http://www.change.org/p/dr-daniel-kertesz-who-end-the-suffering-of-the-ebola-crisis-test-and-distribute-homeopathy-as-quickly-as-possible-to-contain-the-outbreaks
:lulz:
Yes, but no.
lol
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 17, 2014, 09:31:00 PM
Yes, but no.
Why not? It's homeopathy. It should stop ebola in its tracks.
I really just have no words for this. Except these: this CAN'T be for real. Can it? :horrormirth:
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 12:07:38 AM
I really just have no words for this. Except these: this CAN'T be for real. Can it? :horrormirth:
There were some folks trying to raise money to send "essential oils" to Liberia to stop the epidemic a few weeks back.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 18, 2014, 02:11:57 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 12:07:38 AM
I really just have no words for this. Except these: this CAN'T be for real. Can it? :horrormirth:
There were some folks trying to raise money to send "essential oils" to Liberia to stop the epidemic a few weeks back.
Oh, humans.
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 02:55:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 18, 2014, 02:11:57 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 12:07:38 AM
I really just have no words for this. Except these: this CAN'T be for real. Can it? :horrormirth:
There were some folks trying to raise money to send "essential oils" to Liberia to stop the epidemic a few weeks back.
Oh, humans.
I fear that I will once again be disappointed by ebola.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 17, 2014, 10:56:09 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 17, 2014, 09:31:00 PM
Yes, but no.
Why not? It's homeopathy. It should stop ebola in its tracks.
Maybe, maybe not. :)
With your kind permission, I am respectfully declining to enter this conversation altogether.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 18, 2014, 03:01:21 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 02:55:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 18, 2014, 02:11:57 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 12:07:38 AM
I really just have no words for this. Except these: this CAN'T be for real. Can it? :horrormirth:
There were some folks trying to raise money to send "essential oils" to Liberia to stop the epidemic a few weeks back.
Oh, humans.
I fear that I will once again be disappointed by ebola.
Yes.
But not by humans.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 18, 2014, 05:13:28 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 17, 2014, 10:56:09 PM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 17, 2014, 09:31:00 PM
Yes, but no.
Why not? It's homeopathy. It should stop ebola in its tracks.
Maybe, maybe not. :)
With your kind permission, I am respectfully declining to enter this conversation altogether.
Dude, please just take chemistry. Then you will understand why homeopathy, while it may have seemed to make sense 200 years ago, is just fucking ridiculous.
Not that we know everything. Far from it; we are only starting to gain glimpses into that which we do not know. But there is simply no empiric support for homeopathy. I have slightly more respect for faith healing.
A norwegian peddler of alternative shit has been trying to send colloidal ionic silver to Liberia, because it works against everything from cancer throug HIV to Ebola.
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 06:41:23 AM
Not that we know everything. Far from it; we are only starting to gain glimpses into that which we do not know. But there is simply no empiric support for homeopathy. I have slightly more respect for faith healing.
Thank you for meaning well. (<-- just to be clear, that is a completely sincere sentence)
I don't wish to go into it again. I have taken chemistry, I have reviewed the matter quite excessively, and I have been thoroughly convinced that discussing it on PD is a BAD IDEA. So I'm just not doing it.
If that's something you people won't get over, that's just my tough luck.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 18, 2014, 07:45:16 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 06:41:23 AM
Not that we know everything. Far from it; we are only starting to gain glimpses into that which we do not know. But there is simply no empiric support for homeopathy. I have slightly more respect for faith healing.
Thank you for meaning well. (<-- just to be clear, that is a completely sincere sentence)
I don't wish to go into it again. I have taken chemistry, I have reviewed the matter quite excessively, and I have been thoroughly convinced that discussing it on PD is a BAD IDEA. So I'm just not doing it.
If that's something you people won't get over, that's just my tough luck.
Yeah, I find it hard to even imagine what kind of incredibly abbreviated liberal-arts version of chemistry you could possibly have taken that would permit you to still believe in the fairies of homeopathy, but go for it, champ.
I am going to go right ahead and state that I am fairly confident that I know far more about chemistry than you have even slightly delved into, and homeopathy is completely preposterous for anyone who has a greater that 17th-century comprehension of molecular behavior.
But, you know, quantumz and all that (say people who haven't even taken so much as statistics and don't know what probability even means).
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 07:50:15 AM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 18, 2014, 07:45:16 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 06:41:23 AM
Not that we know everything. Far from it; we are only starting to gain glimpses into that which we do not know. But there is simply no empiric support for homeopathy. I have slightly more respect for faith healing.
Thank you for meaning well. (<-- just to be clear, that is a completely sincere sentence)
I don't wish to go into it again. I have taken chemistry, I have reviewed the matter quite excessively, and I have been thoroughly convinced that discussing it on PD is a BAD IDEA. So I'm just not doing it.
If that's something you people won't get over, that's just my tough luck.
Yeah, I find it hard to even imagine what kind of incredibly abbreviated liberal-arts version of chemistry you could possibly have taken that would permit you to still believe in the fairies of homeopathy, but go for it, champ.
