SETI's hypothesis assumes the existence of aliens. Would it make sense for me to say "I'm looking for my wallet. It doesn't exist, but I'm gonna keep searching for it anyway." No. If you search for something, you must assume it exists. So don't split hairs by saying SETI doesn't assume the existence of aliens. It makes you look quite foolish.
But not only do they assume aliens exist, they assume they're of a certain form and exist at a certain time and place. The form is a civilization that emits EM radiation in a way we can detect. The time and place is dictated by the intersection of the light created by these EM emissions.
So SETI searches thousands of stars, thousands of frequencies per start, to no avail. Yet they persist. They don't even know for sure that aliens are detectable in that way, but they keep searching.
So I make a similar hypothesis. Aliens aren't on another planet, they're around the corner. My method of detection? Look around the corner.
I've tried it hundreds of thousands of times. It's always failed. But there's many corners in the world. I don't even know if I can see an alien, even if they're around that corner, but I will not stop.
Am I mad to look around the corner for aliens? Just as mad as SETI.
Sagan applies physicalist thinking to this problem. He constructs two linear curves, both based on strictly deterministic thinking. Such thinking is often quite legitimate for physical phenomena, but is quite inappropriate for evolutionary events or social processes such as the origin of civilizations. The argument that extraterrestrials, if belonging to a long-lived civilization, will be forced by selection to develop an electronic know-how to meet the peril of asteroid impacts is totally unrealistic.
You keep distorting the truth: the SETI project was and is being done based on scientific principles...
No, it's completely based on the assumption that a technological civilization would produce EM radiation. That assumption is based on anecdote. Granted that anecdote is our own technological development, but it's still only one data point. To refute me, give me just one other sample from the dataset, i.e. another civilization that has developed as we have. Can't? Didn't think so. So the entire approach SETI takes is based on faith. Not that I have a problem with that. I've contributed computing cycles to SETI@HOME for years. But to claim that the premise has no pseudoscience stench to it is ludicrous.
...but it's clear you don't have any grasp what was meant by it.
Arrogance really doesn't serve you well.
Sagan believed in little green men, btw. He was a great proponent of SETI, which as unscientific as the things you ridicule. Also was an avid pot smoker. Should I emulate those traits?
So, in closing, Ellie, you really should read Contact.
Hey, if you wanted to just ignore any logic and rationale...
Yeah, yeah, make it black and white like that. That's another symptom.
But, yeah, ok, I should have made a response like the one at...
Right. You've just used magical dragons, invisible tooth fairies, and little green magical men as examples. Not pixie dust, though. Thank Jehova you didn't go for the pixie dust!
Didn't you declare this discussion done? Are you compelled to continue, or something? Should you seek counseling for your argument addiction?
The 'sense' I mentionned has nothing to do with anything supernatural
Really? Over the wire, from thousands of miles away, you 'sensed' my intentions. Seems pretty spooky to me...
With that sentence you indicated that it is a *real* thing, and that it is observable. How does this rime with your claim it's not measurable?
Let's say you're married. Do you love your wife? Can you prove it? Not a trick or rhetorical question.
Alas, you can not deny that saying 'this odd effect I have' is a clear conclusion...
Isn't English wonderful? So fuzzy. So malleable. If language were so clear we wouldn't have discussions. What would you wile away the hours on then, eh?
But even what you call "conclusion" is still just observation. You seem to put it in a different category. Fundamentally, it's not. It's an observation of a logical process, and even the validity of rational thought. "Conclusion" is just an observation you take for granted.
Yes, I'm trapped in thinking a meaningful discussion should be based on logical reasonings supported by rational arguments.
Yes, that's it in a nutshell. You no doubt say that mockingly, but you've got the concept. The next step is to lose that concept. Give it time.
I'm beginning to sense that you equate the lack of understanding everything (scientifically) with some sort of 'support' that your anecdotal experiences and supernatural explanation will be proven right, someday.
I thought you didn't trust your senses. In this case you'd be right not to. Funny that you'd rely on such flimsy evidence to make judgments considering the lecture you've been giving me the last few days. Don't you practice what you preach?
Anyway, your line of mocking explanations is irrelevant. I've never tried to explain, just observe. That's the, what, fourth time I've said that? I've not made a hypothesis. Except I how hypothesize that you're a troll.
Rational debate is meaningless if the rationale itself for comming to a meaningful conclusion is disputed.
Yeah, you seem to be trapped in that.
I had the impression you actually meant that there was an *actual* case to be made for ESP, based on your anecdotal observations.
Yeah, and you came spoiling for a fight, which is typical. Looking for some straw men to set up and beat down.
The real point of discussion here, however, is not about the fact that they aren't measurable, it's the fact you imply they are existent in the first place...
