Forbidden Science

love · 22nd December 2005, 12:49 PM

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.

Garrette · 22nd December 2005, 12:51 PM

Haven't read it. What points does he make that you would like to discuss?

Rolfe · 22nd December 2005, 12:55 PM

I've read another book of his called The Facts of Life. It's interesting, but ultimately goes nowhere, and having heard that (in the book you've just mentioned) he actually thinks cold fusion (a la Fleischmann and Pons) is real, and a few other off-the-wall ideas, I doubt that he's really a credible player.

Rolfe.

BillHoyt · 22nd December 2005, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Garrette

Haven't read it. What points does he make that you would like to discuss?

"Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science provides examples of nearly every logical fallacy and psychological foible that hinder us from being fair and accurate in our assessment of scientific and paranormal claims"

Milton debunked

Wait a minute! Don't start the discussion, love, give me some time to go down to the basement, toss another few logs on the fire and bring up some microbrews and bottle opener. This is going to be good. Be right back.

BillHoyt · 22nd December 2005, 01:03 PM

Okay, I'm back for the show. Any time y'all are ready, love.

Garrette · 22nd December 2005, 01:07 PM

Thanks for the link, Bill.

BillHoyt · 22nd December 2005, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Garrette

Thanks for the link, Bill.

For a moment, I'd thought the thread was about the 1955 SciFi classic, Forbidden Planet. Does have the same theme, though, don't it: monsters from the ID.

Thank you, I'm here all week. Two shows Friday.

hammegk · 22nd December 2005, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

"Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science provides examples of nearly every logical fallacy and psychological foible that hinder us from being fair and accurate in our assessment of scientific and paranormal claims"

Milton debunked

Wait a minute! Don't start the discussion, love, give me some time to go down to the basement, toss another few logs on the fire and bring up some microbrews and bottle opener. This is going to be good. Be right back.

And here I thank you for a good link. You might cut back on the whimsy though ... just my 2cts.

BillHoyt · 22nd December 2005, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

And here I thank you for a good link. You might cut back on the whimsy though ... just my 2cts.

Come back when you actually have something to say, on topic.

hammegk · 22nd December 2005, 01:53 PM

Try heeding your own advice.

BillHoyt · 22nd December 2005, 01:55 PM

Any time you're ready to discuss the Milton book, love.

love · 22nd December 2005, 02:25 PM

So has anyone here actually read the book?

Fungrim · 22nd December 2005, 02:32 PM

Havn't read the book. But I exchanged a few email with a friend of mine over this guy. A woo basically, but one who knows how to spell and punctuate. His website is http://www.alternativescience.com/ and contains facinating headlines such as "Do You Really Need Your Brain?", "ESP and the Lottery", "Too Hot To Handle" and funny enough, a "debunking" of the Million Dollar Challange. A good read if you're in the mood for a laugh.

ETA: And here's a "debate" between Jim Foley and Milton, the funny bit is where Milton finally admits that one of the "references" for one of his claims is a photograph from another woo book which he simply took for granted: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/milton.html

Ladewig · 22nd December 2005, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by love

I am currently reading a book by Richard Milton called Forbidden Science. Has anyone else here read it?

I haven't read it, but I have a question. Who is forbidding this science from taking place?

Chris Haynes · 22nd December 2005, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by love

So has anyone here actually read the book?

Have you read this post?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49403

Anyway, I looked at the book at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857021886/ ... and noticed that it was published ten years ago. From one of two reviews it looks like the subjects are what are discussed in the General Skepticism and Paranormal section of JREF. It does not look like something I am very likely to read, especially since it is not at my local public library (I am presently reading The Cutter Incident by Dr. Paul Offit, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300108648/ )

The author does have a web page: http://www.alternativescience.com/ ... He has several subjects that he lists as "forbidden". Choose one, and we will discuss it.

love · 22nd December 2005, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

Have you read this post?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49403

Coincidentally, yes. Poor guy seems quite angry about something.