Look, as you have yourself said, our science is not complete.
I am agnostic about homeopathy (I wouldn't have said this three years ago, I do now).
I am quite certain that the sceptical campaign against homeopathy and many of the so-called studies are unfair, unsuitable for deciding the question, and morally reprehensible in exactly the way Dawkins and his merry band of militant atheists are.
I can imagine homeopathy being merely a particularly effective ritual for turning on the placebo effect. That is interesting in its own right.
I can also imagine homeopathy having an underlying mechanism that we don't know at present. The research into higher-level structures in water seems vaguely promising, but really, I just don't know. I do know that received scientific knowledge can fall. Look at Newtonian mechanics (so elegant, so simple, so beautiful: it must be true!), or, more recently, genetic determinism (one of the most exciting developments I can think of in the life sciences).
If my hate could be described on a scale like the Richter Scale, the things I hate about homeopathy would register roughly like this:
Magnitude 1.0: Homeopathy is junk pseudo-science. This isn't really all that bad, considering all the other junk pseudo-science most of us are familiar with and sometimes consciously subscribe to just because it makes us feel good (marijuana cures cancer, Lou Reed makes decent music, etc).
Magnitude 3.0: Homeopathy kills people who refuse real medicine. This is worse because it involves death of course, but still not a major event, because it isn't like these idiots were forced at gunpoint to choke down some awful mixture of stagnant water and mint leaves. Plus, it helps out the funeral industry so it isn't all bad.
Magnitude 10.0: Homeopathy's believers (and "agnostics") are so willfully ignorant of actual science, and so loudly obnoxious about it, that alternative medicines and treatments that might actually work are dismissed prematurely by doctors and scientists just because it is easier to count them in the same column as homeopathy than it is to take research on them seriously. It has tainted the entire notion of medicine outside of the mainstream.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 18, 2014, 09:24:25 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 07:50:15 AM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 18, 2014, 07:45:16 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 06:41:23 AM
Not that we know everything. Far from it; we are only starting to gain glimpses into that which we do not know. But there is simply no empiric support for homeopathy. I have slightly more respect for faith healing.
Thank you for meaning well. (<-- just to be clear, that is a completely sincere sentence)
I don't wish to go into it again. I have taken chemistry, I have reviewed the matter quite excessively, and I have been thoroughly convinced that discussing it on PD is a BAD IDEA. So I'm just not doing it.
If that's something you people won't get over, that's just my tough luck.
Yeah, I find it hard to even imagine what kind of incredibly abbreviated liberal-arts version of chemistry you could possibly have taken that would permit you to still believe in the fairies of homeopathy, but go for it, champ.
Look, as you have yourself said, our science is not complete.
I am agnostic about homeopathy (I wouldn't have said this three years ago, I do now).
I am quite certain that the sceptical campaign against homeopathy and many of the so-called studies are unfair, unsuitable for deciding the question, and morally reprehensible in exactly the way Dawkins and his merry band of militant atheists are.
I can imagine homeopathy being merely a particularly effective ritual for turning on the placebo effect. That is interesting in its own right.
I can also imagine homeopathy having an underlying mechanism that we don't know at present. The research into higher-level structures in water seems vaguely promising, but really, I just don't know. I do know that received scientific knowledge can fall. Look at Newtonian mechanics (so elegant, so simple, so beautiful: it must be true!), or, more recently, genetic determinism (one of the most exciting developments I can think of in the life sciences).
I just facepalmed so hard, I can feel the concavity of the back of my skull.
Breaking News: EMERGENCY DECLARED! Newtonian Mechanics Fail, Objects Begin Drifting into Space
There's just no dissuading someone who has decided that they Have Faith, regardless of actual evidence and a body of knowledge that completely fails to support their belief.
Studies that fail to show evidence for homeopathy's effectiveness? Unfair and unethical! Conspiracy!
Quote from: V3X on October 18, 2014, 04:07:55 PM
Breaking News: EMERGENCY DECLARED! Newtonian Mechanics Fail, Objects Begin Drifting into Space
I actually don't even know what he was talking about there, so I disregarded it. I'm not aware of any particular failure of Newtonian physics except that they don't apply at the particle level.
Holist, if homeopathy was in fact a "particularly effective" method of administering placebo, you might have an argument there. As far as I'm aware, it isn't "particularly effective", though. If it was there might be something to research.
I can imagine a pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, and trees that grow chicken legs.
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 05:24:13 PM
I can imagine a pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, and trees that grow chicken legs.
It doesn't work that way. Science* has proven that the dark side of the Moon, being shielded from Thetan radiation, is far more likely to produce BLUE unicorns.
*Source: Assclown, et. al., Journal of Asstrophysics and Homeopathy, 1983
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 05:22:05 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 18, 2014, 04:07:55 PM
Breaking News: EMERGENCY DECLARED! Newtonian Mechanics Fail, Objects Begin Drifting into Space
I actually don't even know what he was talking about there, so I disregarded it. I'm not aware of any particular failure of Newtonian physics except that they don't apply at the particle level.
