wetenschap IS politiek

[Pindar]

of dit:

Eric Laithwaite became a 'non-person' after he addressed the Royal Society on anti-gravity.

Forrest Mims lost his Scientific American job after telling the editor he didn't believe in Darwinism.

Jacques Benveniste was dismissed by his Institute for investigating homeopathy.

Warwick Collins's biology career ended when be publicly identified a flaw in Darwinist theory.

Robert Jahn was demoted by Princeton for investigating paranormal phenomena in the lab.

The Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned an article criticising Darwinism but censored it following intervention by Richard Dawkins.

Lekker he een objectieve waardevrije wetenschap!
pfff

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

of dit over remote vieuwing waar een wetenschapper hier over valt:

Remote viewing -- The experiment that was too successful

Remote viewing experiments (the respectable modern way of describing second-sight or clairvoyance) by the US intelligence services has been the subject of much speculation but concrete facts have been thin on the ground. Now, a detailed account of one remote viewing experiment, conducted by Drs. Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ at Stanford Research Institute in 1974, has been recently declassified and released in sanitised form on the National Security Agency website. (Click Here to view). The report makes interesting reading for several reasons; first because it is so detailed and second because its CIA author judged the experiment to be unsuccessful from a military standpoint. Yet in reality, the experiment was, if anything, too successful for comfort and provoked a panic reaction from the military authorities.

In the experiment, the subject (known only as SG1J but actually Pat Price, a retired police commissioner) was informed of the existence of a top secret Soviet military base at a place called Semipalatinsk "25 to 30 miles south west of the Irtysh River" in Siberia. It is inconceivable that the subject could have had any knowledge of such a secret installation by normal means and he was given only its map coordinates. Not only was it one of the Soviet Union's most secret nuclear weapons centres, but it was also physically very remote, and some 10,000 miles away from the site of the experiments.

Over three days, Price was asked to describe features of the Russian base by paranormal means in a number of remote viewing sessions. In several important respects, the experiment was considered a failure by the military officer tasked with analysing the results. Price failed to draw the perimeter of the site even though he was asked twice. When pressed for details he made remarks like, 'I'll come back to that', but seldom did. And when pressed further for concrete specific facts, he did what many 'psychics' do -- he produced a stream of specific facts that proved to be incorrect. He thought, for example, that the site was connected with the Soviet space programme and 'saw' cosmonauts in space suits when it is in fact a purely military weapons installation.

However, Price made one statement that proved to be astonishingly accurate. He said that he could see a mobile gantry crane built on a huge scale -- its wheels taller than a man. The crane he said was 150 feet tall and its railed tracks 50 feet apart. He also said this crane ran on tracks over an underground building and made a number of detailed sketches, almost of engineering drawing quality.

In his analysis, the anonymous evaluating officer wrote, '[Price] supplied the most positive evidence yet for remote viewing with his sketch of the rail-mounted gantry crane. It seems inconceivable to imagine how he could draw such a likeness to the actual crane at [Semipalatinsk] unless:

1) He actually saw it through remote viewing, or 2) he was informed of what to draw by someone knowledgeable of [the site].'

The analyst continued, 'I only mention this second possibility because the experiment was not controlled to discount the possibility that [Price] could talk to other people - such as the disinformation Section of the KGB. That may sound ridiculous to the reader, but I have to consider all possibilities in the spectrum from his being capable to view remotely to his being supplied data for disinformation purposes by the KGB.'

In his final, overall report on the experiments, the officer had, for reasons not fully explained, become much more skeptical. He says, quite baldly, 'The remote viewing experiment of [Semipalatinsk] by [Price] proved to be unsuccessful.'

In reality, the experiment was too successful, as one of the experimenters, Dr. Russell Targ, has subsequently revealed on his website (Click Here). Says Targ, 'This trial was such a stunning success that we were forced to undergo a formal Congressional investigation to determine if there had been a breach in National Security. Of course, none was ever found, and we were supported by the government for another fifteen years. As I sat with Price in these experiments at SRI, he made the sketch shown, to illustrate his mental impressions of a giant gantry crane that he psychically "saw" rolling back and forth over a building at the target site!'



