The Line Between Science and Pseudoscience

steamboat28 wrote:

Theweirdtophat wrote: I have heard crystal power is also often labeled as pseudo science which doesn't make sense. Don't we use synthetic crystals in computers and equipment? If a synthetic crystal can do that, what could a natural crystal do?

It is pseudoscience. It's pseudoscience because there's no real scientific mindset looking into these "powers". Furthermore, your assertion that we use synthetic crystals in "computers and equipment" is vague enough to showcase your ignorance on how and why they are used. It certainly isn't because there's some kind of magic in them.

I feel like we are being lied to and being prevented from learning all the powers a human can learn, crystal, plant, metal, stone power, magic, psionics, alchemy, ect.all of which were practiced thousands of years by the way.

Cite your source, please.

You say I'm wrong because you say so? Not very convincing if you ask me. Synthetic crystals are used in technology and it should make you think "Gee, what could a natural crystal do." If crystal healing and other practices never worked, why was it done for years? Why do they still do it? Why would people devote time to practice an art that doesn't amount to anything? They want to do it for no reason? That doesn't make sense. There is a reason behind it. Just because you don't see it, or just flat out refuse to see it, doesn't mean there is no rhyme or reason to it.

Do you know how many cover ups there have been, how many deceptions, lies, and half truths have been passed around? This is why you need to dig deep in history. Otherwise you're just being fed half truths and not getting the entire story. I guess I could cite a source, and like many people you'll say "fake" anyway so I don't know why you're asking for one when you're going to reject it anyway. This pseudoscience, a lot of it is real. The only way you will know it's real is if you experience it. Take it from me, who did disbelieve such things until I found out. Experience will be your proof.

Tophat, buddy, I don't know you. And you're probably new here. So I'm gonna break this down as simply and politely as I can.

[hr]

Theweirdtophat wrote: You say I'm wrong because you say so?

No, you're wrong because you're wrong. In my 20 years of study into the very things you're trying to "discover" or "uncover", not one single, solitary, bead-wearin', pot-smokin', athame-buyin', chakra-alignin', mantra-chantin' soccer mom can tell my why any of their supposed "power" works the way it does. None of them have a theory. None of them have experimented to develop and test hypotheses. None of them have journals or logs or notebooks full of measurements, observations, charts. And, worst yet, none of them can cite a source that does. Until such a time that any of these "mystical abilities" is looked into with the same methodology with which we test physical laws, it will continue to be pseudoscience.

Synthetic crystals are used in technology and it should make you think "Gee, what could a natural crystal do."

No, it shouldn't, because they do the same things as the synthetics based on them. The reason synthetic crystals are used in technology is the same reason that natural crystals have been used in technology: because their physical properties are perfect for the job they're needed to perform. Guitar pickups are based on piezoelectric technology, which is the ability of certain substances to convert physical pressure into electrical charge and vice-versa. Piezoelectric substances are used in such audio pickups because they can convert the oscillation of the string to alter an electric charge that can then be interpreted by other devices. Quartz crystals are piezoelectric, so they're often used in devices like said pickups. It's not because quartz is magic, it's because the physical properties of quartz allow it to perform that job. Synthetic crystals are only used in place of natural crystals when uniformity or low cost are required.

If crystal healing and other practices never worked, why was it done for years?

Mostly because people are stupid. They saw some kind of correlation between the crystal and the natural healing process of the body because they were expecting to find it. They discovered rock-shaped placebos to put their faith in, and then suffered catastrophic levels of confirmation bias.

Side note: "crystal healing" is New Age sh--. It's not old or ancient or shrouded in the mists of time. It's just correspondence magick reinvented by people who sell books to gullible teenagers.

Why would people devote time to practice an art that doesn't amount to anything?

For exactly the same reason people pray.

That doesn't make sense.

You're right. It doesn't.

There is a reason behind it.

We discussed the reason earlier. People thought they found a causation where there was only a correlation, and were too happy, pleased, shocked, or dumb to examine it further.

