Bad Science Awards

KDan writes "The Bad Science Awards are out. These should put a smile on any science geek's face. Prize gems include: shrinking water molecules, anesthetic condoms, and a plan to send homeopathic AIDS remedies to Botswana."

Comments

Horses for courses

[Space cowboy]

I've just read a few of these out - the one that caused the most laughter was the 'shrinking water molecules' one. Looks like the Planck constant isn't, at least for hairdressers :-)

I'm sure the condom story will cause the most general hilarity though - shades of 'Riotous Assembly' by Tom Sharpe - which I heartily recommend if you want people to wonder why you suddenly burst out laughing...

The real issue of course is that the general public ("sheep") will believe anything a man in a white coat ("doctor") tells them. Scepticism is a vanishing but valuable trait :-( Perhaps if science were more popular/emphasized more at school, the problem might alleviate, but there's no votes in improving the education system in 15 years time...

Simon

Re:Horses for courses

[Bastian]

Perhaps if science were more popular/emphasized more at school, the problem might alleviate

The problem isn't that science isn't being taught. A lot of scientific facts are taught, and a nod is given to the scientific method, even.

What isn't being taught is reason and skepticism. And the way science is taught - as a stream of facts for the students to swallow unquestioningly - only encourages that lack of skepticism. After all, it's not a very big jump from being spoon-fed cute lab demonstrations by a middle aged adult who probably couldn't use the words non sequitir in a sentence, even after using the dictionary, to being spoon-fed heaping piles of balderdash sprinkled with a few large words by a middle aged adult in a white labcoat on T.V.

Still, I do find it absolutely astounding that people who worry about their kids using things like cocaine and mushrooms, and who know that deadly nightshade is not a safe thing to eat, can simultaneously believe that a product is 100% safe simply because it's made of "all natural ingredients."

>GET TEA
>GET NO TEA

Re:Horses for courses

[ActiveNet]

To speak as a condom salesman (I run an online condom store http://www.xessentials.co.uk/) the "Delay" type of condom is VERY popular, at least here in the UK. Durex, Condomi and Safex all have them (with Benzocaine/Polyvalent Alcohols as the "active ingredient").

Delay condoms are our second biggest sellers after extra thin condoms (i.e. the exact opposite for people who want MORE sensation during sex with a condom), with many repeat visitors buying them over and over again (so they obviously work for some people).

The trouble with the media is that any condom that dares to stray from the straight, plain variety is immediately viewed as perverted, weird or unsafe. However the truth is that people have a wide variety of penises, sexual needs and sexual preferences. So more innovation to find condoms that suite the individual is needed to help encourage condom use and stem the growing tide of STI's and unwanted pregnancies. Thats why we currently stock over 50 different types.

I know this may seem like a shameless plug, but with governments (and society in general much of the time) burying their heads in the sand, it gets left to us commercial types to try and do their jobs for them and get condom discussions on the table. And of course with "reputable" media like the Guardian calling it all "bad science" its going to be an uphill struggle...

Re:missing items

[somethinghollow]

Everything L. Ron Hubbard wrote...

how about "creationism" crap?

[jxyama]

what about all the people insisting on teaching creationism in school as an alternative theory to evolution in biology classes?

repeat after me: creationism (or "intelligent design") is not a scientific theory. it has no predicative power, it offers no real explanation, nor can it be tested.

it belongs in philosophy, religion, psychology and/or sociology classes but not in a science class.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[Anonymous Coward]

psychology and/or sociology classes but not in a science class

You are mistaken. Psychology and sociology are both sciences.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[jxyama]

1) define "God" or at least show me a physical example of it.
2) if you cannot do #1, then give me a suitable definition of "evolve" that applies to non-physical objects but has scientific meaning. (the fact idea of "God" changes over time is not science. that's a anthropology/sociology/religion question.)
3) finally, show me how to test God's physical evolution. tell me under what principles it evolves so that the theory offers some predicative power.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Then you better explain that "science" is only a pragmatic, physical explanation of observed results -- it can make no claim to being "truth". Science is useful, since it's the best way of analyzing things. But it's entirely possible that a deity created the universe as it is such that science reports these results, and science is too small in scope to be able to refute that possibility.