The Price experiment is not conclusive evidence of remote viewing. But it does represent a remarkable controlled experiment that deserves to be taken seriously scientifically. The huge gantry crane at the target site was purpose built and thus a rare feature anywhere -- indeed a feature that the overwhelming majority of people have never seen. That Price's identification should be merely a guess thus has a very low probability and, as an explanation, is lacking in credibility.

http://www.alternativescience.com/remote_viewing.htm

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

ander voorbeeld van zaken verdraaien etc etc:

COLD FUSION:

Cold Fusion -- The Sun in a bottle

No other scientific endeavour has consumed so much talent, so much cash and so many years of sustained effort as the race to harness the power that makes the Sun shine. Billions of pounds, (and dollars, roubles and yen), more than four decades of research and the careers of thousands of physicists have been expended on the search for a nuclear reactor that will generate limitless power from the fusion of hydrogen atoms. There are grey-haired professors with lined faces still poring intently over the equations they first looked at eagerly with bright young eyes in the 1940s and 1950s. They will go into retirement with their dreams of cheap, safe power from fusion still years in the future. For the obstacles in their paths are as formidable now as ever.

Fusion is the process taking place in the Sun's core where, at temperatures of millions of degrees, hydrogen atoms are compressed together by elemental forces to form helium and a massive outpouring of energy in the thermonuclear reaction of the hydrogen bomb. It is not difficult, then, to imagine how people who have invested their talent and their lives in the quest to tame such forces are likely to react when told that fusion is possible at room temperature, and in a jam jar.

The scientific world was astounded when, in March 1989, Professor Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University and his former student, Professor Stanley Pons of the University of Utah, held a press conference at which they jointly announced the discovery of 'cold fusion' -- the production of usable amounts of energy by what seemed to be a nuclear process occurring in a jar of water at room temperature.

Fleischmann and Pons told an incredulous press conference that they had passed an electric current through a pair of electrodes made of precious metals -- one platinum, the other palladium -- immersed in a glass jar of heavy water in which was dissolved some lithium salts. This very simple set-up was claimed to produce heat energy between four and ten times greater than the electrical energy they were putting in. No purely chemical reaction could produce a result of such magnitude so, said the scientists, it must be nuclear fusion.

Both scientists are distinguished in their field, that of electro-chemistry. But in making their press announcement they were breaking with the usual tradition of announcing major scientific discoveries of this sort. The usual process is one of submitting an article to Nature magazine which in turn would submit it to qualified referees. If the two chemists' scientific peers found the paper acceptable, Nature would publish it, they would be recognised as having priority in the discovery and -- all being well -- research cash would be forthcoming both to replicate their results and conduct further research.

But the two scientists perceived some difficulties. First, their paper would not be scrutinised by their exact peers because the discovery was unknown territory to electrochemists and indeed everyone else. It would probably be examined mainly by nuclear physicists -- the men who had grown grey in the service of 'hot' fusion. This would be like asking Swift's 'Big Endians' to comment objectively on the work of 'Little Endians'.


Cold fusion cell by JL Naudin, France, based on work of Tadahiko Mizuno and Tadayoshi Ohmori from Hokkaido University, Japan, and using the experimental protocol described by Eugene F. Mallove at http://www.amasci.com/weird/anode.txt
For further details see Naudin’s site at
jlnlabs.online.fr/ cfr/html/cfrdatas.htm




It is not that 'hot' fusion physicists could not be trusted to be impartial, or were incapable of accepting experimental facts, but rather that they would be coming from a research background that would naturally give them a quite different perspective.

Despite the experimental difficulties it was not long before confirmations were reported. First to report in were Texas A & M University, who reported excess energy and Brigham Young University who found both excess heat and measurable neutron flow. Professor Steve Jones of BYU said his team had actually been producing similar results since 1985, but that the power outputs obtained has been microscopically small, too small in fact to be useful as a power source. One month after the announcement the first support from a major research institute came with the announcement by professor Robert Huggins of California's Stanford University that he had duplicated the Fleischmann-Pons cell against a control cell containing ordinary water, and had obtained 50 per cent more energy as heat from the fusion cell than was put in as electricity. Huggins gained extra column inches because he had placed his two reaction vessels in a red plastic picnic cool-box to keep their temperature constant. This kitchen-table flavour to the experiment added even further to the growing discomfort of hot fusion experts, with their billion-dollar research machines.