Do you know how many cover ups there have been, how many deceptions, lies, and half truths have been passed around? This is why you need to dig deep in history. Otherwise you're just being fed half truths and not getting the entire story.

It is mathematically improbable and socially impossible for conspiracies of that depth to survive any length of time under public scrutiny. Believing in this sort of cover-up is a convenient way to pass off brand new bullsh-- as ancient wisdom, or to pass the metaphorical buck to someone else rather than take responsibility for your own education.

I guess I could cite a source, and like many people you'll say "fake" anyway so I don't know why you're asking for one when you're going to reject it anyway.

That depends on whether or not it was conducted accurately, if it was tested properly, if its results are repeatable, and if the results themselves were re-examined.

This pseudoscience, a lot of it is real. The only way you will know it's real is if you experience it. Take it from me, who did disbelieve such things until I found out. Experience will be your proof.

99% of the crap you've listed is utter nonsense. Take it from me, who's spent two decades studying these belief structures and the people who blindly adhere to them in hopes that one day they'll be special.

steamboat28 wrote: Tophat, buddy, I don't know you. And you're probably new here. So I'm gonna break this down as simply and politely as I can.

[hr]

Theweirdtophat wrote: You say I'm wrong because you say so?

No, you're wrong because you're wrong. In my 20 years of study into the very things you're trying to "discover" or "uncover", not one single, solitary, bead-wearin', pot-smokin', athame-buyin', chakra-alignin', mantra-chantin' soccer mom can tell my why any of their supposed "power" works the way it does. None of them have a theory. None of them have experimented to develop and test hypotheses. None of them have journals or logs or notebooks full of measurements, observations, charts. And, worst yet, none of them can cite a source that does. Until such a time that any of these "mystical abilities" is looked into with the same methodology with which we test physical laws, it will continue to be pseudoscience.

Synthetic crystals are used in technology and it should make you think "Gee, what could a natural crystal do."

No, it shouldn't, because they do the same things as the synthetics based on them. The reason synthetic crystals are used in technology is the same reason that natural crystals have been used in technology: because their physical properties are perfect for the job they're needed to perform. Guitar pickups are based on piezoelectric technology, which is the ability of certain substances to convert physical pressure into electrical charge and vice-versa. Piezoelectric substances are used in such audio pickups because they can convert the oscillation of the string to alter an electric charge that can then be interpreted by other devices. Quartz crystals are piezoelectric, so they're often used in devices like said pickups. It's not because quartz is magic, it's because the physical properties of quartz allow it to perform that job. Synthetic crystals are only used in place of natural crystals when uniformity or low cost are required.

If crystal healing and other practices never worked, why was it done for years?

Mostly because people are stupid. They saw some kind of correlation between the crystal and the natural healing process of the body because they were expecting to find it. They discovered rock-shaped placebos to put their faith in, and then suffered catastrophic levels of confirmation bias.

Side note: "crystal healing" is New Age sh--. It's not old or ancient or shrouded in the mists of time. It's just correspondence magick reinvented by people who sell books to gullible teenagers.

Why would people devote time to practice an art that doesn't amount to anything?

For exactly the same reason people pray.

That doesn't make sense.

You're right. It doesn't.

There is a reason behind it.

We discussed the reason earlier. People thought they found a causation where there was only a correlation, and were too happy, pleased, shocked, or dumb to examine it further.

Do you know how many cover ups there have been, how many deceptions, lies, and half truths have been passed around? This is why you need to dig deep in history. Otherwise you're just being fed half truths and not getting the entire story.

It is mathematically improbable and socially impossible for conspiracies of that depth to survive any length of time under public scrutiny. Believing in this sort of cover-up is a convenient way to pass off brand new bullsh-- as ancient wisdom, or to pass the metaphorical buck to someone else rather than take responsibility for your own education.

I guess I could cite a source, and like many people you'll say "fake" anyway so I don't know why you're asking for one when you're going to reject it anyway.