What I was thinking of was that Newtonian mechanics doesn't apply at the macroscopic level, either, at relativistic speeds. Along with special relativity, the term 'graviational lens' may also be worth a look.
The light - is it made of particles or electromagnetic waves debate was also a point at which there just seemed to be no room for a logical answer to, say, diffraction patterns generated by a single photon. Then: paradigm shift: suddenly, it is okay for light to be both particulate and wavy.
In distantly related news, in 1878 the German physicist Philipp von Jolly, a highly respected scientist, advised a 20-year-old Max Planck not to go into physics, because "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few unimportant holes."
You're severely mentally deficient. Seek help. And go away.
Quote from: Allfader Waffles on October 18, 2014, 07:23:35 PM
You're severely mentally deficient. Seek help. And go away.
Impressive! Why?
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 18, 2014, 07:18:13 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 18, 2014, 05:22:05 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 18, 2014, 04:07:55 PM
Breaking News: EMERGENCY DECLARED! Newtonian Mechanics Fail, Objects Begin Drifting into Space
I actually don't even know what he was talking about there, so I disregarded it. I'm not aware of any particular failure of Newtonian physics except that they don't apply at the particle level.
What I was thinking of was that Newtonian mechanics doesn't apply at the macroscopic level, either, at relativistic speeds. Along with special relativity, the term 'graviational lens' may also be worth a look.
The light - is it made of particles or electromagnetic waves debate was also a point at which there just seemed to be no room for a logical answer to, say, diffraction patterns generated by a single photon. Then: paradigm shift: suddenly, it is okay for light to be both particulate and wavy.
In distantly related news, in 1878 the German physicist Philipp von Jolly, a highly respected scientist, advised a 20-year-old Max Planck not to go into physics, because "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few unimportant holes."
I'm well aware of the gravitational lens. :lol: I'm also well aware that light being both a particle and a wave is still merely a descriptive hypothesis, and that it may in fact be a particle interacting with a wave.
The thing you seem to be missing here is that while our scientific knowledge is still expanding at a rapid rate, new information that actually
contradicts rather than enhances existing knowledge is exceedingly rare and requires great evidence. There is no evidence supporting homeopathic principles, so why do you insist on clinging to the belief that it's real, except out of some weird superstitious, fetishistic fantasy?
Also, I think that at this point you are just putting words together in strings that you think sound impressive, with little or no deeper understanding of what the words you're parroting really mean. I don't believe you understand chemistry or electron behavior even at the relatively shallow level that I do. I think that when you say things like "higher-level structures in water" you don't even know what that means. And I think you get this information from books and websites the authors of which also don't understand chemistry (or biology or systems science or physics), and string together vague but technical-sounding terminology in order to impress semi-science-educated rubes like yourself.
This is what Holist not engaging on homeopathy looks like.
:lulz:
I CAN'T HELP MYSELF.
:love:
Holist, your understanding of quantum physics is about 60 years out of date.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 18, 2014, 11:48:53 PM
Holist, your understanding of quantum physics is about 60 years out of date.
Waiting for Holist to come back and insist that it is YOU who is out of date. :lol:
Honestly, I think the guy would be OK if it weren't for the enormous blind spot in which he seems unable to conceive the possibility that others may have access not only to the same information he does, but also, in some cases, more complete information than he does.
The exchange in the Youtube thread, about the RC quadcopters, was a perfect example. He posted a video. I watched the video, and commented that a guy in my neighborhood flies his at the park by my house. He then, perhaps assuming I must not have been clear on the concept (I really am not sure why) clarified that the ones in the video are different from the one my neighbor flies because the operators are wearing VR goggles, which is completely clear from watching the video I was commenting on.
A similar disjoint seems to have occurred when he insisted that he has taken chemistry. I believe him, because everyone takes some chemistry up to a certain point, but I also don't believe that he has taken chemistry at the level I have taken it, and certainly not to the point of actually understanding the forces that bind matter together and cause molecules to behave and interact the way they do. I barely understand it, and I've taken the year + of mid-level chemistry and aced the ACS test that qualifies me to work in a lab as a chemist.
I don't know what's going on there, but until he is able to grasp that his own level of knowledge is not, by default, higher in all areas than that of other people, it's probably going to remain difficult to have a conversation with him.
Apparently there's some neighbor that keeps trying to hock my neighbor (Katniss Everdeen, the bow-wielding nurse Navy Wife) essential oils to actually take to work with her and use on her nursing home patients to protect them from the Ebolas.
I've never once heard Katniss yell, at anything. She's a down home country girl from upstate NY who loves Jesus and and good bottle of wine. She told this woman to fuck off. I nearly pissed myself laughing on the stairs when I went to get my mail yesterday.
The water memory thing, it is impressively stupid.
Quote from: Ragret on October 19, 2014, 12:36:34 AM
The water memory thing, it is impressively stupid.