Honestly. Some people treat science like it's a religion or something (pun intended). It's only an explanation. If anything, science is an alternative theory to common organized religion just as much as creationism is an alternative theory to evolution.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[BrynM]

what about all the people insisting on teaching creationism in school as an alternative theory to evolution in biology classes?

There's an eloquent way to seperate the religion from the science: Science is there to try to explain the how (How does a rock fall? How do we procreate? Fact based questions.) Religion is there to explain the why (why does the rock fall? Why do we procreate? Theology.). The trick is to make the seperation - something we as americans are no good at. School is responsible for the science as there's a common denominator of provable fact. Parents/gaurdians are in charge of the religion as it's more subjective and faith oriented. The folks fighting for schools to teach the theological are shirking the responsibility of teaching it themselves. Damn convenience based society!

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[alienw]

Since creationism is not scientific, it should not be called an alternative theory. They should not be put side-by-side, since they are not on the same footing.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[jxyama]

> Then you better explain that "science" is only a pragmatic, physical explanation of observed results .

...and religion is not a "pragmatic, physical explanation of observed results.". that's why i said a religious theory (which is what creationsim is) doesn't belong in a science class.

i never said creationism is "wrong." it has its place in the learning/education and this world. just not in a science class.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[alienw]

You failed science class, didn't you? You don't assume things and then try to disprove them. You take the knowledge you have, produce a hypothesis that logically follows from that knowledge, and test it, thereby acquiring new knowledge. Just because it's impossible to disprove the existence of green hairy aliens on Alpha Centauri doesn't imply that you can claim they are there.

If you still want to argue, how about some classic mind-twisters: if some intelligent being created life, who created the intelligent being? How the hell did he become all-powerful? Does this not violate the basic laws of physics as well as produce logical contradictions? What evidence do you have for the existence of such a being?

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[Grishnakh]

Ok, so why don't we teach in public schools that the earth was created by Xenu and that we're all infected with Body Thetans, or some other such nonsense? It's possible, as it's also possible that we're all living in a big computer simulation.

The difference between science and superstition (also known as "religion") is that it doesn't claim to be 100% correct, and is constantly checked and verified and revised to get as close to the truth as possible. If you want to believe in some crazy story that some other person made up, feel free; but schools are for educating people with things that are useful, not making them believe lies.

It's hard to believe that even here, on Slashdot, "news for nerds", so many people are completely ignorant of what science is.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[jxyama]

the problem i have with creationism is that it offers no scientific explanation. "how did the world begin?" "God made it." doesn't answer any question. it's simply a substitution. if you believe in "God" then the answer makes "sense." but if you don't believe in "God" then it hasn't answer the question...

physicists are looking for the grand unification theory. ok, here it is, i have the answer: f(x) = G. i can't tell what the function f is or the variables x and G are, but that's the formula and it's the grand unification theory, when f, x and G are suitable defined.

do you believe that i just came up with a GUT? don't you agree that all i did was mask the question and didn't really provide any explanation at all?

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[jxyama]

i think people smarter than me can offer reasons why scientific method is one of the most logical and powerful way for us to test the hypotheses and provide explanations as to how our world works.

i cannot see similar convictions for a method that tells me to read a book and take what it says as an explanation on "faith."

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[Sique]

I might give you "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett as a good account for Godly Evolution :)

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Of course you can't see a logical reason to accept religion. That's not the point. I don't see a religious reason to accept logic. Your instinctive trust of logic is pretty much equivalently rooted to my instinctive trust of God.

The scientific method is powerful and is logical. I agree with it. I have never said that I don't believe that science works, or that it is incorrect. I have never said I believe, and in fact I don't believe, that God created the world at once so that evolutionism arose from a mass of confused scientists and evil conspirators. I am a scientist at heart, as much as I am a Christian.

