely publicity shots for the cameras.

If I were a cynical man (and I am), I would be tempted to compare the total in legal fees and court costs with the value of the publicity for the movie generated by having it in the newspapers and on the TV. The only thing I don't understand is how they have managed to get Opus Dei to play along with the whole free publicity thing as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4715860.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4638490.stm

But then again, I'm the sort of person that doubts the word of the owner of the Loch Ness Monster Visitor Centre, Hotel and Caravan Park when he "sees" the monster at the start of every holiday season.

ClusterBoy

28th February 2006, 07:32 AM

If I were a cynical man (and I am), .

well precisely. the timing couldn't be better. like i said, the court case is weird; as if it is part of a publicity drive rather than any sense of 'justice'.

OT:
I am in the rare position of not having read DVC, but have read all the other nonsense templar books. The templar revelation is a good one. 6 chapters of proper historical research with evidence and everything, followed by the statement along the lines of "but in order to go further, we need to go back in time and put ourselves in the mind of john the baptist" and then 5 chapters of acid-fuelled conjecture. The mind boggles when you look at how they can marry the 2 approaches without laughing at themselves.

Pragmatist

28th February 2006, 07:54 AM

Jaggy Bunnet

28th February 2006, 08:28 AM

IIRC, Brown claims in the book that some of the theories are true.

Some of them are.

Roslyn Chapel really is in Scotland and Paris really is in France.

Not sure if those are the ones he meant of course....

TV's Frank

28th February 2006, 08:36 AM

sphenisc

28th February 2006, 08:41 AM

brocken spectre

articulett

28th February 2006, 10:30 AM

This is the second time now that I read serious criticisms on the "theories" of Dan Brown. I was under the impression I was reading a fictional story and that the author didn't try to pass it as anything but his imagination.

Granted, he has collected a great many woo theories to write the book - but that seems okay to me.

Care to enlighten me?

Rasmus.

It appears that a lot of people think the book speaks the truth because there are historical truths in it...It reminds me of the former book, Celestine Prophesy and any of Richard Bach's books. I don't know if the book is carried is considered fiction or non-fiction or "something else"--I haven't read the book, but I've been exposed to some wide eyed woos purpoted belief that it contains arcane truths.

Rasmus

28th February 2006, 10:36 AM

IIRC, Brown claims in the book that some of the theories are true.

A lot of what is in the books *is* true. The architecture, the paintings, etc. I remember there was a disclaimer to that effect, too. I wouldn't be suprised to learn that some of the information on secret societies, etc. is also true (or at least widely believed to be the truth)

Lisa Simpson

28th February 2006, 10:38 AM

This thread seems to be getting back on topic, but I would like to remind people not to engage in personal bickering in this thread.

brodski

28th February 2006, 10:40 AM

Jimbo07

28th February 2006, 10:43 AM

String Theory.

Not experimentally verified... conjecture, no matter how elegant :D

articulett

28th February 2006, 10:44 AM

Ahh, the joys of boundless ignorance.
Mindless assertion after mindless assertion.

What reason do you have to believe that Pythagoras was skeptical of the existence of irrational numbers?

Actually, Pythagoras was skeptical

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number)...because some concepts in math and science seem to defy human understanding (sort of how the earth doesn't seem flat...and we can't imagine eternity, but we can't imagine no eternity...and we can't imagine a beginning of the universe without a beginning before that. We are probably framing the question wrong...like asking, "how long would it take to walk to the end of the earth?". But irrational numbers are just numbers that can't be written as a fraction--those that repeat endlessly without a pattern (like pi).

It takes a great deal of scientific and/or mathematical knowledge to begin to grasp some scientific concepts--and if you spend all your time, like Tai, studying and promoting BS, it's unlikely you'll develop the mind to do so.

Tai...I've read a lot about remote viewing. It's unsubstatiated. Read some skeptic articles on the subject.

articulett

28th February 2006, 10:47 AM

Would that be enough?

I mean, if the works were blublished as non-fictional, wouldn't they be a legitimate basis for a fictional story? And is it Dan Brown's fault that they lied when first publishing it?

Not that I am familiar with that case at all, mind you ..

Rasmus.

Jennifer Aniston's former roomate is publicizing a fictional book that is said to be a very thinly disguised book about Aniston.

Jekyll

28th February 2006, 11:04 AM

Actually, Pythagoras was skeptical

Sources, please.

Seriously, I have been reading about this and there seems to be substantal doubt as to whether Pythagoras even knew of 'his' theorem, there is further uncertainty about whether Pythagoras' school knew of irrational numbers before Hippasus and many conflicting accounts of Hippasus' death.

