The Science Delusion

[Waarheid]

Dogma 9: Psychic telepathy is impossible.
Kind of hard to prove your psychic/telepathic.

Oh, it's easy to prove. Conduct the following experiment.

One person drives a truck while blindfolded down a straight road at 30 MPH.
Person 2 (the telepath) stands in the middle of the same road and "thinks" to the driver about when he needs to stop the truck.

[Elim Garak]

About opening your mind...

[Gheld]

And yet ruling out the possibility itself. Basically it sounds like you're saying his ideas are impossible when what SHOULD be said is improbable...basically just this side of impossible.. In essence i say put em on the backburner for a good long while and maybe dust em off every few decades or centuries when new ways to potentially test his ideas come up.

No I'm saying that people who fall for pseudoscience are ignorant and closed minded. And unlike most pseudoscientists I don't haphazardly throw around words like "possible" "impossible" "proof" "theory" etc, without fully appreciating what those words entail. Their belief is largely internalized and based on their own emotions, rather than external information, because amongst all of the external information available are the facts.

You're also butchering the idea of possibility versus probability. You can only accurately suggest that something has any degree of probability when there is an established mathematical relationship. Then that probability must fall within that mathematical relationship.

It's improbable that a subatomic particle on one side of my room will turn out to actually be on the other side of the room.
It's impossible for that subatomic particle to turn into a dog and become a loyal companion for the whole family to love.

[Sayl]

If anything, this really illustrates how the quality and value of TED talks have significantly diminished over time. Sheldrake and Hancock are both cranks, and I find it worrisome that people become so invested in their nonsense. Jerry Coyne has aptly covered it all for a while now.

[crzyman007]

Even the Ancients knew much more than given credit for regarding Life, The Universe, Astronomy, Advanced Mathematics, Magnetism, Healing, Unseen Forces etc.
Encoded knowledge is information that is conveyed in signs and symbols and we can find this knowledge all over the world. All these ancient sightings and geometric patterns (Sacred Geometry) symbolise unseen forces at work. We are being lied to by the media. Modern archaeologists don't know what they're talking about. "The Ancients" were not stupid or primitive. We just failed to de-code this knowledge conveyed in signs, symbols and ancient artwork. This kind of information is kept hidden from the public.

Scientists dont know what holds the universe together, the answer is sound and unseen forces. Matter is governed by sound frequencies. There is much more to life than we can perceive with our 5 senses. The question then becomes "who or what governs unseen forces?" What is behind the symmetry throughout nature? (Golden Ratio, Phi, Fibonacci Sequence etc.) It simply cant be just coincidence, in my opinion there is an intelligent mind / consciousness behind all this that keeps it all together.

[Templar 331]

Oh, it's easy to prove. Conduct the following experiment.

One person drives a truck while blindfolded down a straight road at 30 MPH.
Person 2 (the telepath) stands in the middle of the same road and "thinks" to the driver about when he needs to stop the truck.

But what if the telepath is an asshole like me and tells the driver to hit a tree? He could easily say "sorry, thought I was telepathic."

[Mihalik]

I facepalmed so hard that my face hurts now.

This entire thing is the very definition of crackpot pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo load of horseshit and gross missunderstanding of basic science.

Essentially...To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Nothing on that crackpot 10 point list, has ever produced any empirical or measurable evidence or even reasonable principles.

Thus...GTFO Rupert.

[Gheld]

If you open your mind enough, maybe you will learn new things.

/videoparry

[buck008]

If anything, this really illustrates how the quality and value of TED talks have significantly diminished over time. Sheldrake and Hancock are both cranks, and I find it worrisome that people become so invested in their nonsense.

People like to feel like the smartest guy in the room. They especially like to feel smarter than educated and trained people who are, by every measure, actually the intelligent ones. They feel like if they can dig up one thing that science can't explain, then it invalidates the entire concept of science, thereby making himself smarter for never believing it in the first place.

[Kraenen]

Next up: "How the banana was formed perfectly for the human hand and how science is wrong"

Next up: How the banana was formed perfectly for inserting in my ass

[Sorrior]

Nah, science doesn't need ideas. Science needs evidence. Idea's worth is zero. So maybe his ideas are not impossible (nothing really is) but we can just safely discard them with ridicule.

Ahhh but ideas are the basis for everything....We MUST have ideas to continue to grow.

[Zdrasti]

Next up: How the banana was formed perfectly for inserting in my ass

Can't argue with that design

[TirielWoW]

I facepalmed so hard that my face hurts now.

This entire thing is the very definition of crackpot pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo load of horseshit and gross missunderstanding of basic science.

Essentially...To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Nothing on that crackpot 10 point list, has ever produced any empirical or measurable evidence or even reasonable principles.

Thus...GTFO Rupert.

Probably. But I remember one of my profs from university relating how scientific fields of study - and there are many - are often more conservative than the mainstream population would give them credit for (mostly because the "majority" of people don't have anything to do with it beyond watching stuff on TV). There was a running joke how if you backed a particularly unpopular theory in anthropology, you would end up "driven to drink and ruin" by the establishment in the discipline, because only the "mainstream" theory was accepted.

[Elim Garak]

Next up: How the banana was formed perfectly for inserting in my ass

Actually it was formed to fit perfectly (wherever you like to fit it).
More-so it was intelligently designed in such a way.
By...
wait for it
...
HUMANS.

[Sorrior]

Oh, it's easy to prove. Conduct the following experiment.

One person drives a truck while blindfolded down a straight road at 30 MPH.
Person 2 (the telepath) stands in the middle of the same road and "thinks" to the driver about when he needs to stop the truck.

Not really ironically the very scientific method itself alters the parameters...Classic outcome can change by observing scenario....I for one would wait some time and see if any unknown forms of energy might not explain it...Note i said unknown.

[crzyman007]

[Elim Garak]

Ahhh but ideas are the basis for everything....We MUST have ideas to continue to grow.

Yes, but there's never a shortage of ideas. And honestly his ideas are like thousands of years old.
Science doesn't need ideas, I mean, to store them for future use.
All he needs to do is to provide evidence to his claims. Science will CHANGE.
If he can prove that memory can be inherited, for instance - Science will ACCEPT it as fact and will review the whole "heredity" field of science. It's not like Science gags him. It's just his ideas are just that - ideas, and according to modern science - silly ideas.

[Sorrior]

No I'm saying that people who fall for pseudoscience are ignorant and closed minded. And unlike most pseudoscientists I don't haphazardly throw around words like "possible" "impossible" "proof" "theory" etc, without fully appreciating what those words entail. Their belief is largely internalized and based on their own emotions, rather than external information, because amongst all of the external information available are the facts.

You're also butchering the idea of possibility versus probability. You can only accurately suggest that something has any degree of probability when there is an established mathematical relationship. Then that probability must fall within that mathematical relationship.

It's improbable that a subatomic particle on one side of my room will turn out to actually be on the other side of the room.
It's impossible for that subatomic particle to turn into a dog and become a loyal companion for the whole family to love.

I don't believe in impossible....That word has been used far too often IMO....People have said it throughout history and alot of the time were later proven wring...So i instead just say wait until we can test them. And remember to retest when new methods/knowledge has been acquired..NOTHING should be beyond questioning IMO.

[Shahad]

*SNIP*

Know what grinds MY gears? Moronic individuals.

[Elim Garak]

I don't watch television. It's a cultural wasteland filled with inappropriate metaphors and an unrealistic portrayal of life created by the liberal media elite.