Yet science is only valid within the realm of science. Your saying that logic precludes a deity is no more valid than my saying that the Bible precludes evolution.

I also believe in Jesus Christ because of what you may call the scientific method: many repeated experiences of the power of God. Note that I do not take Scientology on faith. In it I've seen many repeated examples of corporate abuse of people.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[Atrax]

> Psychology and sociology are both science

I personally prefer to think of those as the 'soft' sciences. Sort of testable, with a heavy dose of subjectivity. As opposed to 'hard' sciences such as chemistry/physics, which are pretty solid really.

biology can sit somewhere in the middle, because it does have room for subjectivity.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[Atrax]

you know, I wouldn't say your cited example is any more crazy than a belief in the existence of some all-controlling entity which you call 'god'.

belief in god is as valid as belief in unicorns. You do believe in unicorns, right?

to risk pressing a point a little too far, have you ever considered the idea that your 'religious experiences' are little more than a firing of neurotransmitters in a particular way, caused by perhaps a particular mental and physical state?

Some people report feelings of 'religious euphoria' which are strikingly similar to what some clubbers report feeling when high on ecstasy. It seems to be basically a strange response to a particular chemical state in the brain, possibly related to being in a particular social situation too (evangelist tent rallies, meet open-air rave parties). It's a deep feeling of joy, perhaps with a strong sense of belonging mixed in, with generous helpings of contentment. Cosmic, man.

In the party example, you can explain it ("I felt great because I took drugs and danced") whereas the same feeling at church or during prayer is attributed to some higher power. Which is where it all breaks down, really, because there's no foundation for that conclusion. It's just meditation.

I wonder how difficult this hypothesis would be to test?

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[teromajusa]

Can what you learn in Biology affect what you learn in history or sociology or business? Should it.

Absolutely. In fact, thats pretty much separates myth from history, sociology from superstition. Both sociology and history involve evaluating evidence in the same way that biology does. Can you say the same thing for religion?

You argue that the knowledge of science and the knowledge of religion can't co-operate together. Can you provide me with the an argument as to why you think that is?

I think the point is that you can't actually have any knowledge of religion at all. You can only have beliefs.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[CustomDesigned]

> > Also compare with Psalms 90:4, and particularly the notation "A prayer of Moses" at the beginning of Psalms 90

> What exactly are you referring to here? I read the passage, and I don't see where it would contradict the view that a day in the Bible is 24 hours.

"A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day." That's the same 'day' as in Genesis. And the author is explicitly given: Moses. The same author traditionally given for Genesis. (Although there is a good case to be made that Moses compiled, not authored Genesis.) Now try to justify the statement that "the Hebrew word for 'day' always refers to a 24 hour period."

Also compare the frequent phrase "the day of the LORD" - which clearly does not refer to a 24 hr day.

P.S. To get really nit picky, you'll also find a 48 hour day in Joshua (the sun stood still for 24 hours) and a 24 hr 20 min day in II Kings (the shadow on the sundial went backward 10 degrees - assuming 1 deg = 1 min).

Intelligent design gets to the heart of the real disagreement between origin of life theories. Was it purposeless and uncaused, or designed? We ask the same questions about murders, artifacts, turing tests, and radio signals from space. The same techniques can be used.

The Bible asserts that G-d created every living thing "after its kind". However, it was Aristotle, not the Bible, who declared that species (and the stars) were immutable and unchanging. The Church somehow became supporters of the scientific orthodoxy of the day (Aristotleanism) instead of sticking to the Bible and Apostolic Tradition - and has been tarred with that brush ever since.

The scientific orthodoxy began to unravel with the appearance of two visible supernovas in the 15 and 16 hundreds (spectacular evidence that no, the stars are not immutable). But many were burned at the stake for stating the obvious conclusion from what they saw. Galileo got off easy because of the support of the Pope (who saw the moons of Jupiter through Galileos telescope with his own eyes - an Aristotelean impossibility). Galileo was foolishly undiplomatic, and his house arrest was needed to appease the insulted Aristoteleans.