Quote:

Anyway, I looked at the book at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857021886/ ... and noticed that it was published ten years ago. From one of two reviews it looks like the subjects are what are discussed in the General Skepticism and Paranormal section of JREF. It does not look like something I am very likely to read, especially since it is not at my local public library (I am presently reading The Cutter Incident by Dr. Paul Offit, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300108648/)

Well I would recommend it, because he presents quite a fresh perspective on many subjects and brings up a lot of interesting facts.

The book you mention sounds interesting. I don't believe that vaccines make one healthier overall, anyway.

Quote:

The author does have a web page: http://www.alternativescience.com/ ... He has several subjects that he lists as "forbidden". Choose one, and we will discuss it.

Yes, he doesn't really develop any points on his webpage in his "forbidden" section.

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.

LostAngeles · 22nd December 2005, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by love

Coincidentally, yes. Poor guy seems quite angry about something.

The guy is a walking miracle thanks to science and yet people have felt the need to throw garbage in his face like, "Your body is too acidic," or, "You did something to deserve this." They offer him sugar pills and magic water and poo-poo the stuff that actually saved his life and call it, "poison."

Wouldn't you be angry?

love · 22nd December 2005, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by LostAngeles

The guy is a walking miracle thanks to science and yet people have felt the need to throw garbage in his face like, "Your body is too acidic," or, "You did something to deserve this." They offer him sugar pills and magic water and poo-poo the stuff that actually saved his life and call it, "poison."

Wouldn't you be angry?

I'll respond in the original thread.

Ducky · 22nd December 2005, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by love

Coincidentally, yes. Poor guy seems quite angry about something.

Hmm. Perchance you didn't actually read that paper? You may have actually learned the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Tell you what, you come back with evidence in the form of peer reviewed study and publication from a properly blinded clinical trial showing ANY effect above placebo for the following alternative therapies:

Homeopathy
Vitamin C as cancer cure
Shark Cartelidge as cancer cure
Acidic/Alkalai cuse for cancer argument (this you just have to show me it's accepted among oncologists as a correct cause of cancer.)
Sunscreen as a cause of cancer

Now that you've exhausted your search for evidence that any of the above is worth anything medically, I will then tell you that to offer someone psuedoscientific crap as something to help them get better is tantamount to telling someone that to heal their broken leg, they should chew gensing.

Do you get it now?

What you should be focusing on is peer reviewed, properly blinded scientific study, as that's the best way to actually show how this universe works. Otherwise you are cherry picking evidence, using confirmation bias, or any other host of logical fallacies to believe in something that simply is not true.

Chris Haynes · 22nd December 2005, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by love

...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.

I've read about him in an even older book, but one that is still in print and available from my local library... PLUS --- it is still relevent! It is this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486203948/

Anyway, here is more about the psychiatrist trying to be an amateur astronomer here:
http://skepdic.com/velikov.html

Also, read very very carefully the paper that fowlsound wrote. Please.

geni · 22nd December 2005, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by love

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.

Well lets see. Venus is not a comet (a bit on the large side a considerable shortage of the stuff that normaly makes up comets). The sun is powered by nuclear fission. The orbits of the planets are not consitant with any close encounters in the recent past. Ice-core studies rule out a global catastrophy during the Holocene period.

love · 22nd December 2005, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Well lets see. Venus is not a comet (a bit on the large side a considerable shortage of the stuff that normaly makes up comets). The sun is powered by nuclear fission. The orbits of the planets are not consitant with any close encounters in the recent past. Ice-core studies rule out a global catastrophy during the Holocene period.

That's not an argument, that's contradiction. The implied argument being Velikovsky is wrong because his theories contradict well-established facts?

What I am interested in is how did Velikovsky make accurate predictions that contradicted the prevailing view at the time.

Rodney · 22nd December 2005, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

Milton debunked

With respect to experiments performed by the Princeton Engineering Laboratory, your debunker, Robert Carroll, informs the reader: "The bottom line is that statistical significance is not equivalent to meaningful or important."

Do you agree with Dr. Carroll that statistically significant evidence can be disregarded on the basis that it is not meaningful or important?

geni · 22nd December 2005, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by love

That's not an argument, that's contradiction. The implied argument being Velikovsky is wrong because his theories contradict well-established facts?

What I am interested in is how did Velikovsky make accurate predictions that contradicted the prevailing view at the time.