By the time the American Chemical Association held its annual meeting in Dallas in April 1989, Pons was able to present considerable detail of the experiment to his fellow chemists. The power output from the cell was more than 60 watts per cubic centimetre in the palladium. This is approaching the sort of power output of the fuel rods in a conventional nuclear fission reactor. After the cell had operated from batteries for 10 hours producing several watts of power, Pons detected gamma rays with the sort of energy one would expect from gamma radiation produced by fusion. When he turned off the power, the gamma rays stopped too. Pons also told delegates that he had found tritium in the cell, another important sign of fusion taking place.

Pons estimated that the cell gave off 10,000 neutrons per second. This is many times greater than the rate of background level of natural radioactivity, but is still millions or billions of times less than the rate of neutron emission that one would expect from a fusion reaction -- a puzzle which Fleischmann and Pons acknowledge as a stumbling block to acceptance of their phenomenon as fusion by any conventional process.

This was perhaps the high water mark of cold fusion. Scores of organisations over the world were actively working to replicate cold fusion in their laboratories, and although many reported difficulties a decent number reported success. And by the end of April, Fleischmann and Pons were standing before the U.S. House Science, Space and Technology committee asking for a cool $25 million to fund a centre for cold fusion research at Utah University.

Then things began to go wrong. An unnamed spokesman for the Harwell research laboratory -- the home of institutional nuclear research in Britain -- spoke to the Daily Telegraph saying that 'we have not yet had the slightest repetition of the results claimed by professors Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. Of the other laboratories around the world who have tried to replicate the Pons-Fleischmann result, all but one have recanted, admitting that either their equipment or their measurements were faulty.'

'We believe our experiments are much more careful than those conducted by others. Perhaps for that reason we have been unable to observe any more energy coming out of the experiment than was put in.'

By late May, the headlines in both the popular press and the scientific press were beginning to carry words like 'flawed idea' when the biggest blow of all hit supporters of the cold fusion idea. Dr Richard Petrasso of the Plasma Fusion Centre of the ultra prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology presented the results of a series of intensive investigations into the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. The fundamental data put forward by the two men, said Petrasso, was probably a 'glitch'. The entire gamma ray signal in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, he said, might not have occurred at all.

'We can offer no plausible explanation for the feature other than it is possibly an instrumental artefact with no relation to gamma-ray interaction,' he told the same reporters who had clustered around Fleischmann and Pons only two months earlier. Dr Ronald Parker, director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Centre, said; 'We're asserting that their neutron emission was below what they thought it was, including the possibility that it could have been none at all.'

Thus within two months of its original announcement, cold fusion had been dealt a fatal blow by two of the world's most prestigious nuclear research centres, each receiving millions of pounds a year to fund research in hot fusion.

The measure of MIT's success in killing off cold fusion is that still today, the U.S. Department of Energy refuses to fund any research into it while the U.S. Patent Office relies on the MIT report to refuse any patents based on or relating to cold fusion processes even though hundreds have been submitted.

If Dr Parker had left his statement there, it is likely that the world would never have heard of cold fusion again -- or not until a new generation of scientists came along. But flushed with success at killing off MIT's embryonic rival, he decided to go all the way and openly accuse Fleischmann and Pons of possible scientific fraud.

According to Dr Eugene Mallove, who worked as chief science writer in MIT's press office, Parker arranged to plant a story with the Boston Herald attacking Pons and Fleischmann. The story contained accusations of possible fraud and 'scientific schlock' and caused a considerable fuss in the East-coast city. When Parker saw his accusations in cold print and the stir they had caused he backtracked and instructed MIT's press office to issue a press release accusing the journalist who wrote the story, Nick Tate, of misreporting him and denying that he had ever suggested fraud. Unfortunately for Parker, Tate was able to produce the tape of his interview which showed that Parker had used the word 'fraud' on a number of occasions.