That depends on whether or not it was conducted accurately, if it was tested properly, if its results are repeatable, and if the results themselves were re-examined.

This pseudoscience, a lot of it is real. The only way you will know it's real is if you experience it. Take it from me, who did disbelieve such things until I found out. Experience will be your proof.

99% of the crap you've listed is utter nonsense. Take it from me, who's spent two decades studying these belief structures and the people who blindly adhere to them in hopes that one day they'll be special.

Yeah, ok. You say you'll try to be polite and you've been everything but polite. Am I seriously the only one noticing this? Am I the only one noticing the rude behavior of this person?

So they did it mostly because they were stupid? Well, I'm convinced. I guess that explains that even the greatest scientists of the past practiced such things. Listen here. Maybe you haven't looked in the right areas or just looked up a few pages online, but I have had actual experiences. I have seen people get healed through crystals. No, they didn't heal like Wolverine, but they did heal faster the next few days. Even the doctors couldn't explain it. I've have talked with actual psychics who knew things no one else on the planet knew.

And also a camera cannot record everything anyway. How can it record an energy aura? How can it record telepathy or otherworldly visits? Some things can't be recorded. There are some people who are fakes but when you see those people you assume all of them must be fake and are ignoring the people that can actually do something. Some things need to be experienced to see the proof. And even if you saw it on video, you would probably say it was fake. And even if the proof was staring right in front of your face, you probably still wouldn't believe it, at least at first, because you don't want to believe such powers exist because the idea of powers that you don't understand and having a presence on this earth frightens some people which I understand.

I already know the truth because I experienced it. It's like if said this. If I told you I was abducted by aliens and you told me, "Well that didn't really happen." Do you really think I'm going to believe you after I've already seen the truth.
You keep trying to convince me I'm wrong and not only you have not done that, but you've acted rude on top of it. You've been profane, trying to put down other people's beliefs and so forth. And you're supposed to be a Jedi, who's supposed to be rather polite? You are not the best example. Seriously, is no one noticing how rude he's being?

It's up to you to accept it or not. I did and it doesn't matter if I can't "prove" it to you. Just because it's not proven, does not mean it didn't happen.

Hey weirdhophat, hey steamboat- let's remember to take ourselves not too seriously or get too heated up about this! It'll help fluid (and perhaps kind) conversation, We're emotional creatures before Jedi or any labels so let's play nice!

Weirdtophat- here's some stuff from the original post/article,

The problem, as Popper saw it, is that some bodies of knowledge more properly named pseudosciences would be considered scientific if the “Observe & Deduce” operating definition were left alone. For example, a believing astrologist can ably provide you with “evidence” that their theories are sound.

Your evidence it seems to be based on what you have personally experienced. That's not necessarily a problem but you're right to say other people have not experienced it for themselves.

The astrologist would tell you, for example, about how “Leos” seek to be the center of attention; ambitious, strong, seeking limelight. As proof, they might follow up with a host of real-life Leos: World-leaders, celebrities, politicians, and so on. In some sense, the theory would hold up. The observations could be explained by the theory, which is how science works, right?

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory.

Do you know what confirmation bias is weirdtophat- what I've highlighted in bold above reflects that.

What you said earlier in a comment to Steamboat,

I already know the truth because I experienced it. It's like if said this. If I told you I was abducted by aliens and you told me, "Well that didn't really happen." Do you really think I'm going to believe you after I've already seen the truth.

reminded me of this next part in the article-

Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still ‘un-analysed’ and crying aloud for treatment.
Here was the salient problem: The proponents of these new sciences saw validations and verifications of their theories everywhere. If you were having trouble as an adult, it could always be explained by something your mother or father had done to you when you were young, some repressed something-or-other that hadn’t been analyzed and solved. They were confirmation bias machines.
What was the missing element? Popper had figured it out before long: The non-scientific theories could not be falsified. They were not testable in a legitimate way. There was no possible objection that could be raised which would show the theory to be wrong.