It's so spectacularly nonsensical that it's just beyond beyond. And these people don't seem to comprehend that "higher-level" structures do not affect anything at the molecular level, they are two different orders of perspective. You can't have it both ways... it doesn't work like that. The fact that we are human does not affect the nature of the nitrogen in our bodies. They keep harping on "but there are things we don't know", while disregarding that what they propose violates what we DO know. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence -- but it's like they don't understand enough about the known world to even understand why their claims are extraordinary, or perhaps even enough to know what extraordinary
is.
I'm more willing to accept that there are emergent phenomena that are responsible for ghosts, than that there are emergent phenomena that make homeopathy work, because emergence
does not affect the part of the whole. By definition.
Quote from: Your Mom on October 19, 2014, 04:52:26 AM
Quote from: Ragret on October 19, 2014, 12:36:34 AM
The water memory thing, it is impressively stupid.
It's so spectacularly nonsensical that it's just beyond beyond. And these people don't seem to comprehend that "higher-level" structures do not affect anything at the molecular level, they are two different orders of perspective. You can't have it both ways... it doesn't work like that. The fact that we are human does not affect the nature of the nitrogen in our bodies. They keep harping on "but there are things we don't know", while disregarding that what they propose violates what we DO know. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence -- but it's like they don't understand enough about the known world to even understand why their claims are extraordinary, or perhaps even enough to know what extraordinary is.
I'm more willing to accept that there are emergent phenomena that are responsible for ghosts, than that there are emergent phenomena that make homeopathy work, because emergence does not affect the part of the whole. By definition.
I think that says it all. Especially this bit:
QuoteThey keep harping on "but there are things we don't know", while disregarding that what they propose violates what we DO know.
Which could apply to all manner of shit. I am currently having a bit of fun with some Mars One freaks, who are telling me that radiation outside of our magnetic field isn't a thing (so even if Mars One wasn't a scam or at best a pipe dream), so the crews would not turn into suits full of tumors.
Also, seals on hatches and spacesuits don't ever wear out, so there is no problem with a one-way trip 144 million miles from the nearest spare parts.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 19, 2014, 05:55:00 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 19, 2014, 04:52:26 AM
Quote from: Ragret on October 19, 2014, 12:36:34 AM
The water memory thing, it is impressively stupid.
It's so spectacularly nonsensical that it's just beyond beyond. And these people don't seem to comprehend that "higher-level" structures do not affect anything at the molecular level, they are two different orders of perspective. You can't have it both ways... it doesn't work like that. The fact that we are human does not affect the nature of the nitrogen in our bodies. They keep harping on "but there are things we don't know", while disregarding that what they propose violates what we DO know. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence -- but it's like they don't understand enough about the known world to even understand why their claims are extraordinary, or perhaps even enough to know what extraordinary is.
I'm more willing to accept that there are emergent phenomena that are responsible for ghosts, than that there are emergent phenomena that make homeopathy work, because emergence does not affect the part of the whole. By definition.
I think that says it all. Especially this bit:
QuoteThey keep harping on "but there are things we don't know", while disregarding that what they propose violates what we DO know.
Which could apply to all manner of shit. I am currently having a bit of fun with some Mars One freaks, who are telling me that radiation outside of our magnetic field isn't a thing (so even if Mars One wasn't a scam or at best a pipe dream), so the crews would not turn into suits full of tumors.
Also, seals on hatches and spacesuits don't ever wear out, so there is no problem with a one-way trip 144 million miles from the nearest spare parts.
People who WANT to believe cannot be dissuaded with mere data, logic, or other knowledge.
Quote from: Your Mom on October 19, 2014, 12:12:35 AM
Honestly, I think the guy would be OK if it weren't for the enormous blind spot in which he seems unable to conceive the possibility that others may have access not only to the same information he does, but also, in some cases, more complete information than he does.
The exchange in the Youtube thread, about the RC quadcopters, was a perfect example. He posted a video. I watched the video, and commented that a guy in my neighborhood flies his at the park by my house. He then, perhaps assuming I must not have been clear on the concept (I really am not sure why) clarified that the ones in the video are different from the one my neighbor flies because the operators are wearing VR goggles, which is completely clear from watching the video I was commenting on.
A similar disjoint seems to have occurred when he insisted that he has taken chemistry. I believe him, because everyone takes some chemistry up to a certain point, but I also don't believe that he has taken chemistry at the level I have taken it, and certainly not to the point of actually understanding the forces that bind matter together and cause molecules to behave and interact the way they do. I barely understand it, and I've taken the year + of mid-level chemistry and aced the ACS test that qualifies me to work in a lab as a chemist.
I don't know what's going on there, but until he is able to grasp that his own level of knowledge is not, by default, higher in all areas than that of other people, it's probably going to remain difficult to have a conversation with him.