It then began to become apparent to those inside MIT that the research report that Parker and Petrasso had disclosed to the press in such detail was not quite what it seemed. That some of those in charge at MIT's Plasma Fusion Centre had embarked on a deliberate policy of ridiculing cold fusion and that to do so they had -- almost incredibly -- fudged the results of their own research.

The MIT study announced by Parker and Petrasso contained two sets of graphs. The first showed the result of a duplicate of the Fleischmann-Pons cell and did, indeed, show inexplicable amounts of heat greater than the electrical energy input. The second set were of a control experiment that used exactly the same type of electrodes, but placed in ordinary 'light' water -- essentially no different than tap water. The results for the control cell should have been zero -- if cold fusion is possible at all, it is conceivable in a jar full of deuterium, but not in a jar of tap water. Any activity here, according to current theory, would simply indicate some kind of chemical, not nuclear, process.

But the MIT results for the control showed exactly the same curve as that of the fusion cell. It was the identical nature of the two sets of results that depicted so graphically to the press and scientific community the baseless nature of the Fleischmann-Pons claim and that justified MIT's statement that it had 'failed to reproduce' those claims. It was these figures that were subsequently used by the Department of Energy to refuse funding for cold fusion and by the U.S. Patent Office to refuse patent applications. It is these figures that are used around the world to silence supporters of cold fusion.

But MIT insiders, like Dr Gene Mallove, knew that the figures had actually been fudged. It is usual for experimental data to be manipulated, usually by computer, to compensate for known factors. No-one would have been surprised to learn that MIT had carried out legitimate 'data reduction'. But what they had done was selectively to shift the data obtained from the control experiment, the tap water cell, so that it appeared identical to the output from the fusion cell.

When this blatant fudging of the figures became public, MIT came under fire from many directions, including members of its own staff. Gene Mallove announced his resignation at a public meeting and submitted a letter to MIT accusing them of publishing fudged experimental findings simply to condemn cold fusion. A number of scientific papers were published in scientific journals culminating in the paper published by Fusion Facts in August 1992 by Dr Mitchell Swartz in which he concluded, "What constitutes 'data reduction' is sometimes but not always open to scientific debate. The application of a low pass filter to an electrical signal or the cutting in half of a hologram properly constitute 'data reduction', but the asymmetric shifting of one curve of a paired set is probably not. The removal of the entire steady state signal is also not classical 'data reduction'."

In the restrained and diplomatic language of scientific publications this is as close an anyone ever gets to accusing a colleague of outright fiddling of the figures to make them prove the desired conclusion.

Beleaguered and under fire from every quarter (except the other big hot fusion laboratories who simply became invisible and inaudible) MIT backed down. It added a carefully worded technical appendix to the original study discussing the finer points of error analysis in calorimetry. It also amended its earlier finding of 'unable to reproduce Fleischmann-Pons' to 'too insensitive to confirm' -- a rather different kettle of fish.

Although MIT was caught red handed, it was its original conclusion that stuck both in the public memory and as far as public policy was concerned. The coup de grace was delivered to cold fusion when the U.S. House committee formed to examine the claims for cold fusion, came down on the side of the skeptics.

'Evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process termed cold fusion is not persuasive,' said its report. 'No special programmes to establish cold fusion research centres or to support new efforts to find cold fusion are justified.'

Just where does cold fusion stand ten years after the original announcement? The position today is that cold fusion has been experimentally reproduced and measured by more than 100 universities and commercial laboratories in 10 countries around the world. Dr Michael McKubre and his team at Stanford Research Institute say they have confirmed Fleischmann-Pons and indeed say they can now produce excess heat experimentally at will. Many other major universities and commercial organisations have also confirmed the reality of cold fusion. U.S. Laboratories reporting positive results include the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (these were the two U.S. research establishments most closely involved in developing the atomic bomb) Naval Research Laboratory, Naval Weapons Centre at China Lake, Naval Ocean Systems Centre and Texas A & M University. Dr Robert Bush and his colleagues at California Polytechnic Institute have recorded the highest levels of power density for cold fusion, with almost three kilowatts per cubic centimetre. This is 30 times greater than the power density of fuel rods in a typical nuclear fission reactor.