Likewise- with your healing crystals for example I don't think they can be truly proven 'wrong' or limited. It's easy to prove them right- just look at people's experiences- but how do we know under which conditions they don't work. What do you think?

Have a nice day everyone,

I keep thinking of the words 'attribution error', but I don't think that is the right thing.... but if something happens, and we cannot prove what causes it, we tend to attribute it to 'something'. I mean, if we cannot prove how it works then all we can do is associate something to symbolize some apparent action. The more repeatable it is, then the more it is justified to likely be involved. If it is not repeatable, or very rarely repeatable it IMO serves more of a symbol then a cause. In the interests of knowledge, and therefore usefulness, it serves to try and find out!!?

Vusuki, I'm beyond emotion on this topic. I've had this same discussion with skeptics and conspiracy theorists alike for far longer than I've been a member here. At this point, it's just recited by rote.

Vusuki wrote: Your evidence it seems to be based on what you have personally experienced. That's not necessarily a problem but you're right to say other people have not experienced it for themselves.

Actually, it is a bit of a problem, since anecdotal evidence is toward the very bottom rung of the "valid evidence" ladder. That's because it's nearly impossible to prove and even harder to disprove, and is generally only accepted as legitimate when it either supports a claim that already has heavy evidence behind it, or if there is no other evidence available. It is, and should always be, taken with a dump truck of salt. People aren't very good at transmitting information without a bias unless they've been trained to do so and have records, logs, other people, or machines to keep them honest.

[hr]

Theweirdtophat wrote: Yeah, ok. You say you'll try to be polite and you've been everything but polite. Am I seriously the only one noticing this? Am I the only one noticing the rude behavior of this person?

Hi, tophat. I'm Steamboat28. It's obvious we haven't met yet, or this conversation would've already happened. I am not being rude, I am stating an argument. You have not yet seen be reach "rude". For me to get to that point would imply that I value your opinion, or the opinions of other readers, enough to intentionally eschew social convention to get your attention.

So they did it mostly because they were stupid? Well, I'm convinced. I guess that explains that even the greatest scientists of the past practiced such things.

If you have another explanation for why people do things that have been unable to prove beneficial in any kind of legitimate testing, I'm all for it. I'll also need sources for your "scientists of the past," since the profession of "scientist" is a relatively new invention, dating back only a couple of centuries.

Listen here.

This is not how you want to initiate a conversation with me, son.

Maybe you haven't looked in the right areas or just looked up a few pages online, but I have had actual experiences. I have seen people get healed through crystals...I've have talked with actual psychics who knew things no one else on the planet knew.

Problems with this paragraph:

1. "Actual experiences" that aren't verifiable in any legitimate way.
2. Extremely vague accounts coupled with extremely vague "evidence."
3. Supposition of the other party's depth of knowledge in a field when author doesn't know anything whatsoever about the other party, their experiences, their work, or their depth of knowledge in the field.

And also a camera cannot record everything anyway. How can it record an energy aura? How can it record telepathy or otherworldly visits? Some things can't be recorded.

Any legitimate phenomenon can be recorded. It is the precipice of ignorance to believe that "cameras" are the only instrument through which data may be quantified or recorded.

There are some people who are fakes but when you see those people you assume all of them must be fake and are ignoring the people that can actually do something.

If these people actually could do something, they'd be out doing it. And if any of them had a shred of decency or compassion for their fellow humans, they'd submit themselves to scientific testing so that we might better understand their gifts and how to expand them to encompass all of mankind. Instead, psychic hotlines go bankrupt and faith healers live in mansions while their followers die of treatable diseases.

Some things need to be experienced to see the proof.

That's called "faith", not science.

And even if you saw it on video, you would probably say it was fake. And even if the proof was staring right in front of your face, you probably still wouldn't believe it, at least at first, because you don't want to believe such powers exist because the idea of powers that you don't understand and having a presence on this earth frightens some people which I understand.