Detractors of Intelligent design often proceed by showing mathematically that there can be no algorithm capable of classifying signal sources as "intelligent" or "not-intelligent" (for some definition of intelligent). This begs the question. The premise of the Christian supernatural is that this universe is embedded in a larger reality. This does not mean parallel universes or higher dimensions. The traditional metaphor was book and author. Good books like "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter" are worlds created by their author. The author resides in a larger reality. A better metaphor in the computer age is a simulation or virtual world. Just as the existence of the virtual worlds we create depends on the continued functioning of the computer systems that house them, so our universe depends for its existence on whatever it is in the "more real" world that sustains it as computers sustain our virtual worlds. In turn, that world may be embedded in an even higher reality. Like a story within a story - to use the traditional metaphor. Where does it all end (or start)? The source of all realities and all worlds is God - like in Douglas Hofstadter's "Push and Pop" dialog in "Godel, Escher, Bach".

The "intelligence" of Intelligent Design is presumed to have its source outside of our universe - in the higher reality. A better model of the kind of experiment ID proposes can be illustrated by an online game. Suppose you are playing your favorite online game - which contains many AI players as well as human players. The game provides no explict indication of which avatars are human and which are machine driven. You have no contact with any of the human players except through the game. Would you be able to tell which avatars were controlled by human players, and which were artificial, using only the features of the virtual world and without resorting to any outside communication?

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[OoSync]

You failed science class, didn't you?

Actually, I have a BS in Physics and have studied some physics at the graduate level.

You don't assume things and then try to disprove them. You take the knowledge you have, produce a hypothesis that logically follows from that knowledge, and test it, thereby acquiring new knowledge.

I apologize for being unclear. As you say, we use the knowledge we have to make a hypothesis to support a scientific theory. The act of testing the hypothesis helps to strengthen the body of scientific evidence atributable to a theory. However, a test must not only be passable, but also capable of failure.

The ability to test for failure is a hallmark of scientific endeavors. It is true that scientific theories and hypothesii rest on a body of proof. However, it is somewhat more accurate (IMHO, and I'm not being original in this) that its not the success of the tests that demonstrates the power of a theory (say the Theory of Evolution), but the inability of tests to disprove the theory.

Its a slightly different wording and way to perceive science and scientific endeavors, but I think its utimately a more powerful statement. That is why I would argue with anyone that ID or creationism is not science. Neither of those things are disprovable, a prerequisite for testing and the methods of scientific observation.

I won't answer your other questions because my stance is basically the same as yours. I don't believe in or condone the labeling of ID or creationism as science. Those things are beliefs or faiths, something a lot of people place stock in, but they are not science. I think you seriously missinterpreted my statement, but I guess I was pretty unclear. I'm still trying to find a more concise way to state all of this.

Feel free to email me if you want to talk more about this.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[jaelle]

At least science is useful...

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[DunbarTheInept]

Yet science is only valid within the realm of science

True. But then what exactly is "the realm of science"? It's just simply "stuff we can test and try to prove ourselves wrong." Anything not in that realm is something that has no credibility because you can't differentiate the made-up from the rigiously tested. And that the line separating that realm from other things is not stagnant. What isn't science today could become science tomorrow. It all depends on what kinds of tests can be devised.


Note that I do not take Scientology on faith. In it I've seen many repeated examples of corporate abuse of people.

Were these last two lines supposed to be related in some way to the rest of your message? If so, how? They just seemed to be completely unconnected and random. (And don't say "Scientology" if you mean "Science". Science has nothing to do with those e-meter weirdos.)

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[DunbarTheInept]

when it's proven wrong the proponents quickly change the theory to fit the facts

Correct. That's why science is superior to religion.

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[kettlechips]

have you ever considered the idea that your 'religious experiences' are little more than a firing of neurotransmitters in a particular way, caused by perhaps a particular mental and physical state?

Have you ever considered the idea that your 'neurotransmitters' are little more than manifestations of THAT which can be considered to be god's creation?