Overseas organisations include Japan's Hokkaido National University, Osaka National University, the Tokyo Institute of Technology and Nippon Telephone and Telegraph corporation. Fleischmann and Pons are working for the Japanese-backed Technova Corporation based in France. Gene Mallove left MIT to found Infinite Energy Magazine. Mitchell Swartz now edits Cold Fusion Times.

Equally illuminating were the remarks of professor John Huizenga who was co-chairman of the U.S. Department of Energy's panel on cold fusion and who came down against the reality of the process. In a recent book on the subject, professor Huizenga observed that 'The world's scientific institutions have probably now squandered between $50 and $100 million on an idea that was absurd to begin with.'

The question is, what were his principal reasons for rejecting cold fusion. Professor Huizenga tells us; 'It is seldom, if ever, true that it is advantageous in science to move into a new discipline without a thorough foundation in the basics of that field.'

When you consider that his committee's sole function was to advise whether or not research funds should be spent to investigate an entirely new area of physics and electrochemistry, and that this statement is one of his principal reasons for deciding not to invest such research funds, his statement takes on an almost Kafkaesque quality. It is unwise to invest research funds in any new area, unless we already have a thorough foundation in the basics of that new area? How could anyone ever get any money for research out of professor Huizenga's committee? By proving that they already know everything there is to know?

A more rational approach is that of Dr. Edmund Storms, formerly with the Los Alamos nuclear research laboratory who said, 'Science grows by competition between two possibilities. One is based on a very imperfect imagination for new possibilities. The other is based on a tested understanding of our world which we all agree to enjoy without conflict. Each has its role in intellectual evolution and its strengths. However, to function properly, the relationship needs to be based on mutual respect, as is the case with all relationships. This respect leads to questions not declarations, to discussion not conflict, and to seeking a mutually satisfying goal, not an arbitrary conclusion. In the cold fusion partnership, these requirements are not being followed and, as a result, the marriage is on the rocks.'

You can read the full story of the Cold Fusion affair and its aftermath in Alternative Science. Cold Fusion is the perfect exemplar of "Alternative Science". It runs entirely counter to intuitive expectation produced by the received wisdom of physics; it is a discovery by 'outsiders' with no experience or credentials in fusion research; its very existence is vehemently denied even though Fleischmann and Pons have demonstrated a jar of water at boiling point to the world's press and television; and it is inexplicable by present theory: it means http://www.alternativescience.com/cold_fusion.htmtearing up part of the road-map of science and starting again.

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

er is een documontaire die heet: "The mysterious origin of man"

http://www.bcvideo.com/fmom31.html




In February of 1996, NBC broadcast the controversial one-hour special, The Mysterious Origins of Man.* In this program, many alternative views of man's origins were presented, revealing that there are still many unanswered questions. The reaction of the scientific community was extreme and continues to this day.

we zullen hier niet te veel inhoudelijk ingaan, maar hier wat reacties
van wetenschappers:

"Most of the ideas presented...were so ludicrous as to not even warrant a rebuttal by any honest investigator." (L.W. Mt. Wilson Observatory)

"I think you should apologize publicly for this show. It was appalling... Frankly, you are either morons or liars." (D.L. Colorado. Edu)

"...the non-scientific public watching this drivel may be inclined to actually believe it and to vote for politicians who also believe it." (J.K. New Mexico State University)

"It's all a bunch of hooey, and my recommendation is to stay away." (B.D. Yale University)

"I recommend people write NBC and protest the presentation of this show as a documentary... Thanks largely to the efforts of people like yourself, the American public is generally not capable of evaluating the "arguments" and "evidence" you present." (A.D. University of Texas at Austin)

"Any person who would trot out the old canard about "evolution is still a theory, not a fact" cannot be a serious producer. You people should be ashamed of yourselves." (R.S. Geology Department, Gettysburg College)

"...the American public will soon be reduced to a gaggle of conspiracy theorists that will not trust a single thing they are told." (T.H. Astronomy Dept. New Mexico State University)

"You should be banned from the airwaves." (J. J. ALCI)

http://www.bcvideo.com/fmom31.html


ik ga ze echt bijna onmenselijk vinden die wetenschappers!