God damn it, that's not fair about the drone. Your first response, although clearly accidentally, was misleading. If you had posted your second one straight out ("It's just a toy you can buy in a hobby shop. Goggles and everything. And there is a guy who flies his in the park half a block away from my house because he's a filthy rich American capitalist pig who can afford to drop $1200 on an RC toy with VR goggles. He probably works for Intel or FEI or one of the god knows how many other tech companies that have campuses here."), I would not have made the mistake. You have to admit that the way you put it first made it sound totally commonplace, and I knew (correctly), that it can't be all that common, not even in Murrikah.
As for chemistry: I am totally certain and do declare that I know a great deal less about chemistry than you do.
As for higher level structures in water, I had water clusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cluster) in mind, apparently an unsolved problem in chemistry.
As for quantum physics, I know fuck all about it so that is probably more than 60 years out of date, but I don't think I have mentioned it. I mentioned special relativity, of which newtonian mechanics is a limiting case. At relativistic speeds, and macroscopic objects, newtonian mechanics fails.
How is that unfair, when I was clearly responding to the video, in which it is extremely obvious that they were using VR goggles, and mentioned that my neighbor flies his in the park, which is basically like an RC helicopter with fancier controls? I mean, your response seemed to indicate that either you assumed that I hadn't watched the video (in which case I wouldn't have made the link to RC helicopters at all) or that I hadn't understood what I was seeing (which gives woefully little credit to my intelligence and experience).
Either way is assuming that the person you are talking to is somehow in possession of less information than you, or is unable to correctly interpret the information present.
I brought it up here because you seem to make a habit of this sort of thing, and I wanted to point out that it makes it difficult to converse with you. It seems to partially be the result of you failing to think through your response.
As for water clusters, see this: http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html
If you want something more sciency, this one is fun: http://www.pnas.org/content/98/19/10533.full
Seriously, should I even have to specify how I know the difference? It's mildly insulting that your default assumption is that I have no clue.
And yeah, in fact, they are pretty commonplace, or at least no rarity, here in Tech Villa where the average home price is about half a million dollars. I haven't seen an ordinary RC helicopter for years, they seem to be out of vogue.
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 01:19:31 AM
Seriously, should I even have to specify how I know the difference? It's mildly insulting that your default assumption is that I have no clue.
And yeah, in fact, they are pretty commonplace, or at least no rarity, here in Tech Villa where the average home price is about half a million dollars. I haven't seen an ordinary RC helicopter for years, they seem to be out of vogue.
I made a mistake, for which I apologised. I will make efforts to improve my defensive attitude.
Drones flying about are no rarity here, either (although model aircraft are also popular). People flying them in FPV: nope.
Quote from: Pæs on October 18, 2014, 11:07:48 PM
This is what Holist not engaging on homeopathy looks like.
:lulz:
I CAN'T HELP MYSELF.
:love:
Okay, I just changed my mind. I read a great deal more, looked at many studies, and decided that homeopathy doesn't work. The "homeopathic encounter", I think can be a particularly effective way of turning on the placebo-effect, depending on practitioner, context and patient...it may have an element of hypnosis to it, even. But the woo is highly unlikely to be real. This feels weird, I tell you. And it will involve re-evaluating and probably changing a number of important relationships. So THANK YOU, PD. :argh!: :oops:
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 20, 2014, 03:21:45 AM
Quote from: Pæs on October 18, 2014, 11:07:48 PM
This is what Holist not engaging on homeopathy looks like.
:lulz:
I CAN'T HELP MYSELF.
:love:
Okay, I just changed my mind. I read a great deal more, looked at many studies, and decided that homeopathy doesn't work. The "homeopathic encounter", I think can be a particularly effective way of turning on the placebo-effect, depending on practitioner, context and patient...it may have an element of hypnosis to it, even. But the woo is highly unlikely to be real. This feels weird, I tell you. And it will involve re-evaluating and probably changing a number of important relationships. So THANK YOU, PD. :argh!: :oops:
Congratulations, pursuing more information even if it contradicts your favored hypothesis and changing your mind based on the preponderance of available evidence is pretty damn bipedal.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 19, 2014, 06:41:58 PM
As for quantum physics, I know fuck all about it so that is probably more than 60 years out of date, but I don't think I have mentioned it. I mentioned special relativity, of which newtonian mechanics is a limiting case. At relativistic speeds, and macroscopic objects, newtonian mechanics fails.
Can I ask for citations? Because you seem to be talking about quantum mechanics while claiming not to be talking about quantum mechanics. I'm no physicist, I haven't even taken university physics, but this whole post reeks of "makes no goddamn sense".
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 06:50:14 AM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 19, 2014, 06:41:58 PM
As for quantum physics, I know fuck all about it so that is probably more than 60 years out of date, but I don't think I have mentioned it. I mentioned special relativity, of which newtonian mechanics is a limiting case. At relativistic speeds, and macroscopic objects, newtonian mechanics fails.
Can I ask for citations? Because you seem to be talking about quantum mechanics while claiming not to be talking about quantum mechanics. I'm no physicist, I haven't even taken university physics, but this whole post reeks of "makes no goddamn sense".
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_the_General_Theory) is a good start.