It is my duty as a rational, logical human being to be skeptical of any claim that cannot be verified through scientific means. It is an obligation to the truth and any who need it that cannot be avoided. If one is to prove the unproveable, one must disprove that which can be disproven.

Furthermore, your assertion that I "don't want to believe...because the idea...frightens" me is absolutely adorable. I've been an exorcist for longer than some of our members have been alive. I'm not saying strange and unusual things don't exist, I'm saying that you're wrong in your approach to them.

I already know the truth because I experienced it. It's like if said this. If I told you I was abducted by aliens and you told me, "Well that didn't really happen." Do you really think I'm going to believe you after I've already seen the truth.

That. That right there. That's confirmation bias. You "already know the truth," so your mind is automatically closed to any alternative explanations for the phenomena you claim to have perceived. You will never fully understand those experiences or the world around you so long as you maintain that you already have all the knowledge you require.

You keep trying to convince me I'm wrong and not only you have not done that, but you've acted rude on top of it. You've been profane, trying to put down other people's beliefs and so forth. And you're supposed to be a Jedi, who's supposed to be rather polite? You are not the best example. Seriously, is no one noticing how rude he's being?

I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I'm simply stating it plainly. I don't care if you know you're wrong; I'm trying to convince the rest of the viewers of this thread not to follow you into a place of arrogance and ignorance.

If you have a problem with me, my words, or my views, you are more than welcome to take it up with me. The fact that you perceive me to be "rude" has no bearing whatsoever on my statements or my views on this subject. They don't make you any more "right".

You make a rather lot of assumptions for someone new here. One of them is that I care enough what you think to respond to your attempt to shame me, calling in others to verify your opinion of my "rudeness" so that you feel validated in your distaste of my words. To attempt to attach some stigma to my plain-speaking because I'm "supposed to be a Jedi" is laughable. If you are taking this personally, perhaps you should examine your investment in this topic more closely.

You came here looking for people to agree with you. Don't blame me because you didn't find that.

Theweirdtophat wrote: It's possible that you have too much time and I don't really see how it has anything to do with this topic.

No, we're not the same, but just because we happen to share the same ideas, does not make one the same. If you research online you'll find dozens of people that will say pretty much the same thing I've said.

That's true, but I would not find them use the exact same defense tactics, the exact same response and quotation format, the exact same topical arguments, the exact same names and numbers and even do all of that down to the same wording, consistently and repeatedly. I'll have you know I do not have too much time on my hands. If I did, I could and maybe for a while would go through every post of yours in this topic and find one of Yabu's that is the same short of slightly different word placement. I could even try and find the same spelling and grammar mistakes, if I had too much time. Since I don't, I have linked Yabu's old thread here, so everybody else can see for themselves, if they so please. I have addressed every argument you made multiple times in the other thread. Khaos also contributed a lot then. Steamboat is dealing with you pretty well right now, way more polite than we usually expect of him
If I had too much time, as you said back then and as you say now, I could tear you to shreds here, too. But I'm a scientist, not a debater, so I don't, thus I won't. Looking through the rest of what you wrote since my callout, I am at this point rather convinced that you have created a second account to shake off the tint of the first. Now that is not strictly your doom by TOTJO rules - the only consequence is that you'll have to choose one of them to remain while the other is terminated. It was of course an ugly thing to do and what happens now behind the scenes is beyond my control. But out here, in public, you have said what you said and whether that was a lie shall be left to the judgement of the respective reader. I invite you to take it back and come out honest and I offer to vouch for you. I have no say and no power over this place, so do not take this as a threat; I do what I do in the open, for all the persons of power to see. It will not be me who brings you down if you choose so, but you won't get away with lying on my watch, so much I can predict with confidence.
Choose wisely. Welcome to TOTJO.

Luckily pseudoscience could contain parts of future science, we just need to find the technique to [strike]scientize[/strike] find it.