Pin d'Ar

[Nynorsk]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

of deze idioot dan!:

Pin d'Ar

Ik vind dat geen idiote stellingname.
Het is goed dat er mensen zijn die blijven geloven dat een 'bewezen feit' niet juist is.

Ik heb het zelf al voorgehad dat ik bepaalde evidentie niet "geloofde". Ik heb geprobeerd om sommige dingen te repliceren, en inderdaad, het 'marcheerde' nie. Dan lijkt het me waardevol om verder te onderzoeken wat er aan de hand is. 'Geloof' of 'ongeloof' is vaak een drijfveer om onaflatend te blijven onderzoeken. Tot zolang 'believers' en 'nonbelievers' (en dan heb ik het niet specifiek over conspiracy theorieën) hun ding mogen doen, lijkt me dat een goeie zaak.

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nynorsk

Ik vind dat geen idiote stellingname.
Het is goed dat er mensen zijn die blijven geloven dat een 'bewezen feit' niet juist is.

Ik heb het zelf al voorgehad dat ik bepaalde evidentie niet "geloofde". Ik heb geprobeerd om sommige dingen te repliceren, en inderdaad, het 'marcheerde' nie. Dan lijkt het me waardevol om verder te onderzoeken wat er aan de hand is. 'Geloof' of 'ongeloof' is vaak een drijfveer om onaflatend te blijven onderzoeken. Tot zolang 'believers' en 'nonbelievers' (en dan heb ik het niet specifiek over conspiracy theorieën) hun ding mogen doen, lijkt me dat een goeie zaak.

waaaat????

dus als iemand zegt:

"Even if you showed me the evidence for homeopathy, I still wouldn't believe in it."

Dan zeg je dat je dat normaal vindt????
Nou ja , ieder zijn mening, maar ik denk dat we het hier weer over cognitieve dissonantie hebben.

Ik heb het er dus niet over of andere mensen het gaan checken!
Iemand zegt al geef je me bewijs dan geloof ik je nog niet
Aan wie doet dat me ook al weer denken?

Pin d'Ar

[kelt]

Bijkbaar wordt iedere langdurige discussie over een of ander "wetenschappelijk" probleem als "politiek" gezien...

Of,iedere campagne om een grotere groep mensen achter idee A te krijgen dan achter idee B wordt "politiek" genoemd....

inderdaad dan,maar daar heeft ieder "wetenschappelijk idee" mee te maken gehad....


Wetenschappers geven gewoonlijk zelf aan waar de onvolkomenheden,de zwakheden in hun stellingen liggen.....dat is het verschil met "gelovigen" of "non-believers"...of koppigaards....


"Global warming" is een mooi voorbeeld,er is geen enkele echte wetenschapper die helemaal zeker is,er kunnen alleen maar vaststellingen en extrapolaties gedaan worden(en dat het extrapolaties zijn met ingeschatte foutmarges,en geen "exacte" wetenschap ,staat in elk rapport!),en ja,het is aan politiekers daar iets mee te doen...

Ik zie dus niet direct een probleem.....

[Leviathan]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

btw als remoting vieuwing niet bestaat waarom maakt de amerikaanse regering er dan gebruik van? Weer een manier om aan te tonen dat ze ons niet willen inlichten, maar het publieke bewustzijn willen sturen.

De CIA heeft er weliswaar mee geëxperimenteerd maar het wordt niet gebruikt, omdat die experimenten niets opleverden.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

Men weet allang dat er ik weet niet hoeveel dimensies bestaan, en me maakt daar gebruik van (o.m. hyperspace, maar niet zoals in de sf boekjes). Ondertussen doen ze of hun neus bloed

Dat er meer dan de gebruikelijke vier dimensies bestaan is ook in wetenschappelijke kringen aanvaard (de zgn. supersnaartheorie). Dat daar gebruik van gemaakt wordt is onzin. Als er volgens jouw gebruik gemaakt wordt van 'hyperspace' mag je mij altijd eens uitleggen hoe dat in zijn werk gaat!