Einstein's own book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_the_General_Theory) for the interested public is still great.
Are those links supposed to be identical?
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 20, 2014, 07:01:03 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 06:50:14 AM
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 19, 2014, 06:41:58 PM
As for quantum physics, I know fuck all about it so that is probably more than 60 years out of date, but I don't think I have mentioned it. I mentioned special relativity, of which newtonian mechanics is a limiting case. At relativistic speeds, and macroscopic objects, newtonian mechanics fails.
Can I ask for citations? Because you seem to be talking about quantum mechanics while claiming not to be talking about quantum mechanics. I'm no physicist, I haven't even taken university physics, but this whole post reeks of "makes no goddamn sense".
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_the_General_Theory) is a good start.
Einstein's own book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_the_General_Theory) for the interested public is still great.
Wikipedia? :|
I would be more impressed if you just admitted that you don't really know what you're on about. Here is a book I suspect you might enjoy or find helpful: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Equation-Einstein-Relativity-Expanding/dp/0385334850/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1413789647&sr=8-6&keywords=God%27s+theorem
It's not a great book, by any means, but it's very accessible and might help you.
Quote from: Pæs on October 20, 2014, 07:04:29 AM
Are those links supposed to be identical?
Nope, they weren't. But they are. The first one was supposed to be the Special Relativity article.
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 07:13:13 AM
I would be more impressed if you just admitted that you don't really know what you're on about. Here is a book I suspect you might enjoy or find helpful: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Equation-Einstein-Relativity-Expanding/dp/0385334850/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1413789647&sr=8-6&keywords=God%27s+theorem
Please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but I am going to quote from Wikipedia:
"A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that its orbit showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.
Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is a much simpler theory to work with than general relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications involving sufficiently small masses, speeds and energies."
This is basically the story I remembered from about 29 to 27 years ago. I screwed up, the anomalies with Newton's theory were not resolved by special but by general relativity, which indicates that my knowledge is superficial in the field. But it seems that the basic statement (Newtonian Mechanics fails at macroscopic levels at relativistic speeds) holds true.
Newton's work was modified by relativity (by removing the assumption of a central point in space). 99% of of Newton's work is still relevent (thermodynamics, gravitational attraction, etc).
MODIFIED, not shitcanned.
I started to write up something about general relativity and how it relates to Newtonian physics, and how classical mechanics is just a limited case of general relativity, but then I realized how useless that would be. Pearls, swine, etc.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 20, 2014, 08:44:04 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 07:13:13 AM
I would be more impressed if you just admitted that you don't really know what you're on about. Here is a book I suspect you might enjoy or find helpful: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Equation-Einstein-Relativity-Expanding/dp/0385334850/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1413789647&sr=8-6&keywords=God%27s+theorem
Please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but I am going to quote from Wikipedia:
"A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that its orbit showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.
Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is a much simpler theory to work with than general relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications involving sufficiently small masses, speeds and energies."
This is basically the story I remembered from about 29 to 27 years ago. I screwed up, the anomalies with Newton's theory were not resolved by special but by general relativity, which indicates that my knowledge is superficial in the field. But it seems that the basic statement (Newtonian Mechanics fails at macroscopic levels at relativistic speeds) holds true.
Please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but you have so little education in this field that you are completely unable to interpret the words you are parroting.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 20, 2014, 02:41:30 PM
I started to write up something about general relativity and how it relates to Newtonian physics, and how classical mechanics is just a limited case of general relativity, but then I realized how useless that would be. Pearls, swine, etc.
The book I linked to, which is essentially the story of Einstein's once-rejected Cosmological Constant, explains the history of non-euclidean geometry and the relationship of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with Newtonian mechanics in detail, in layman's terms, but I think this is another case of classic Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, in which the victim cannot grasp that is is the limits of his own knowledge that is the major contributor to the disjunct, rather than the ignorance of his conversational partners.
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 20, 2014, 02:41:30 PM
I started to write up something about general relativity and how it relates to Newtonian physics, and how classical mechanics is just a limited case of general relativity, but then I realized how useless that would be. Pearls, swine, etc.
The book I linked to, which is essentially the story of Einstein's once-rejected Cosmological Constant, explains the history of non-euclidean geometry and the relationship of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with Newtonian mechanics in detail, in layman's terms, but I think this is another case of classic Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, in which the victim cannot grasp that is is the limits of his own knowledge that is the major contributor to the disjunct, rather than the ignorance of his conversational partners.
I think that's a much bigger problem in the world at large, than most people are willing to admit.
In fact, one might say
this conversation is the micro to the world's macro.
Cough.
I may be missing a something about the homeopathy theory, but I can't see how this would work even assuming the validity of that theory.
So you put a thing in some water that has some property that's supposed to be beneficial for some ailment. Then you dilute that solution down until the beneficial thing is...well...nothing, and the solution is pretty much water, but water that contains the "essence" of whatever the beneficial thing was.