Stating that religious experience is linked to neurotransmitter activity doesn't explain anything. In fact, if we agree that neurotransmitter activity is linked to awareness, it is quite obvious.
Neurotransmitters and their firing are little more than the interplay between proteins and ions, which are little more than the laws of quantum mechanics put into effect, which are little more... Surely it doesn't follow that a thorough and consistent book on science or philosophy is little more than a bunch of inkblots on a piece of paper..

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[jejones]

I happen to believe in the existance of greater being, not because I can cite someones scientific evidence but because there has to be something more to the world that we don't understand.

Alas, in other contexts, I've found that what I want to be true is pretty useless in determining what actually is true. (Otherwise, Bill Gates would be applying for a job cleaning toilets in the building where I work.)

Re:how about "creationism" crap?

[Hatta]

I happen to believe in the existance of greater being, not because I can cite someones scientific evidence but because there has to be something more to the world that we don't understand. If the world is as bland as you perpetuate it to be, I don't think I'd ever be prepaired for the endless void that would await me as I cease to exist after my demise.

Why do you equate a natural explanation of the world with blandness? From my position the bland option is to explain away the enormous complexity of the world with magic.

I am reminded of something Richard Feynman said:

"The beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me. I believe, that although I might not be as refined asthetically as he is that I can appreciate the beauty of the flower. But at the same time I see much more about the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions insided, which also have a beauty. There's not just beauty at the dimension fo 1 cm, there is beauty at the smaller dimensions, the inner structure.

Also the processes. The fact that the colors of the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting. That means that insects can see the color. It adds a question, does this asthetic sense exist in the lower forms? Why is it asthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which scientific knowledge only adds to the excitement, mystery, and awe of a flower"

You see, it is the idea that there is a natural order to the universe that makes it interesting and beautiful. Not that it is all the whim of an arbitrary and capricious god.

My favorite [read: most annoying] bad science:

[bplipschitz]

"The fact that Al Quaeda hasn't attacked us again just proves that we are winning the war on terror, and that we are doing the right things to prevent it."

Oh, I'm sorry, that's not bad science, that's just really bad logic. . .

Stretching the limits of credulity

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't just the people who'll gladly believe anything a man in a white coat tells them who're the problem, it's also the ones who flatly refuse to trust anything 'scientific'. The people who'll loudly proclaim homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, therapeutic touch or whatever other bizarre quackery happens to be the fad of the moment to be the cure for everything.

Sure, we have wonderful scientists like Kevin Warwick: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/11/kevin_warw ick_a_life/ flying the flag for idiocy, but, equally, there are frankly rather creepy people like the Aetherius Society http://www.aetherius.org/ who're only too happy to peddle their own bizarre brand of crap as science.

In short.. well, think for yourself and beware the demagogue.

Homeopathic remedy for AIDS ?

[aepervius]

Sending Homeopathic remedy for AIDS to a country is not bad science. It is murder pure and simple. You might jsut as well give them sweets and tell them it is a medicament. Oh , wait ...

Re:Homeopathic remedy for AIDS ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That requires it to be controlled study, and they are stopped if the drug proves to be vastly better than the "placebo". Inn addition, the "placebo" has to be the best alternative asfaik, so it may actually be an AIDS drug if one exists for the given situation.

Re:Global warming?

[Anonymous Coward]

> What about the myth of human-caused global warming?

The only people left who think it's a myth are a bunch of flat-earthers. Jesus christ, even the Bush administration believes it now. What the fuck will it take to get you away from your Hummers?

(And while I'm no fan of Kyoto, it doesn't "require China to increase" a damn thing. What, are there penalties if they don't produce enough? Bloody idiot.)

Re:Why not some mainstream fallacies?

[Class Act Dynamo]

I honestly don't know enough about the debate to take a side, but I agree that if there really is no science to back global warming up, it should not be used to try to reduce pollution. There are reasons to reduce pollution, but when you use a false or flimsy argument, it just gives the opposition ammo to shoot down what is a good idea.