Shotgun approach. He made so many predicitions a few of them were likely to be right by chance alone. Of course the most famous was his claim that venus would be hot. The problem is that it is not hot for the reasons he claimed it would be.

love · 22nd December 2005, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Shotgun approach. He made so many predicitions a few of them were likely to be right by chance alone. Of course the most famous was his claim that venus would be hot. The problem is that it is not hot for the reasons he claimed it would be.

OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them.

geni · 22nd December 2005, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by love

OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them.

I've already listed claims he made that can be shown to be in error. There are others for example mercury's orbit is stable over periods of millions of years. Certianly at least as far back as any posible tower of bable.

love · 22nd December 2005, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by geni

I've already listed claims he made that can be shown to be in error. There are others for example mercury's orbit is stable over periods of millions of years. Certianly at least as far back as any posible tower of bable.

I'm asking for predictions, not differences of opinion, or differences of theory.

UrsulaV · 22nd December 2005, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by hammegk

You might cut back on the whimsy though ... just my 2cts.

Keep the whimsy! Whimsy forever! sez I.

geni · 22nd December 2005, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by love

I'm asking for predictions, not differences of opinion, or differences of theory.

What has thoery got to do with anything. We know what a comet is and venus isn't one.

Ripley Twenty-Nine · 22nd December 2005, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by love

OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them.

Ten Predictions Made in Error

Is this what you were asking for?

love · 22nd December 2005, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine

Ten Predictions Made in Error

Is this what you were asking for?

No, those are reasons and not predictions made by Velikovsky.

I mean by a prediction is something foretold, that was not actually known at the time.

Edit: and it needs to be something that can be objectively agreed upon.

The Don · 23rd December 2005, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by love

OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them.

Not 10 because much of what he said was about the past, but here are 5

1) Velikovsky said that the atmosphere on Venus was rich in hydrogen and hydrocarbons

2) Velikovsky claimed that this atmosphere could support "vermin"

3) Velikovsky claimed that the craters on the moon were bubbles rather than collision craters

4) Claims that 1500 years has been added to middle-eastern history, not supported by fact

5) Claims that the Earth was moonless within human memory

Elaedith · 23rd December 2005, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

With respect to experiments performed by the Princeton Engineering Laboratory, your debunker, Robert Carroll, informs the reader: "The bottom line is that statistical significance is not equivalent to meaningful or important."

Do you agree with Dr. Carroll that statistically significant evidence can be disregarded on the basis that it is not meaningful or important?

He didn't say evidence can be disregarded. He is referring to the common mistake in hypothesis testing of assuming that degree of statistical significance equates to strength of support for a claim.

Statistical significance says only that something occurred that has a low probability of happening under the null hypothesis. It says nothing about why it happened. The strength of support for any explanation about why it happened is determined by the extent to which the study successfully isolated only one possible cause of a phenomenon and eliminated all others. The strength of support for any explanation about why it happened is not affected by the degree of statistical significance.

richardm · 23rd December 2005, 02:51 AM

6) Claimed that Mars gives off more heat than it receives from the Sun.

Psiload · 23rd December 2005, 07:10 AM

A much shorter, and a much more telling list, would be of his "correct" predictions:

1) Velikovsky speculated that electromagnetic forces played a role in altering the orbits of the planets at a time when few astronomers paid much attention to magnetic fields.

- This turned out to be true, but not nearly to the degree to which Velikovsky had speculated. Velikovsky theorized that electromagnetic forces could profoundly alter the motion of planets over a matter of weeks, or even days. This is simply not the case.

2) Velikovsky predicted that Jupiter would emit radio waves.

-It was later confirmed that Jupiter did indeed emit radio waves. However, Velikovsky was spectacularly wrong in his prediction of the physical process responsible for the emission of said radio waves. He predicted that Jupiter would emit radio waves because it was a hot planet, like Venus... which also emits radio waves. In reality, Jupiter turned out to be a cold planet... encased in thousands of miles of ice. The actual mechanism by which Jupiter emits radio waves, (Because charged particles from the Sun are trapped and accelerated by Jupiter's magnetic field.) was completely missed by Velikovsky, and completely contradictory to the mechanism Velikovsky had assumed.