Putting aside the :roll: and assuming that the practice actually works that way, wouldn't we still have to have a thing that actually did something to the Ebola virus before we could disappear that thing and allow its ghost to go right on killing the virus?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 20, 2014, 04:07:50 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 20, 2014, 02:41:30 PM
I started to write up something about general relativity and how it relates to Newtonian physics, and how classical mechanics is just a limited case of general relativity, but then I realized how useless that would be. Pearls, swine, etc.
The book I linked to, which is essentially the story of Einstein's once-rejected Cosmological Constant, explains the history of non-euclidean geometry and the relationship of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with Newtonian mechanics in detail, in layman's terms, but I think this is another case of classic Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, in which the victim cannot grasp that is is the limits of his own knowledge that is the major contributor to the disjunct, rather than the ignorance of his conversational partners.
I think that's a much bigger problem in the world at large, than most people are willing to admit.
In fact, one might say this conversation is the micro to the world's macro.
Cough.
:lol: Well-played, sir.
I love phrases like "please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but...
BUT
BUT
Holist, although I have not yet read it, I have also heard that LMNO's dad's book is reasonably accessible for novices and laypersons: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1107004837/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A84IVOA24OI3N
I found this one enjoyable: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-World-Physics-Everyone/dp/067401832X/
While I am aware that there are segments of academia that place great importance on primary sources, in the sciences it's very important to look not merely at a crystallized moment in the history of our understanding, but at the current state of the research, in order to understand how everything we currently know is tried together. As I mentioned before, it is exceedingly rare for an old and well-tested theory to simply be invalidated by new discoveries; rather, usually the new discoveries and new understanding modify and add to the previous understanding.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 20, 2014, 04:16:16 PM
I love phrases like "please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but...
BUT
BUT
:lulz: BUT it totally is, because now I will quote from a Wikipedia article a sentence that I assume you haven't read or don't understand, little lady.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on October 20, 2014, 04:15:34 PM
I may be missing a something about the homeopathy theory, but I can't see how this would work even assuming the validity of that theory.
So you put a thing in some water that has some property that's supposed to be beneficial for some ailment. Then you dilute that solution down until the beneficial thing is...well...nothing, and the solution is pretty much water, but water that contains the "essence" of whatever the beneficial thing was.
Putting aside the :roll: and assuming that the practice actually works that way, wouldn't we still have to have a thing that actually did something to the Ebola virus before we could disappear that thing and allow its ghost to go right on killing the virus?
Ah, but the critical kernel of the homeopathic hypothesis is that you dilute something that
causes the same symptoms as that which you are trying to cure. So first we would need to find something that causes hemorrhagic fever, and THEN we would dilute it down to nothing and it would cure ebola.
That sounds way less stupid, right?
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 04:27:24 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on October 20, 2014, 04:15:34 PM
I may be missing a something about the homeopathy theory, but I can't see how this would work even assuming the validity of that theory.
So you put a thing in some water that has some property that's supposed to be beneficial for some ailment. Then you dilute that solution down until the beneficial thing is...well...nothing, and the solution is pretty much water, but water that contains the "essence" of whatever the beneficial thing was.
Putting aside the :roll: and assuming that the practice actually works that way, wouldn't we still have to have a thing that actually did something to the Ebola virus before we could disappear that thing and allow its ghost to go right on killing the virus?
Ah, but the critical kernel of the homeopathic hypothesis is that you dilute something that causes the same symptoms as that which you are trying to cure. So first we would need to find something that causes hemorrhagic fever, and THEN we would dilute it down to nothing and it would cure ebola.
Aaaah! I had it totally wrong. No wonder it seemed so hokey and far-fetched.
So where do I sign off to send one of these homie-o's off to the Africans?
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 04:20:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 20, 2014, 04:16:16 PM
I love phrases like "please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but...
BUT
BUT
:lulz: BUT it totally is, because now I will quote from a Wikipedia article a sentence that I assume you haven't read or don't understand, little lady.
:lulz:
You should stop being so NIGEL when a man hollers science at you. It's not HIS fault he's wrong, and you make his wee-wee shrivel up when you go all NIGEL and get uppity. He's just trying to explain things in terms you little ladies will understand, see? Small words, enunciated slowly. And then you NIGELed him with some facts that were
less than convenient. Is it any wonder he lives in a garrett and never shaves? It's because of YOU. All of you. Every last NIGEL.
Something about this whole discussion is harkening me back to that time when Holist was arguing with Cain over the correct phrasing and meaning of a common English turn of phrase. His argument appeared to be something along the lines of "I speak English as a second language, but I have been translating the English language for a living for so long that I know it better than you highly educated native English-speakers".
Likewise, this thing where he is insisting that he, as a philosophy major who has read a lot of articles on the internet, has a better understanding of the relationship of Newtonian physics to relativistic mechanics than people who have backgrounds and training in science and engineering, seems similarly mind-boggling.
Oh, Holist.