This argument is specious. For example, right now you are suffering from an affliction known as "Thinks he's posting on Slashdot" syndrome. It's rare, but the sufferers believe they are posting on a popular website, when in fact they are sleeping.
Prove me wrong.
Neurological activity, and the ways to measure it, are well-imbedded in current scientific knowledge...
Thanks for making my point. 100 years ago it was magic. 50 years ago it was pseudo science. Now it's well accepted science.
This does not mean, however, that science must accept everything a person claims...
How many times do I need to repeat myself? I don't expect anyone to accept it. I hope they're not assholes about it. You seem incapable of grasping this. You apparently are better at talking than listening.
Re:This is silly
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's not the wiki page itself, it's that the information in it is easily researched and verified.
Duh. This means there's a trail to be followed. And I assume at some point your friend was paid. There's a paper trail there, which could also be followed. That's my point.
See her wikipedia page. It lists her as author of several articles and co-author of a book. At some point she had to meet with editors or sign a contract, information about all of which is probably subject to subpoena. If SCO hasn't looked into this they're just spreading FUD. (The wikipedia article is the first listing when googling "Pamela Jones," for goodness sake: linky
I've already said twice that my experiences aren't measurable. You're not listening. You're far too wordy for your own good.
So, has science already detected everything? Is there nothing new to discover?
When I was an undergraduate getting my psych degree I was in a research group that was studying "covert oral behavior." This is a phenomena wherein EMG signals from the mouth, jaw, and throat can be detected when a person thinks of a word, but does not speak. We were working on detecting these signals and feeding them to a phoneme detection style neural network. This was about fifteen years ago, and we were undergraduates with limited resources, but we made decent progress. Also, there wasn't nearly the computational resources necessary to do the job properly. Others far more skilled than we were following similar lines of research, and have been since then.
My point? This technology, if successfully developed, would grant us the ability to read thoughts. Rather mind blowing, ya? Something formerly related to crazies and wingnuts could actually become a reality.
Yes, and I knew all of the assholes would come out after my post.
I find it increasingly irritating that people who normally believe in applying Occam's Razor jump through all sorts of psychological hoops to explain the experiences that so many people have. It's like the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, so everything must be a nail. I know many of the alternate explanations and they don't fit my experience. You probably don't believe me, but I don't expect you to, nor do I really care. (Yeah, yeah, you're going to say, "You care enough to reply." Whatever. I'm just pissed.) And everyone has their pet explanation, each with as little scientific backing as anything I could say. (I have a degree in psychology, so I know how pseudo the science is.) But that's the thing, I don't try to explain, just observe. (And that includes observing when nothing "out of the ordinary" happens. I'm not an idiot.)
And you'll probably say, "provide proof." Well, I can't, and it may not even be possible with our current measurement ability, and certainly isn't possible in our current scientific community, all which I also said in my original post. Other posters like you, in your glee to refute, just glossed over that. You're a bunch if skeptic assholes just waiting for someone to diss. (At least you admitted as much about yourself.)
I suggested to CSICOP (the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, that I subscribed to) that they have some of their experts do a rebuttal, but even though I got a response that they'd take it under consideration, it apparently never happened.
Not surprising in the least. Like any orthodoxy it depends on maintaining the status quo for it's continued existence. If anything out of the usual suspects (i.e. phenomena CSICOP rebuts) were to be found to be true, they'd be out of a job. Couldn't have that, now could we?
I've never posted anonymously, but I figure now's a good time.
For as long as I can remember I've had a subtle effect on machines. I've heard similar things described here many times, in many discussions. When friends and relatives ask me to fix something, and I come over to help them out, the thing just starts working. Mostly it's with computers.
I'm not a religious person. I don't believe in god. In fact it's my attitude that belief should be limited to the bare minimum and that, if given a choice, we should rely on verifiable facts as the basis for actions and attitudes. This odd effect I have on machines has happened so often, for decades, that I can't really deny it. It's subtle, but it's been observed by people around me, for as long as I can remember. And yet I feel embarrassed talking about it, even posting anonymously about it.
So I'm glad to see that PEAR has existed, but not surprised at all that the scientific community refused to peer review their work. Maybe their work will be picked up by someone else. Maybe this phenomena and others like it will be more easily measured in the future. Who knows? It doesn't bother me much, really. If it's an actual physical phenomena it'll still be there in the future, and hence will have the possibility of being measured.
The government will never be as efficient as a business.
Yeah.
You know, I used to think that until I went to work for Ericsson. $10 million project, never saw the light of day, 100+ developers employed for 2+ years.
Then I went to Bell South. $30 million project, never saw the light of day, 60+ developers employed for 3+ years.