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fonske

Lees Karl Popper, man. Die heeft heel veel dingen geschreven hoe echt wetenschappelijk werk te verichten ( zie "over wolken en klokken").

ik ken ze al evenals Feyerabend etc.

so?


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Bijkbaar wordt iedere langdurige discussie over een of ander "wetenschappelijk" probleem als "politiek" gezien...

Dit is niet wat ik bedoel.Er worden bewust , om o.m politieke redenen
zaken uit de wetenschap gehouden.

Of,iedere campagne om een grotere groep mensen achter idee A te krijgen dan achter idee B wordt "politiek" genoemd....

zie hierboven

inderdaad dan,maar daar heeft ieder "wetenschappelijk idee" mee te maken gehad....

zie hierboven.

Wetenschappers geven gewoonlijk zelf aan waar de onvolkomenheden,de zwakheden in hun stellingen liggen.....dat is het verschil met "gelovigen" of "non-believers"...of koppigaards....

Ja hoor! De meeste wetenschappers zijn teringkoppig. U schets een te ideaalbeeld. bovenstaande stukken tekst al gelezen uit: "surpressed inventions"?

"Global warming" is een mooi voorbeeld,er is geen enkele echte wetenschapper die helemaal zeker is,er kunnen alleen maar vaststellingen en extrapolaties gedaan worden(en dat het extrapolaties zijn met ingeschatte foutmarges,en geen "exacte" wetenschap ,staat in elk rapport!),en ja,het is aan politiekers daar iets mee te doen...

Global Warming is een politiek excuus om controle te vergroten
en geld in het laatj te krijgen. Inhoudelijk wil ik er hier verder niet ingaan
qua wetenschap. Dat zou gewoon een andere thread vergen.

Ik zie dus niet direct een probleem....

ik wel


Pin d'Ar

[Nynorsk]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

waaaat????

dus als iemand zegt:

"Even if you showed me the evidence for homeopathy, I still wouldn't believe in it."

Dan zeg je dat je dat normaal vindt????
Nou ja , ieder zijn mening, maar ik denk dat we het hier weer over cognitieve dissonantie hebben.

Ik heb het er dus niet over of andere mensen het gaan checken!
Iemand zegt al geef je me bewijs dan geloof ik je nog niet
Aan wie doet dat me ook al weer denken?

Pin d'Ar

"evidence" is heel relatief.
"evidence" is ook een menselijke interpretatie.
je kunt zoveel "evidence" verzamelen als je wil, iets kan nog steeds bijzonder onjuist zijn.

Daarnaast zit je met persoonlijk geloof. Ieder mens, ook een wetenschapper, heeft recht op zijn persoonlijk geloof. Ook al wordt dat geloof niet door evidentie onderschreven.
ik vind het niét fout dat een wetenschapper blijft geloven dat homeopathie werkt, ook als alle evidentie het tegendeel zegt. Ik vind het evenzeer niét fout dat een wetenschapper blijft geloven dat homeopathie niét werkt, ook als alle evidentie het tegendeel zegt.

Wetenschappers 'verbieden' irrationele dingen te geloven, d�*t vind ik pas onmenselijk.

[Pindar]

Dat er meer dan de gebruikelijke vier dimensies bestaan is ook in wetenschappelijke kringen aanvaard (de zgn. supersnaartheorie). Dat daar gebruik van gemaakt wordt is onzin. Als er volgens jouw gebruik gemaakt wordt van 'hyperspace' mag je mij altijd eens uitleggen hoe dat in zijn werk gaat

Het begint nu te komen, maar ze wisten het blijkbaar al in 1943.
waarschijnlijk al daarvoor. e.q Philidelphia Experiment.
Hyperspace maakt gebruik van archetypen, kleur, en symbolen.
Het zou te ver gaan om daar nu op in te gaan en zeker hier, maar als je intresse hebt raad ik deze boeken aan:



]The Healer's Handbook: A Journey into Hyperspace
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...ews/0963188992



http://www.amazon.com/Hyperspace-Hel...876918?ie=UTF8


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nynorsk

"evidence" is heel relatief.
"evidence" is ook een menselijke interpretatie.
je kunt zoveel "evidence" verzamelen als je wil, iets kan nog steeds bijzonder onjuist zijn.