Deity does not help analyze things

[aepervius]

Science never suppose the existence or the inexistence of supra-human entity. It isn't a question of SCOPE, it is a question of REPRODUCIBILITY and PROOF (falsibility?). True it is entirely possible a God exists, but there is no proof either toward existence or non-existence. But using the existence of God as an hypothesis for a explanation of a phenomennon make it belong to religion/philosophy, not science. That is, unleess you can prove God exists. then it would belong to science to. Thus the argument of the original poster that creationism is not science and should not belong to biology teaching is 100% right.

Re:Deity does not help analyze things

[0racle]

Unless you can prove that evolution occures, it should not be taught in biology. If you want to measure everything that is taught by reproducibility and proof, then evolution has no place being taught, infact less then creationism does. A scientist can not cause an amoeba to become a multicell organism, but he can take the parts of an amoeba and produce another one, there you have reprodusibility for intellegent design. The fossil record has organizims suddenly showing up fully formed, there is no proof of halfway or partial fetures. That favors an intellegent design rather then random chaos.

You do not need to prove God exists, infact, you would have to prove he doesn't. Einstin has been quoted as saying, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Using God as a hypothesis is not a copout, the evedence points closer to that then anything else. Simply because you do not want to accept the possibility that there is a being that is much higher then you does not mean that it could not be what is infact right. Until the existance of God is disproved, God is a possible answer to how the universe and everything in it sprung into existance.

Re:Global warming?

[BetterThanCaesar]

Kyoto does not require anyone to increse their CO2 emmissions. At most, it allows them to.

Re:Global warming?

[radish]

And informed scientists
Or wrong scientists.

If you don't like a Hummer, don't drive one. That simple
No, it's not that simple. That's like saying "nuclear weapons should be legal for personal use - don't like them? don't buy them". When what you do affects the health of me, my family, and everyone else on the planet, then it's not JUST your business.

If global warming were real, Chinese gas would be as nasty as American gas. But it is all politics
Chinese gas is just as nasty as American gas. Kyoto is a (bad) political response to a very real impending disaster. Stating that Kyoto is flawed does nothing to make the reality of the problem any less serious.

Re:Damn, that's a harsh prize

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've ever seen her show, she is obsessed with colonic irrigation and analysing people's faeces. She claims that all health problems can be diagnosed and solved that way.

Re:Why not some mainstream fallacies?

[radish]

The problem is, once we get to a point where it can be 100% proven, it's too fucking late. The evidence, whilst not totally conclusive, is pretty damn strong. We could stick our heads in the sand and sing "la la la", or we could do something about it and try to save ourselves and our descendents.

Re:A physicist's view on homeopathy

[ltbarcly]

You fucking idiot.

Re:A physicist's view on homeopathy

[AndyL]

"but what about babies with colic? "
Placebo effect does not just refer to the effect on the patient. There is also an effect on the diagnosing parent/doctor/veterinarian.

But if you have double-blind studies you'd like to tell us about, please feel free.

"though I do know an excellent one for the flu."
Occasionaly I think I'm getting the flu, but after a day or so's rest I feel much better. It's easy to see how a homeopathic cure could convince me I'd recovered from the flu in record time.

Re:New meme?

[temojen]

In N, X is always positive!

Bad argument.

[JeanPaulBob]

Who created the laws of physics, and how did they become all-powerful?

Re:Bad argument.

[JeanPaulBob]

Not in the least. The laws of physics do not exist only in the human brain; they govern the behavior of the entire universe. That is how they are all-powerful; everything is bound by them.

That's not to say that we have stated the laws correctly, but the whole of science is founded on the assumption that there are real, rational, understandable physical laws.

Yes, these laws are simply the properties of matter, but that does nothing to tell us how they could come to be. They just are. Before the Big Bang could occur, the rules governing it had to exist. (Or, not before, they just spontaneously generated themselves.)