It is not even known if Pythagoras and Hippasus lived at the same time.

Furthermore, the killing of Hippasus to hide a powerfully convincing arguement doesn't imply disbelief in the arguement, and to my mind suggests the opposite.

Rasmus

28th February 2006, 11:36 AM

He also claims that all "secret rituals" described in the book are accurate. Well, they're not that bloody secret then are they!

It has been a while since I read it - the obvious solution is that he does indeed describe rituals that were once secret and are now nothing more than established history. No big deal there, either.

Rasmus.

petre

28th February 2006, 11:45 AM

Does this mean that using the same words in two different contexts could have different meanings? Oh dear, that could make it difficult to have a rational discussion then. Perhaps we ought to debate whether or not it's important to define terms before discussing them.

Oh wait, we already did that.

Jimbo07

28th February 2006, 11:49 AM

Does this mean that using the same words in two different contexts could have different meanings?

Bah!

Just use math...

whaddya mean it doesn't apply to most woo?

:D

brodski

28th February 2006, 12:44 PM

It has been a while since I read it - the obvious solution is that he does indeed describe rituals that were once secret and are now nothing more than established history. No big deal there, either.

Rasmus.
The problem comes of course when he refers to rituals which he claims ate still carried out, something which Opus Dei has strenuously denied.
I have no problem with people objecting to Ruth Kelly over seeing education because she is a religious nut who wants to make it easier to teach fairy-tales instead of science.
I do have a problem with people objecting to Ruth Kelly's role in government because they think she is a member of of a sooper seekrit organization that wants to take over the world.

Rasmus

28th February 2006, 12:54 PM

I do have a problem with people objecting to Ruth Kelly's role in government because they think she is a member of of a sooper seekrit organization that wants to take over the world.

Well, as an Opus Dei member she would be a Cathoic, right? :D

DrMatt

28th February 2006, 01:01 PM

Pragmatist

28th February 2006, 01:03 PM

A lot of what is in the books *is* true. The architecture, the paintings, etc. I remember there was a disclaimer to that effect, too. I wouldn't be suprised to learn that some of the information on secret societies, etc. is also true (or at least widely believed to be the truth)

But that doesn't excuse blatant fictions represented as fact. For example from a leader page of the book:

Fact: The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Sandro Botticelli, Victor Hugo and Leonardo da Vinci.

brodski

28th February 2006, 01:10 PM

Well, as an Opus Dei member she would be a Cathoic, right? :D
Cathoic? Is that some form of happy clappy "Popery" with the refernces to L taken out? :p

Rasmus

28th February 2006, 01:16 PM

But that doesn't excuse blatant fictions represented as fact. For example from a leader page of the book:

Anywhere I can read more on that? I am curious just how much is fabricated.

Rasmus.

Pragmatist

28th February 2006, 01:46 PM

Anywhere I can read more on that? I am curious just how much is fabricated.

Rasmus.

Try here: http://priory-of-sion.com/

CFLarsen

28th February 2006, 02:32 PM

Though, Pythagoras was quite skeptical of irrational numbers.

Pythagorias and his school had no problem with irrational numbers. Twas the Platonic school that had that problem. The existence of irrational numbers followed from early explorations of polynomials...and the Pythagorian theorem.

Now what, T'ai?

drkitten

28th February 2006, 02:41 PM

Pythagorias and his school had no problem with irrational numbers. Twas the Platonic school that had that problem. The existence of irrational numbers followed from early explorations of polynomials...and the Pythagorian theorem.

I hate to do this to you, DrMatt, but.... got a source? There's so much misinformation floating around on this subject, including some from relatively authoritative sources, that I'm reluctant to simply take someone's word. Especially since there's a well-documented history of hostility to other extensions of the natural numbers up to the fifteenth century.

T'ai Chi

28th February 2006, 03:59 PM

Another one, not picking on math but that's my familiarity, are things actually called "paranormal operators".

AnotherSillyAlias

28th February 2006, 04:34 PM

Out of curiosity I started looking up paranormal operators on good old google and was lucky enough to get this "targetted" ad:

Sponsored Links
Your Name Is No Accident (http://www.google.com.au/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=BS0x5jd0ERPaTM4uAogKvj4C1BtHmqgqNhLaGAru_zQbAuA IQARgBMAE4AED0D0iGOVDO5cXHAZABApgBnEqgAbOqwf8DyAEB lQIS5EkK&num=1&adurl=http://www.123Numerology.com)
See Why the Shocking Truth of Your
Numerology Chart Cannot Tell A Lie
www.123Numerology.com (http://www.123Numerology.com)

Maybe it's just me, but I found that amusing.

drkitten

28th February 2006, 04:55 PM

Another one, not picking on math but that's my familiarity, .