Yep and i hope next time they try to replicate cannabis they do test it on themselfes ..., there are not enough studies to back cannabis up as a medicin but there are signs that it can be one with a high potential , besides that it is a good painkiller and sedative as well.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/what-we-know-so-far-about-clinical-trial-disaster-france

Adder wrote: Luckily pseudoscience could contain parts of future science, we just need to find the technique to [strike]scientize[/strike] find it.

Theweirdtophat wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Gisteron wrote: Dear Theweirdtophat,
So the most recent activity available to my viewing as a guest of Yabuturtle was incidentally the day before your joining date, Tophat. Yabu posted more or less the same questions and exactly the same argument about pretty much the same topic in his thread on telekinesis .
Now, a few quotations to show that this is more than just my paranoia:

---

Theweirdtophat wrote: Some things can't even be recorded and need to be experienced. Such as if there was a ritual casting a protection or healing spell around someone, the act and spell was complete and took effect but the camera didn't catch it when it was recording it? How could it? The camera is not designed to catch it so when we watch it, we think nothing happened when in reality it actually did take effect.	Yabuturtle wrote: People ask for proof but there are things that would be difficult to prove. Such as if you were casting a blessing spell on someone. You can watch it on film but the film wouldn't catch it, but that doesn't mean the person wasn't blessed in some way.
Theweirdtophat wrote: And of course when people think of telekinesis or magic, they think of stuff from hollywood, but a lot of that stuff is exaggerated and real psionics and magic doesn't work like that. It isn't flashy and it's more subtle but nonetheless real.	Yabuturtle wrote: I really think it's because when people think of magic, they imagine people hurling fire balls or something from the movies, when real magic doesn't work that way. With Telekinesis, they imagine people using it like in the movies, flinging numerous objects all over the place, when telekinesis is a little more subtle than that.
Theweirdtophat wrote: If psionic abilities or magic and mysticism was fake, how come some of the greatest scientists and thinks practiced it or at least had an interest in it. Leonardo Da Vinci had plenty of occult symbols in his art, Isaac Newton was said to have done rituals and George Washington Carver had even said he was able to communicate with plants. Yet scientists today discredit such abilities despite the fact that they idolize scientists who did practice such abilities.	Yabuturtle wrote: Of course one should also mention that many of the great scientists practiced or at least had an interest in psychic abilities or magic or mysticism. George Washington Carver, Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, ect. did as well. These were scientists yet they didn't dismiss such things and these guys are looked up by scientists today, many of which that dismiss such abilities are fake. It's ironic to me.

---

Since I have myself already addressed just about every point on this, I shan't. I have also covered the topic outside of that numerous times so I shall do that only when asked. This peculiar similarity is the only thing I'm pointing out for now, as a humble service to the Temple.
*bows*

It's possible that you have too much time and I don't really see how it has anything to do with this topic.

No, we're not the same, but just because we happen to share the same ideas, does not make one the same. If you research online you'll find dozens of people that will say pretty much the same thing I've said.

(Emphasis mine)

I am only stopping in as I was pointed in this direction...

I also have to say, that I do value personal experience, as even if I cant repeat results for others, I know what my conclusions lead me too... Cannot stop that, pseudoscience, or not, lol...

Gisteron, you must have a photogrtaphic memory... Even if not, your memory is quite impressive, ...

However, TopHat

No, sharing the same ideas does not mean the same person...

But, the phrasing does make those of logical (sorry to lump myself in this part Gisteron, ) mind question....

However, TopHat/Yabuturtle, here are some things the admin can see at a glance...

Same name...

Attachment hd374b20.JPG not found

Attachment he7dab04.JPG not found

And, looking at IP addresses, Gisteron has 527 different IP addresses in 5 years... Only one has been shared, and not that much






There are 524 more lines that show no sharing, lol...

+++++++++++++++++++++
And Yabuturtle and Weird Tophat have, in 4 months and 3 weeks, respectively, have:









If I was a scientist, or even a Pseudoscientist, I would have to be scratching my head right now...

I will keep tabs... any more evidence, I will block one, or both the accounts...

As for the rest of you, lol, if you choose the talk with 'them', its on you... :lol:....