3)Velikovsky predicted that Venus would be hotter than anyone expected.

- Bingo! An actual hit! Of course, Velikovsky never did "show his work", and explain exactly how he came to his conclusion that Venus would be hotter than expected. But hey... he got one right.

Wow. Color me impressed.

Not.

Ladewig · 23rd December 2005, 07:20 AM

whoops. double post

Ladewig · 23rd December 2005, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by love

I am currently reading a book by Richard Milton called Forbidden Science. Has anyone else here read it?

I'd like to, but the Houston Public Library has no copies and I don't think I'm prepared to pay money for it, so I'll rely on what you tell me about it, Love.

So, who exactly is forbidding people from performing the science mentioned in the book?

Also, why exactly are we talking about Velikovsky? I don't recall any incidents where he was forbidden from doing science - are there incidents that I am not aware of?

wollery · 23rd December 2005, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by love

snip...
I don't believe that vaccines make one healthier overall, anyway.
...snip

Vaccines aren't meant to make you healthier, they are meant to prevent you from contracting specific diseases, such as polio, measles, mumps & rubella. They're bloody effective at doing that, as shown by the massive drops in the rates of infection since vaccination was introduced.

Smallpox vaccination has effectively eradicated that disease globally!

BillHoyt · 23rd December 2005, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

Do you agree with Dr. Carroll that statistically significant evidence can be disregarded on the basis that it is not meaningful or important?

Yes, I do, Rodney. Would you care to find out why Carroll is quite right? You can either look up the statistical concept of power, or I can direct you to some resources, or we can discuss it. Whatever you pleasure, sir.

Rodney · 23rd December 2005, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

Yes, I do, Rodney. Would you care to find out why Carroll is quite right? You can either look up the statistical concept of power, or I can direct you to some resources, or we can discuss it. Whatever you pleasure, sir.

Let me ask you this: If, as the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) team claims, some operators can affect a machine's otherwise random data output by about one or two parts in 10,000, how would that be proven scientifically?

22nd December 2005, 12:49 PM	#1
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116	Forbidden 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.
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116

22nd December 2005, 12:51 PM	#2
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,555	Haven't read it. What points does he make that you would like to discuss?
	__________________ My kids still love me.

22nd December 2005, 12:55 PM	#3
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	I've read another book of his called The Facts of Life. It's interesting, but ultimately goes nowhere, and having heard that (in the book you've just mentioned) he actually thinks cold fusion (a la Fleischmann and Pons) is real, and a few other off-the-wall ideas, I doubt that he's really a credible player. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

22nd December 2005, 01:07 PM	#6
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,555	Thanks for the link, Bill.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

22nd December 2005, 01:43 PM	#8
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by BillHoyt "Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science provides examples of nearly every logical fallacy and psychological foible that hinder us from being fair and accurate in our assessment of scientific and paranormal claims" Milton debunked Wait a minute! Don't start the discussion, love, give me some time to go down to the basement, toss another few logs on the fire and bring up some microbrews and bottle opener. This is going to be good. Be right back. And here I thank you for a good link. You might cut back on the whimsy though ... just my 2cts.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

22nd December 2005, 12:58 PM	#4
BillHoyt Enlightening rod Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Right behind you... Posts: 5,842	Originally Posted by Garrette Haven't read it. What points does he make that you would like to discuss? "Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science provides examples of nearly every logical fallacy and psychological foible that hinder us from being fair and accurate in our assessment of scientific and paranormal claims" Milton debunked Wait a minute! Don't start the discussion, love, give me some time to go down to the basement, toss another few logs on the fire and bring up some microbrews and bottle opener. This is going to be good. Be right back.

22nd December 2005, 01:03 PM	#5
BillHoyt Enlightening rod Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Right behind you... Posts: 5,842	Okay, I'm back for the show. Any time y'all are ready, love.

22nd December 2005, 01:10 PM	#7
BillHoyt Enlightening rod Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Right behind you... Posts: 5,842	Originally Posted by Garrette Thanks for the link, Bill. For a moment, I'd thought the thread was about the 1955 SciFi classic, Forbidden Planet. Does have the same theme, though, don't it: monsters from the ID. Thank you, I'm here all week. Two shows Friday.