And then I worked for a small video on demand startup. About $1 million, 2+ years of work. Company died.
More is spent on education than defense in this country.
Federal budget.
Please.
If you can't argue without changing the frame of reference, don't even bother.
For example, int 2006 the Whitehouse requested $56 billion for the Department of Education and $419.3 billion for the Department of Defense. That even approaches the bogus "$684 BILLION" you quoted.
If you want to talk about % of GDP, shall we include federal, state and local law enforcement expenditures? That would put us in a common frame of reference.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so all they have to do is say it, and it is so?
You are a true believer...
SETI's hypothesis assumes the existence of aliens. Would it make sense for me to say "I'm looking for my wallet. It doesn't exist, but I'm gonna keep searching for it anyway." No. If you search for something, you must assume it exists. So don't split hairs by saying SETI doesn't assume the existence of aliens. It makes you look quite foolish.
But not only do they assume aliens exist, they assume they're of a certain form and exist at a certain time and place. The form is a civilization that emits EM radiation in a way we can detect. The time and place is dictated by the intersection of the light created by these EM emissions.
So SETI searches thousands of stars, thousands of frequencies per start, to no avail. Yet they persist. They don't even know for sure that aliens are detectable in that way, but they keep searching.
So I make a similar hypothesis. Aliens aren't on another planet, they're around the corner. My method of detection? Look around the corner.
I've tried it hundreds of thousands of times. It's always failed. But there's many corners in the world. I don't even know if I can see an alien, even if they're around that corner, but I will not stop.
Am I mad to look around the corner for aliens? Just as mad as SETI.
Oh, then, try Ernst Mayer
To quote:
No, it's completely based on the assumption that a technological civilization would produce EM radiation. That assumption is based on anecdote. Granted that anecdote is our own technological development, but it's still only one data point. To refute me, give me just one other sample from the dataset, i.e. another civilization that has developed as we have. Can't? Didn't think so. So the entire approach SETI takes is based on faith. Not that I have a problem with that. I've contributed computing cycles to SETI@HOME for years. But to claim that the premise has no pseudoscience stench to it is ludicrous.
Arrogance really doesn't serve you well.
Sagan believed in little green men, btw. He was a great proponent of SETI, which as unscientific as the things you ridicule. Also was an avid pot smoker. Should I emulate those traits?
So, in closing, Ellie, you really should read Contact.
Yeah, yeah, make it black and white like that. That's another symptom.
Right. You've just used magical dragons, invisible tooth fairies, and little green magical men as examples. Not pixie dust, though. Thank Jehova you didn't go for the pixie dust!
Didn't you declare this discussion done? Are you compelled to continue, or something? Should you seek counseling for your argument addiction?
Really? Over the wire, from thousands of miles away, you 'sensed' my intentions. Seems pretty spooky to me...
Let's say you're married. Do you love your wife? Can you prove it? Not a trick or rhetorical question.
Isn't English wonderful? So fuzzy. So malleable. If language were so clear we wouldn't have discussions. What would you wile away the hours on then, eh?
But even what you call "conclusion" is still just observation. You seem to put it in a different category. Fundamentally, it's not. It's an observation of a logical process, and even the validity of rational thought. "Conclusion" is just an observation you take for granted.
Yes, that's it in a nutshell. You no doubt say that mockingly, but you've got the concept. The next step is to lose that concept. Give it time.
I thought you didn't trust your senses. In this case you'd be right not to. Funny that you'd rely on such flimsy evidence to make judgments considering the lecture you've been giving me the last few days. Don't you practice what you preach?
Anyway, your line of mocking explanations is irrelevant. I've never tried to explain, just observe. That's the, what, fourth time I've said that? I've not made a hypothesis. Except I how hypothesize that you're a troll.
Yeah, you seem to be trapped in that.
Yeah, and you came spoiling for a fight, which is typical. Looking for some straw men to set up and beat down.
Carry on.
This argument is specious. For example, right now you are suffering from an affliction known as "Thinks he's posting on Slashdot" syndrome. It's rare, but the sufferers believe they are posting on a popular website, when in fact they are sleeping.
Prove me wrong.
Thanks for making my point. 100 years ago it was magic. 50 years ago it was pseudo science. Now it's well accepted science.
How many times do I need to repeat myself? I don't expect anyone to accept it. I hope they're not assholes about it. You seem incapable of grasping this. You apparently are better at talking than listening.
It's not the wiki page itself, it's that the information in it is easily researched and verified.
Duh. This means there's a trail to be followed.
And I assume at some point your friend was paid. There's a paper trail there, which could also be followed. That's my point.