Mathematics is your familiarity?

I'm --- astonished. And appalled.

T'ai Chi

28th February 2006, 05:04 PM

(snip)

Thanks for sharing.

Back to the topic.

Beth

28th February 2006, 07:48 PM

Walter Wayne

28th February 2006, 09:41 PM

None. It's a transparent attempt of attacking skeptics, that's all.

He creates new threads instead of answering questions in these threads:

Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=14784&page=2)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=18635)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50556&page=3)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51358&page=12)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51603&page=3)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51606&page=4)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52005)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52098&page=2)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52155)
Yet another thread where T'ai Chi runs away from questions... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52775)

When the going gets tough, T'ai is gone...
First link: Proof that Geller "tricked even reputable scientists" with tricks that "are the kind that used to be on the back of cereal boxes when [Randi] was a
kid," .. not supplied, just proof of tricks on cereal boxes.

Second link: Stupid long list. Not condusive to discussion. Everything out of context too.

Third link: A hit!

Fourth link: Not sure which question you are pointing too.

Fifth link: Weird discussion: A hit!

Sixth: A hit!

Seventh: Comedy, you accuse T'ai of thinking someone was invincible.

Eigth: A hit!

Ninth: Gotta give that a miss. You ask the question, but won't define one of the words in it. His aping of your style is second rate though.

Tenth: A hit! T'ai doesn't answer if he knows Santa doesn't exist.

Your batting 0.500.

An interesting thing about number 10 is that T'ai Chi argues that "Just because one doesn't know, doesn't mean it necessarily makes sense to act as if there isn't." and that "If I don't know A exists, why is it logical to therefore assume A doesn't exist?"

You argue "Good example. T'ai Chi argues that it is logical to assume that Santa exists."

You do know that the statement "p does not imply q" is not equivalent to "p implies not-q" don't you?

Walt

CFLarsen

1st March 2006, 01:34 AM

First link: Proof that Geller "tricked even reputable scientists" with tricks that "are the kind that used to be on the back of cereal boxes when [Randi] was a
kid," .. not supplied, just proof of tricks on cereal boxes.

"kind". T'ai Chi runs away from questions. A hit.

Second link: Stupid long list. Not condusive to discussion. Everything out of context too.

The list is there because T'ai didn't answer the questions elsewhere. That emphasizes my point: He runs away from a lot of questions. A hit.

Third link: A hit!

Yep.

Fourth link: Not sure which question you are pointing too.

Post #579.

A hit.

Fifth link: Weird discussion: A hit!

Yep.

Sixth: A hit!

Yep.

Seventh: Comedy, you accuse T'ai of thinking someone was invincible.

Nope. T'ai didn't answer Kevin Lowe's questions. A hit.

Eigth: A hit!

Yep.

Ninth: Gotta give that a miss. You ask the question, but won't define one of the words in it. His aping of your style is second rate though.

I can't define god for T'ai Chi. Later, he runs away from other questions. A hit.

Tenth: A hit! T'ai doesn't answer if he knows Santa doesn't exist.

Yep.

Your batting 0.500.

Better recount. 1.000.

An interesting thing about number 10 is that T'ai Chi argues that "Just because one doesn't know, doesn't mean it necessarily makes sense to act as if there isn't." and that "If I don't know A exists, why is it logical to therefore assume A doesn't exist?"

You argue "Good example. T'ai Chi argues that it is logical to assume that Santa exists."

You do know that the statement "p does not imply q" is not equivalent to "p implies not-q" don't you?

T'ai Chi runs away from the questions put to him in post #36. That's what counts.

Soapy Sam

1st March 2006, 03:04 AM

Department of Throwing Cats among Pigeons here.

Actually, I do happen to think that much of mathematics is pure imagination.
This is not due to any great mental grasp of number theory on my part. Quite the reverse. While arithmetic- ie counting things, has never given me problems, I have very , very little grasp of most mathematical concepts.
I am firmly convinced that number is a measure of quantity and no more than that. I strongly suspect the only valid arithmetic operation is addition and that all others are mental tricks. As a result,for instance, I see negative numbers as essentially sleight of hand- an accounting convenience. I think anyone who believes there is an infinity of real numbers between 0 and 1 is merely playing with words. Infinity is a meaningless concept. A proof that it exists merely disproves the assumption behind the proof. This is my pig headed absolute belief. You may freely imagine what I make of complex "numbers", which I do not see as numbers in any recognisable sense of the word.
This is not to deny the effectiveness of mathematical process , which can be tweaked to elegantly make sense of the real world. However, it seems possible to similarly tweak it to make sense of many quite unreal worlds.