22nd December 2005, 01:46 PM	#9
BillHoyt Enlightening rod Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Right behind you... Posts: 5,842	Originally Posted by hammegk And here I thank you for a good link. You might cut back on the whimsy though ... just my 2cts. Come back when you actually have something to say, on topic.

22nd December 2005, 01:53 PM	#10
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Try heeding your own advice.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

22nd December 2005, 01:55 PM	#11
BillHoyt Enlightening rod Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Right behind you... Posts: 5,842	Any time you're ready to discuss the Milton book, love.

22nd December 2005, 02:25 PM	#12
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116	So has anyone here actually read the book?
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116

22nd December 2005, 02:32 PM	#13
Fungrim Thinker Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a dark swedish mind. Posts: 149	Havn't read the book. But I exchanged a few email with a friend of mine over this guy. A woo basically, but one who knows how to spell and punctuate. His website is http://www.alternativescience.com/ and contains facinating headlines such as "Do You Really Need Your Brain?", "ESP and the Lottery", "Too Hot To Handle" and funny enough, a "debunking" of the Million Dollar Challange. A good read if you're in the mood for a laugh. ETA: And here's a "debate" between Jim Foley and Milton, the funny bit is where Milton finally admits that one of the "references" for one of his claims is a photograph from another woo book which he simply took for granted: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/milton.html
	__________________ "Imagination is cheap, as long as you don't have to worry about the details." - Daniel C. Dennet Last edited by Fungrim; 22nd December 2005 at 02:42 PM.

22nd December 2005, 02:50 PM	#14
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	Originally Posted by love I am currently reading a book by Richard Milton called Forbidden Science. Has anyone else here read it? I haven't read it, but I have a question. Who is forbidding this science from taking place?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

22nd December 2005, 03:09 PM	#15
Chris Haynes Perfectly Poisonous Person Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West Posts: 4,205	Originally Posted by love So has anyone here actually read the book? Have you read this post? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49403 Anyway, I looked at the book at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857021886/ ... and noticed that it was published ten years ago. From one of two reviews it looks like the subjects are what are discussed in the General Skepticism and Paranormal section of JREF. It does not look like something I am very likely to read, especially since it is not at my local public library (I am presently reading The Cutter Incident by Dr. Paul Offit, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300108648/ ) The author does have a web page: http://www.alternativescience.com/ ... He has several subjects that he lists as "forbidden". Choose one, and we will discuss it.
	__________________ I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids "HCN, I hate you!" ( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )... What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

22nd December 2005, 04:43 PM	#16
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116	Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide Have you read this post? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49403 Coincidentally, yes. Poor guy seems quite angry about something. Quote: Anyway, I looked at the book at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857021886/ ... and noticed that it was published ten years ago. From one of two reviews it looks like the subjects are what are discussed in the General Skepticism and Paranormal section of JREF. It does not look like something I am very likely to read, especially since it is not at my local public library (I am presently reading The Cutter Incident by Dr. Paul Offit, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300108648/) Well I would recommend it, because he presents quite a fresh perspective on many subjects and brings up a lot of interesting facts. The book you mention sounds interesting. I don't believe that vaccines make one healthier overall, anyway. Quote: The author does have a web page: http://www.alternativescience.com/ ... He has several subjects that he lists as "forbidden". Choose one, and we will discuss it. Yes, he doesn't really develop any points on his webpage in his "forbidden" section. 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.
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116

22nd December 2005, 04:55 PM	#17
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	Originally Posted by love Coincidentally, yes. Poor guy seems quite angry about something. The guy is a walking miracle thanks to science and yet people have felt the need to throw garbage in his face like, "Your body is too acidic," or, "You did something to deserve this." They offer him sugar pills and magic water and poo-poo the stuff that actually saved his life and call it, "poison." Wouldn't you be angry?
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

22nd December 2005, 05:08 PM	#18
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116	Originally Posted by LostAngeles The guy is a walking miracle thanks to science and yet people have felt the need to throw garbage in his face like, "Your body is too acidic," or, "You did something to deserve this." They offer him sugar pills and magic water and poo-poo the stuff that actually saved his life and call it, "poison." Wouldn't you be angry? I'll respond in the original thread.
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116