The principles that our mathematical models seek to describe just are. And saying that is no better than saying, "God just is; nothing made him."

Re:Bad argument.

[alienw]

[physics laws] govern the behavior of the entire universe.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Physics laws provide a useful approximation. They are not exact, and they don't govern anything. The best they can do is tell you what will happen in a certain situation. And even then it only does it approximately.

That's not to say that we have stated the laws correctly, but the whole of science is founded on the assumption that there are real, rational, understandable physical laws.

If something is too complex for us to predict, we won't do it. There are plenty of things which are completely unpredictable. Some of them we can predict statistically (weather), others not at all. There are also things which we can predict very accurately.

Yes, these laws are simply the properties of matter, but that does nothing to tell us how they could come to be.

Agreed. However, you are making a fundamental assumption. That is, that matter has been created by someone for some purpose. Matter is simple enough that it doesn't need to have been created; as you put it, it just is.

However, the concept of a "God" is enormously complex. It's not like the concept of "matter". Matter doesn't do anything; it just has certain properties which cause it to do certain very simple things. Most of the time, lots of simple things abiding by simple rules can form very complex systems, which is what our world is.

Now let's look at the concept of "God". Is a god made of regular matter -- protons, neutrons, and so on? Where is it located? Why can it just arbitrarily break rules that everything else follows? Furthermore, how do we know about it? Do we just believe someone is out there somewhere? Why not believe in ghosts then?

Why would an omniscient being care what we do any more than a scientist cares what bacteria do in a petri dish? Why do religious norms seem to exactly correlate with the rules one would want people to follow to more easily control them? The problem with the god concept is that it just doesn't make any sense; people have just been successfully brainwashed for centuries.

Re:missing items

[TFGeditor]

Most environment- and animal-related "science."

Most of the stuff that makes the press is by "scientists" with dubious credentials http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/hea dline/1742 who sell their services to groups with an axe to grind http://www.pcrm.org/

With the right buzzwords, you can dupe most of the public into believing anything http://www.dhmo.org/

Re:Why not some mainstream fallacies?

[dasunt]

The problem is, once we get to a point where it can be 100% proven, it's too fucking late. The evidence, whilst not totally conclusive, is pretty damn strong. We could stick our heads in the sand and sing "la la la", or we could do something about it and try to save ourselves and our descendents.

Fallacy. Let me illustrate:

The problem with not believing in God is once you get to the point where it can be proven, its too late. Therefore, the logical conclusion is to believe in God. - Pascal's Wager

The evidence for human caused global warming isn't as strong as I'd like. There are far too many unknowns. Quite frankly, we know squat about the environment, and we know squat about global warming. To add to the confusion, $bigcorp promotes one set of data, while $envirowackos promotes another set of data. (Hence my comparision to a belief in God -- some people (myself included) sees strong evidence for the existance of God. Other people do not.)

If we act in ways to prevent possible human-caused global warming, there are known and unknown economical costs to us all. "Economical costs" may sound dry and stuffy, but the net result is that acting to prevent possible human-caused global warming will impact each and every one of our lives in a negative way. That is certain. The cost effects and results of human caused global warming is uncertain.

There is evidence that we are coming out of another ice age. Personally, I believe that this evidence is stronger than the evidence for human caused global warming. Thus, we are probably facing a climate change regardless of what we do. If that is a case, even assuming a small additional climate change do to human causes, it might be more economically *and* environmentally efficient to devote our monies to other areas. What is "better" in the long run -- setting aside one square mile as a wildlife preserve, or reducing human caused global warming by .0001 C? (Disclaimer: numbers pulled out of my ass.)

If you do feel strongly about global warming, I would suggest trying a vegan diet. Not eating meat tends to result in less pollution, less fossil fuels, and you don't get all those nasty greenhouse gasses from farting cows (don't laugh -- cow farts have been studied as a cause for climate change). While eggs and milk is more efficient, the pollution and antibiotic/hormone problems from factory farms may still be a problem.