I am not nearly so confident that mathematics is real as a mathematician would be.

However, as a sceptical thinker, I take it as read that my attitude arises from an ignorant rather than an informed position and is probably totally wrong.
I can live with that fact, because all the mathematics I generally need is arithmetic. I do not attempt to point out the folly of their ways to mathematicians. I do not write letters to Nature proposing my new view of reality- because I'm not a "woo."
The big objection most folk here have to "woos" is their tendency to do precisely this; They ignore their own ignorance, make simplistic assumptions and build grandiose models which purport to refute the conclusions of generations of tested knowledge, all based on wrong headed misunderstanding and refusal to actually learn how stuff works.

There's nothing wrong with treasuring daft notions, political, mathematical, historical , or in any other field;- But before you claim them as reality, you have an obligation to do the work, get the facts, prove the theory. It's the failure to do that, rather than any intrinsic stupidity, that makes someone a woo.

Beth

1st March 2006, 06:40 AM

Well, I don't have any new ones to add, but mathematical truths often apply to the material world with surprising depth and consistency. My own personal favorite is the idea that while the rational is dense in the irrational, it's good to keep in mind that the measure of the rational is zero and the measure of the irrational is infinity. :)

My bad. The rational and the irrational are mutually exclusive. The rational is dense in the real. That's what I get for posting after my bedtime. Sorry.

Beth

1st March 2006, 06:49 AM

Department of Throwing Cats among Pigeons here.

Actually, I do happen to think that much of mathematics is pure imagination.

You're right. Most of it is pure imagination. And you're sort of right about it being basically sleight of hand with addition. It's actually set manipulations which give rise to addition. But think of everything that we do with computers which at the bottom level is doing nothing more than moving zeros and ones around internally. Starting with very simply rules, we can create incredibly complex scenarios.

This is not to deny the effectiveness of mathematical process , which can be tweaked to elegantly make sense of the real world. However, it seems possible to similarly tweak it to make sense of many quite unreal worlds.

Again quite right. Mathematics is a wonderful tool for making sense not only of the real world, but many imaginary ones as well. It has consistency as it's fundamental creed. If something is consistent mathematically, it's useful. By exploring many different possible worlds described by mathematics, we can usually find one that matches our own reality quite nicely.

Walter Wayne

1st March 2006, 06:32 PM

"kind". T'ai Chi runs away from questions. A hit.
Ah, if you interpret the word broadly enough it gets a hit.
The list is there because T'ai didn't answer the questions elsewhere. That emphasizes my point: He runs away from a lot of questions. A hit.
Not if you don't show he ran away from those questions. Or is "since I made a list of questions, he ran away from those questions" a new tautology.
Post #579.
A hit
Your link hits page 12, a miss.
Nope. T'ai didn't answer Kevin Lowe's questions. A hit.What page? A miss.
I can't define god for T'ai Chi. Later, he runs away from other questions. A hit. You can define god as it relates to your question, so he knows what your asking.

Which later question did he run away from?
Better recount. 1.000.Sorry, still 0.500.
T'ai Chi runs away from the questions put to him in post #36. That's what counts.Yup, I gave you the hit for number ten.

Walt

CFLarsen

2nd March 2006, 01:26 AM

Ah, if you interpret the word broadly enough it gets a hit.

The point was that Geller did tricks like the kind you find on cereal boxes. He does, there's no question about it.

Not if you don't show he ran away from those questions. Or is "since I made a list of questions, he ran away from those questions" a new tautology.

No, it's the other way around: He ran away from those questions, so I made a list.

Your link hits page 12, a miss.

Odd. Post #579.

What page? A miss.

Post #725: Kevin_Lowe's questions are never answered.

You can define god as it relates to your question, so he knows what your asking.

We can never know what another person thinks his god is. To some, it's a bearded guy in the sky. To others, it's Baal.

Which later question did he run away from?

Post #47.

Sorry, still 0.500.

Sorry, 1.000.

2nd March 2006, 01:30 AM

Ah, if you interpret the word broadly enough it gets a hit.

Walter, I hate to tell you, but T'ai Chi does run away from questions, and has done so as T'ai Chi and Whodini, perhaps not as JZS. Since his career as "statisticool" was snuffed in the making, we can't say much about that.