22nd December 2005, 05:08 PM	#19
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	Originally Posted by love Coincidentally, yes. Poor guy seems quite angry about something. Hmm. Perchance you didn't actually read that paper? You may have actually learned the difference between science and pseudoscience. Tell you what, you come back with evidence in the form of peer reviewed study and publication from a properly blinded clinical trial showing ANY effect above placebo for the following alternative therapies: Homeopathy Vitamin C as cancer cure Shark Cartelidge as cancer cure Acidic/Alkalai cuse for cancer argument (this you just have to show me it's accepted among oncologists as a correct cause of cancer.) Sunscreen as a cause of cancer Now that you've exhausted your search for evidence that any of the above is worth anything medically, I will then tell you that to offer someone psuedoscientific crap as something to help them get better is tantamount to telling someone that to heal their broken leg, they should chew gensing. Do you get it now? What you should be focusing on is peer reviewed, properly blinded scientific study, as that's the best way to actually show how this universe works. Otherwise you are cherry picking evidence, using confirmation bias, or any other host of logical fallacies to believe in something that simply is not true.

22nd December 2005, 05:17 PM	#20
Chris Haynes Perfectly Poisonous Person Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West Posts: 4,205	Originally Posted by love ...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. I've read about him in an even older book, but one that is still in print and available from my local library... PLUS --- it is still relevent! It is this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486203948/ Anyway, here is more about the psychiatrist trying to be an amateur astronomer here: http://skepdic.com/velikov.html Also, read very very carefully the paper that fowlsound wrote. Please.
	__________________ I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids "HCN, I hate you!" ( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )... What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

22nd December 2005, 05:26 PM	#21
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,577	Originally Posted by love 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. Well lets see. Venus is not a comet (a bit on the large side a considerable shortage of the stuff that normaly makes up comets). The sun is powered by nuclear fission. The orbits of the planets are not consitant with any close encounters in the recent past. Ice-core studies rule out a global catastrophy during the Holocene period.

22nd December 2005, 06:01 PM	#22
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116	Originally Posted by geni Well lets see. Venus is not a comet (a bit on the large side a considerable shortage of the stuff that normaly makes up comets). The sun is powered by nuclear fission. The orbits of the planets are not consitant with any close encounters in the recent past. Ice-core studies rule out a global catastrophy during the Holocene period. That's not an argument, that's contradiction. The implied argument being Velikovsky is wrong because his theories contradict well-established facts? What I am interested in is how did Velikovsky make accurate predictions that contradicted the prevailing view at the time.
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116

22nd December 2005, 06:07 PM	#23
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942	Originally Posted by BillHoyt Milton debunked With respect to experiments performed by the Princeton Engineering Laboratory, your debunker, Robert Carroll, informs the reader: "The bottom line is that statistical significance is not equivalent to meaningful or important." Do you agree with Dr. Carroll that statistically significant evidence can be disregarded on the basis that it is not meaningful or important?
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942

22nd December 2005, 06:07 PM	#24
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,577	Originally Posted by love That's not an argument, that's contradiction. The implied argument being Velikovsky is wrong because his theories contradict well-established facts? What I am interested in is how did Velikovsky make accurate predictions that contradicted the prevailing view at the time. Shotgun approach. He made so many predicitions a few of them were likely to be right by chance alone. Of course the most famous was his claim that venus would be hot. The problem is that it is not hot for the reasons he claimed it would be.

22nd December 2005, 06:12 PM	#25
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116	Originally Posted by geni Shotgun approach. He made so many predicitions a few of them were likely to be right by chance alone. Of course the most famous was his claim that venus would be hot. The problem is that it is not hot for the reasons he claimed it would be. OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them.
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116

22nd December 2005, 06:19 PM	#26
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,577	Originally Posted by love OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them. I've already listed claims he made that can be shown to be in error. There are others for example mercury's orbit is stable over periods of millions of years. Certianly at least as far back as any posible tower of bable.