See her wikipedia page. It lists her as author of several articles and co-author of a book. At some point she had to meet with editors or sign a contract, information about all of which is probably subject to subpoena. If SCO hasn't looked into this they're just spreading FUD. (The wikipedia article is the first listing when googling "Pamela Jones," for goodness sake: linky
I've already said twice that my experiences aren't measurable. You're not listening. You're far too wordy for your own good.
So, has science already detected everything? Is there nothing new to discover?
When I was an undergraduate getting my psych degree I was in a research group that was studying "covert oral behavior." This is a phenomena wherein EMG signals from the mouth, jaw, and throat can be detected when a person thinks of a word, but does not speak. We were working on detecting these signals and feeding them to a phoneme detection style neural network. This was about fifteen years ago, and we were undergraduates with limited resources, but we made decent progress. Also, there wasn't nearly the computational resources necessary to do the job properly. Others far more skilled than we were following similar lines of research, and have been since then.
My point? This technology, if successfully developed, would grant us the ability to read thoughts. Rather mind blowing, ya? Something formerly related to crazies and wingnuts could actually become a reality.
We don't know all there is to know.
Yes, and I knew all of the assholes would come out after my post.
I find it increasingly irritating that people who normally believe in applying Occam's Razor jump through all sorts of psychological hoops to explain the experiences that so many people have. It's like the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, so everything must be a nail. I know many of the alternate explanations and they don't fit my experience. You probably don't believe me, but I don't expect you to, nor do I really care. (Yeah, yeah, you're going to say, "You care enough to reply." Whatever. I'm just pissed.) And everyone has their pet explanation, each with as little scientific backing as anything I could say. (I have a degree in psychology, so I know how pseudo the science is.) But that's the thing, I don't try to explain, just observe. (And that includes observing when nothing "out of the ordinary" happens. I'm not an idiot.)
And you'll probably say, "provide proof." Well, I can't, and it may not even be possible with our current measurement ability, and certainly isn't possible in our current scientific community, all which I also said in my original post. Other posters like you, in your glee to refute, just glossed over that. You're a bunch if skeptic assholes just waiting for someone to diss. (At least you admitted as much about yourself.)
Yes, and the keyword there is suddenly. If the code is slowly, quietly and profitably (to the right folks) swapped out, it will happen.
And that's why we've got to raise a ruckus.
Not surprising in the least. Like any orthodoxy it depends on maintaining the status quo for it's continued existence. If anything out of the usual suspects (i.e. phenomena CSICOP rebuts) were to be found to be true, they'd be out of a job. Couldn't have that, now could we?
As you can see, I predicted your reply...
Well, fuck all about the anonymous bit. Serves me right for posting at 4am. :P
I've never posted anonymously, but I figure now's a good time.
For as long as I can remember I've had a subtle effect on machines. I've heard similar things described here many times, in many discussions. When friends and relatives ask me to fix something, and I come over to help them out, the thing just starts working. Mostly it's with computers.
I'm not a religious person. I don't believe in god. In fact it's my attitude that belief should be limited to the bare minimum and that, if given a choice, we should rely on verifiable facts as the basis for actions and attitudes. This odd effect I have on machines has happened so often, for decades, that I can't really deny it. It's subtle, but it's been observed by people around me, for as long as I can remember. And yet I feel embarrassed talking about it, even posting anonymously about it.
So I'm glad to see that PEAR has existed, but not surprised at all that the scientific community refused to peer review their work. Maybe their work will be picked up by someone else. Maybe this phenomena and others like it will be more easily measured in the future. Who knows? It doesn't bother me much, really. If it's an actual physical phenomena it'll still be there in the future, and hence will have the possibility of being measured.
Is that the same parallel universe where you have three green nipples?
Better watch out. When you start treading in parallel universe land, anythings possible.
It's called waste and theft. Letting that go on while our soldiers are dying is unforgivable.
Yeah.
You know, I used to think that until I went to work for Ericsson. $10 million project, never saw the light of day, 100+ developers employed for 2+ years.
Then I went to Bell South. $30 million project, never saw the light of day, 60+ developers employed for 3+ years.
And then I worked for a small video on demand startup. About $1 million, 2+ years of work. Company died.
Efficient? I'd like to think not.
Federal budget.
Please.
If you can't argue without changing the frame of reference, don't even bother.
For example, int 2006 the Whitehouse requested $56 billion for the Department of Education and $419.3 billion for the Department of Defense. That even approaches the bogus "$684 BILLION" you quoted.
If you want to talk about % of GDP, shall we include federal, state and local law enforcement expenditures? That would put us in a common frame of reference.
The moment you try to limit funding to a wasteful Pentagon program you're accused of hating the troops.
And so it goes.
The standard rip against wasteful education spending is, "You can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to be fixed!"
Yet that's done 10x with the military and no one bats an eye.