Daarnaast zit je met persoonlijk geloof. Ieder mens, ook een wetenschapper, heeft recht op zijn persoonlijk geloof. Ook al wordt dat geloof niet door evidentie onderschreven.
ik vind het niét fout dat een wetenschapper blijft geloven dat homeopathie werkt, ook als alle evidentie het tegendeel zegt. Ik vind het evenzeer niét fout dat een wetenschapper blijft geloven dat homeopathie niét werkt, ook als alle evidentie het tegendeel zegt.

Wetenschappers 'verbieden' irrationele dingen te geloven, d�*t vind ik pas onmenselijk.

je draait wat mij betreft gewoon rond de pot!


Even een vraagje:"ben je wetenschapper"?

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Wetenschappers 'verbieden' irrationele dingen te geloven, d�*t vind ik pas onmenselijk

wat bedoel je hier precies mee?Ik verbied wetenschappers toch niet om irrationele dingen te geloven?


Pin d'Ar

[Nynorsk]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

je draait wat mij betreft gewoon rond de pot!

je mag ook inhoudelijk antwoorden, hoor.

Even een vraagje:"ben je wetenschapper"?

Pin d'Ar

Ik doe wetenschappelijk onderzoek.
Maar ik ben geen wetenschapper, denk ik.

Verandert dat iets aan de zaak?

[Nynorsk]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

Wetenschappers 'verbieden' irrationele dingen te geloven, d�*t vind ik pas onmenselijk

wat bedoel je hier precies mee?Ik verbied wetenschappers toch niet om irrationele dingen te geloven?


Pin d'Ar

Verbieden, nee. Verbieden stond dan ook tussen aanhalingstekens.
Je lijkt het wel bijzonder idioot te vinden. Als zij liever geen idioten zijn (volgens jouw standpunt) dan moeten ze ophouden te geloven. Dat bedoel ik met 'verbieden'.

[Pindar]

je mag ook inhoudelijk antwoorden, hoor.

Ik meen het, je draait rond de pot! Maar goed we wachten wel op reacties van anderen anders. Dit is wat ik je zie doen, je verdraait een en ander.

Ik doe wetenschappelijk onderzoek.
Maar ik ben geen wetenschapper, denk ik.

Verandert dat iets aan de zaak?

Ja, dan vermoed ik een , sterke positieve bevooroordeling richting wetenschap. En dat is verder wat mij betreft ok. Maar ik zie het in je antwoorden. Maar iedereen kan hier natuurlijk zijn bijdrage geven.


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nynorsk

Verbieden, nee. Verbieden stond dan ook tussen aanhalingstekens.
Je lijkt het wel bijzonder idioot te vinden. Als zij liever geen idioten zijn (volgens jouw standpunt) dan moeten ze ophouden te geloven. Dat bedoel ik met 'verbieden'.

wacht even WAT lijk ik idioot te vinden?


Pin d'Ar

[Nynorsk]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

Ja, dan vermoed ik een , sterke positieve bevooroordeling richting wetenschap. En dat is verder wat mij betreft ok. Maar ik zie het in je antwoorden. Maar iedereen kan hier natuurlijk zijn bijdrage geven.


Pin d'Ar

Euhm. Ik sta niet echt gekend om mijn enorm enthousiasme bij het uitvoeren van mijn job.
Maar het klopt wel dat ik een heel positieve beoordeling heb van wat wetenschap k�*n zijn. Niet van wat het is.

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nynorsk

Euhm. Ik sta niet echt gekend om mijn enorm enthousiasme bij het uitvoeren van mijn job.
Maar het klopt wel dat ik een heel positieve beoordeling heb van wat wetenschap k�*n zijn. Niet van wat het is.

Ok, ik heb het over hoe de wetenschap nu is en gebruikt/misbruikt wordt.
Ik dacht echt dat ie fris was, maar dat is ie dus niet, vandaar
de titel van de thread.


Pin d'Ar