He's also been guilty of extracting claims from context, malicious misinterpretation, and a bunch of other quite obviously deliberate attempts at infuriating people. He has had little, if anything, to add, and has shown, over and over, that his clearest intent is to try to sow dissention and upset among skeptics.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2006, 01:38 AM

Walter, I hate to tell you, but T'ai Chi does run away from questions, and has done so as T'ai Chi and Whodini, perhaps not as JZS.

Oh, yes. Despite his many cloaks, he is a one-trick pony.

Since his career as "statisticool" was snuffed in the making, we can't say much about that.

Yeah, that backfired. Cost him a week's suspension, that little scheme.

He's also been guilty of extracting claims from context, malicious misinterpretation, and a bunch of other quite obviously deliberate attempts at infuriating people. He has had little, if anything, to add, and has shown, over and over, that his clearest intent is to try to sow dissention and upset among skeptics.

Correct.

Mojo

2nd March 2006, 02:30 AM

He has had little, if anything, to add, and has shown, over and over, that his clearest intent is to try to sow dissention and upset among skeptics.On the evidence I've seen, without much success.

Walter Wayne

2nd March 2006, 07:51 PM

Walter, I hate to tell you, but T'ai Chi does run away from questions, and has done so as T'ai Chi and Whodini, perhaps not as JZS. Since his career as "statisticool" was snuffed in the making, we can't say much about that.

He's also been guilty of extracting claims from context, malicious misinterpretation, and a bunch of other quite obviously deliberate attempts at infuriating people. He has had little, if anything, to add, and has shown, over and over, that his clearest intent is to try to sow dissention and upset among skeptics.I did say he ran away from questions for 5 of the 10 links. That you interpret my issues with the other links as a belief that he doesn't skirt the issues sometimes as saying he doesn't is directly contrary to that admission in my first post to this thread.

Walt

Walter Wayne

2nd March 2006, 08:40 PM

The point was that Geller did tricks like the kind you find on cereal boxes. He does, there's no question about it.
You just repeat your first argument, again with a broad interpretation of kind.
No, it's the other way around: He ran away from those questions, so I made a list.
You fail to see the point of the argument, you link to that list, but without context it fails to show that he ran away from those questions. The list only shows you made a list, and nothing else.
Odd. Post #579.
Post #725: Kevin_Lowe's questions are never answered.
Post 579 is on page 15, you linked to page 12. Why that choice? To me it seems more consistent with you being overly zeolous and when called on it, you look through the thread for something to hold on to.

Post #725 is on page 19, you link to page 1. I again don't believe you had post #725 in mind when you linked to that.
We can never know what another person thinks his god is. To some, it's a bearded guy in the sky. To others, it's Baal.
You miss the point. If I ask you if you believe in X, where X is a somewhat ill-defined concept, then you must stipulate a definition of X in order for somebody to answer it. God is a term that has meant a variety of things to spiritual people. Some newagers define god much differently from the way other traditional religions do.

I've seen some refer to the spirits in animism as gods, or god as a pervasive "force", but traditional theists mind find that to be an abuse of the word.
Post #47.
K, Six.

Walt

The Kilted Yaksman

2nd March 2006, 09:16 PM

Okay, so I'm going to play along:

I study "dark energy"...I've wondered why the woo-folk haven't picked up on it.

Is it because of the word "dark"?

If so, then maybe that's the ticket to preventing woos from using actual scientific words: put a "dark" before every new discovery!
I can see a big problem with this (addmittedly tongue-in-cheek) idea. "Dark" anti-virus? Who's going to want that? :boggled:

CFLarsen

3rd March 2006, 01:06 AM

Walt,

If you're not convinced, you're not convinced.

articulett

3rd March 2006, 04:13 PM

Pythagorias and his school had no problem with irrational numbers. Twas the Platonic school that had that problem. The existence of irrational numbers followed from early explorations of polynomials...and the Pythagorian theorem.

I imagine a true believer saying--"how can you believe in the Pythagorian theoreom--it's just a theory! No person can measure all the triangles in the world!" Ha.

I understand evolution and the useful and fascinating tool it is, and I feel like Intelligent Design believers are saying something akin to that about evolution. I also liken it to people insisting that the earth must be flat because the oceans don't spill out. They are so misguided in their interpretations and basic understanding of science that it feels hopeless to attempt to enlighten them. Moreover, they have a vested interest in believing a certain way (so they feel important and "purposeful" and "in on" the mystical truths of the universe I guess), so engaging them in conversations to further knowledge seem futile. They have the truth they want in advance. (Everything else is "evil stuff" tempting them to bite from the tree of knowledge.)

Embarrassingly, I was once a believer in woo (I blame youth and an excessively trusting nature). Fortunately, my ego didn't prevent me from reasoning my way away from woo.