Re:A physicist's view on homeopathy

[hairykrishna]

I also have a physics degree and, frankly, I'm ashamed of you. You think that it's impossible to dismiss something without personally conducting the experiment? Damn. You must believe some real bullshit. This is why we have the scientific method. Homeopathy, in medical double blind tests, does no better than a placebo. In lab testing it has no biological effect. For an excellent example of the lab test:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopat hy.shtml/

As for "yes, I can tell when it is working and when it isn't.". This is prime example of why we have strict testing. No you can't. Damn. Sorry. This crap makes me angry. One step to faith healers in my opinion.

Re:Why not some mainstream fallacies?

[narcc]

"And it's pretty crazy that the global temperature changes in the last 100 years coincide nicely with the industrialization of the world."

That is one of the oldest fallacies in the book. The idea that if A and B occur, it means that A causes B. You really need to do some research concerning logic.

Very true, I've heard it put best as: Correlation does not imply causation.

Anti-Global-Warming movement is Bad Science

[sean.geek.nz]

Maybe the vast majority of published climate scientists are idiots who blindly accept something which can be seen as obviously false by you and Michael Crichton, despite your lack of training in the field, because of your staggering intellect and because they are biased fools and you have no biases at all.

But I don't think so. I think they view the evidence, think very hard about it, build their climate models carefully, review other published ideas in the field, and that over the last two decades this has brought them to the consensus that man-caused global warming is real and that there will be around 3 degrees C +/- 1 degree C of increase in global mean temperatures over the next century (unless there are reductions in human greenhouse gas emissions).

See, for some basics written for general readers, www.realclimate.org

Your whole "it's just a theory, they haven't proved it yet" argument is the same crap that creationists trot out against evolution (falsely) and that tobacco companies trotted out for years against the "smoking causes cancer" scientific consensus.

Climatologists have proved it to their satisfaction. You got evidence they're wrong, submit it to a refereed journal in the area. If it's not good enough to be published in such a journal, then it's not good enough.

And if you think your evidence is good enough but that there's a vast conspiracy of scientists plotting together to prevent the truth ever being published in any scientific journal, then say so explicitly and reveal yourself as a crank.

Sean
PS: and regards your specific claims, of course we have evidence about how much sunlight the earth has received and how much C02 there was in the past - do you think that we take core samples for the fun of it? And of course our evidence is not 100% complete in all ways - that's how science works. Nor is predicting the weather a month from now the same problem as predicting overall long-term climate trends - so why do you conflate them?

Re:missing items

[PenguiN42]

I really disagree with your characterization of "most environment and animal-related science" as being represented by the web sites you linked.

And I'm giving up mod points to say that.

Do you know anything about the *real* environmental and animal research going on, or do you base your impressions on the loudest screamers of the pop-science realm?

OT? Hubbard ...

[sithkhan]

This is not a personal attack; that's why I'm posting as me, and not as an AC. I, too, have read Battlefield Earth, and I cannot, for the life of me, see this book as anything but Science psychofantasy. Compare Hubbard, if you dare, to Asimov, Bradbury, or Heinlein: the differentiation of underlying literary focus is staggering. The three good men whom I mention as counterpoint to Hubbard all used SF as a device to further their plots; Hubbard used it as a way to describe Scientology without giving away information he wanted people to PAY for. Automagical dissemination of information to mentally-challanged humans was the closest thing Hubbard had (well, that and the telepotation ... ) to science, and supposedly this information feeder caused Johnny Two-Guns to become John Rambo, John Wayne, and George Washington combined, as well as some Chuck Yeager, Issac Asimov, and L. Ron Hubbard. I am not being snobbish or elitist. I just cannot classify Battlefield Earth as anything more than a poorly written introduction to the precepts and concepts of Scientology. You are correct in stating that there is no OVERT mention of Scientology, but if you created a skeletal outline of the development of Johnny and the concepts he grows to have, you would probably have a document that would be similar to a "Begginer's Guide to Scientology". Again, I'm posting as myself to establish my points as non-troll. I hope that you take them in that fashion.