22nd December 2005, 06:46 PM	#27
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116	Originally Posted by geni I've already listed claims he made that can be shown to be in error. There are others for example mercury's orbit is stable over periods of millions of years. Certianly at least as far back as any posible tower of bable. I'm asking for predictions, not differences of opinion, or differences of theory.
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116

22nd December 2005, 06:57 PM	#28
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by hammegk You might cut back on the whimsy though ... just my 2cts. Keep the whimsy! Whimsy forever! sez I.
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

22nd December 2005, 07:15 PM	#29
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,577	Originally Posted by love I'm asking for predictions, not differences of opinion, or differences of theory. What has thoery got to do with anything. We know what a comet is and venus isn't one.

22nd December 2005, 07:28 PM	#30
Ripley Twenty-Nine Muse Join Date: May 2005 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 867	Originally Posted by love OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them. Ten Predictions Made in Error Is this what you were asking for?
	__________________ Ripley 29 "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?" "Yes I would, Kent."

22nd December 2005, 10:01 PM	#31
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116	Originally Posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine Ten Predictions Made in Error Is this what you were asking for? No, those are reasons and not predictions made by Velikovsky. I mean by a prediction is something foretold, that was not actually known at the time. Edit: and it needs to be something that can be objectively agreed upon.
love Scholar Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 116

23rd December 2005, 01:10 AM	#32
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,265	Originally Posted by love OK, name 10 predictions he made that you believe were in error, and let's discuss them. Not 10 because much of what he said was about the past, but here are 5 1) Velikovsky said that the atmosphere on Venus was rich in hydrogen and hydrocarbons 2) Velikovsky claimed that this atmosphere could support "vermin" 3) Velikovsky claimed that the craters on the moon were bubbles rather than collision craters 4) Claims that 1500 years has been added to middle-eastern history, not supported by fact 5) Claims that the Earth was moonless within human memory

23rd December 2005, 02:01 AM	#33
Elaedith Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 467	Originally Posted by Rodney With respect to experiments performed by the Princeton Engineering Laboratory, your debunker, Robert Carroll, informs the reader: "The bottom line is that statistical significance is not equivalent to meaningful or important." Do you agree with Dr. Carroll that statistically significant evidence can be disregarded on the basis that it is not meaningful or important? He didn't say evidence can be disregarded. He is referring to the common mistake in hypothesis testing of assuming that degree of statistical significance equates to strength of support for a claim. Statistical significance says only that something occurred that has a low probability of happening under the null hypothesis. It says nothing about why it happened. The strength of support for any explanation about why it happened is determined by the extent to which the study successfully isolated only one possible cause of a phenomenon and eliminated all others. The strength of support for any explanation about why it happened is not affected by the degree of statistical significance.
Elaedith Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 467

23rd December 2005, 02:51 AM	#34
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	6) Claimed that Mars gives off more heat than it receives from the Sun.
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

23rd December 2005, 07:10 AM	#35
Psiload Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,105	A much shorter, and a much more telling list, would be of his "correct" predictions: 1) Velikovsky speculated that electromagnetic forces played a role in altering the orbits of the planets at a time when few astronomers paid much attention to magnetic fields. - This turned out to be true, but not nearly to the degree to which Velikovsky had speculated. Velikovsky theorized that electromagnetic forces could profoundly alter the motion of planets over a matter of weeks, or even days. This is simply not the case. 2) Velikovsky predicted that Jupiter would emit radio waves. -It was later confirmed that Jupiter did indeed emit radio waves. However, Velikovsky was spectacularly wrong in his prediction of the physical process responsible for the emission of said radio waves. He predicted that Jupiter would emit radio waves because it was a hot planet, like Venus... which also emits radio waves. In reality, Jupiter turned out to be a cold planet... encased in thousands of miles of ice. The actual mechanism by which Jupiter emits radio waves, (Because charged particles from the Sun are trapped and accelerated by Jupiter's magnetic field.) was completely missed by Velikovsky, and completely contradictory to the mechanism Velikovsky had assumed. 3)Velikovsky predicted that Venus would be hotter than anyone expected. - Bingo! An actual hit! Of course, Velikovsky never did "show his work", and explain exactly how he came to his conclusion that Venus would be hotter than expected. But hey... he got one right. Wow. Color me impressed. Not.
Psiload Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,105	__________________ You're not the boss of me.