If it's any comfort, I have a lawyer friend who does much the same thing. He'll make outlandish claims about subjects he only poorly understands, and then digs in and refuses to believe that anyone else knows more about them than he does. After 25 years of dealing with this, I realize that he is beyond hope, and no longer bother pointing it out or arguing with him about it. I should probably apply that wisdom to Holist as well.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 20, 2014, 04:40:07 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 04:20:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 20, 2014, 04:16:16 PM
I love phrases like "please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but...
BUT
BUT
:lulz: BUT it totally is, because now I will quote from a Wikipedia article a sentence that I assume you haven't read or don't understand, little lady.
:lulz:
You should stop being so NIGEL when a man hollers science at you. It's not HIS fault he's wrong, and you make his wee-wee shrivel up when you go all NIGEL and get uppity. He's just trying to explain things in terms you little ladies will understand, see? Small words, enunciated slowly. And then you NIGELed him with some facts that were less than convenient. Is it any wonder he lives in a garrett and never shaves? It's because of YOU. All of you. Every last NIGEL.
I am deeply ashamed. :lulz:
And on that note, I am off to go cram some more electron behavior into my wee little lady brain.
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 04:51:47 PM
I am deeply ashamed. :lulz:
For some reasons which I can't put my finger on, I find myself in doubt of your sincerity.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 20, 2014, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 04:51:47 PM
I am deeply ashamed. :lulz:
For some reasons which I can't put my finger on, I find myself in doubt of your sincerity.
I am a bad, bad man.
I think I might be onto something, it's getting easier to notice when I'm being patronising, at least when it's pointed out. Thanks for the reading material, and yes, it's my fault. I never intended to claim Newtonian mechanics got 'shitcanned', I understand about it being a limit case of GR, but I completely failed to take into account that the state of play may have changed significantly and that even 30 years ago, it may have been more complex than my rather classy high school physics, or the philosophy of science courses I took let on. All of that was quite stupid, and there may well be more stupid to come, Rome wasn't demolished in a day! Question: what's your take on Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Also, split this off by all means if it's in the wrong place. I'm sorry to say I will be back.
Quote from: Dodo Argentino on October 20, 2014, 09:50:36 PM
I think I might be onto something, it's getting easier to notice when I'm being patronising, at least when it's pointed out. Thanks for the reading material, and yes, it's my fault. I never intended to claim Newtonian mechanics got 'shitcanned', I understand about it being a limit case of GR, but I completely failed to take into account that the state of play may have changed significantly and that even 30 years ago, it may have been more complex than my rather classy high school physics, or the philosophy of science courses I took let on. All of that was quite stupid, and there may well be more stupid to come, Rome wasn't demolished in a day! Question: what's your take on Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Also, split this off by all means if it's in the wrong place. I'm sorry to say I will be back.
Well, this is a significant improvement. Congratulations again.
I haven't read Kuhn, and probably won't anytime soon, given my school-related reading list. Maybe someone else here has?
Lol, this topic got me pondering homeopathy again. While this doesn't validate the "woo" culture around things like homeopathy, if you cut out the "dilute it till you can't measure the substance anymore" shtick, some applications might trigger the olfactory cells in our skin (which cause subconscious chemical-cascade changes in the body):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140708092555.htm
Skin cells possess an olfactory receptor for sandalwood scent, as researchers at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum have discovered. Their data indicate that the cell proliferation increases and wound healing improves if those receptors are activated. This mechanism constitutes a possible starting point for new drugs and cosmetics. The team headed by Dr Daniela Busse and Prof Dr Dr Dr med habil Hanns Hatt from the Department for Cellphysiology published their report in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
:regret:
Quote from: Telarus on October 21, 2014, 01:29:16 AM
Lol, this topic got me pondering homeopathy again. While this doesn't validate the "woo" culture around things like homeopathy, if you cut out the "dilute it till you can't measure the substance anymore" shtick, some applications might trigger the olfactory cells in our skin (which cause subconscious chemical-cascade changes in the body):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140708092555.htm
Skin cells possess an olfactory receptor for sandalwood scent, as researchers at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum have discovered. Their data indicate that the cell proliferation increases and wound healing improves if those receptors are activated. This mechanism constitutes a possible starting point for new drugs and cosmetics. The team headed by Dr Daniela Busse and Prof Dr Dr Dr med habil Hanns Hatt from the Department for Cellphysiology published their report in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
I posted a thread about that effect the other day, and no, not at homeopathic concentrations.
If you are cutting out the "dilute until there's nothing measurable left", you are no longer talking about homeopathy, you are talking about chemical effects.
Well, at least those practicing homeopathy are drinking enough water.
Maybe everyone was just dehydrated, you know?
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 04:59:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 20, 2014, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on October 20, 2014, 04:51:47 PM
I am deeply ashamed. :lulz:
For some reasons which I can't put my finger on, I find myself in doubt of your sincerity.
I am a bad, bad man.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10614274_152605544909634_1728315997958564679_n.jpg?oh=46ae9d454fcfbfc97c41ab5412ca654e&oe=54ACF659&__gda__=1424980101_84b682484dce0e7f0d8e3595a8a46518)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 21, 2014, 12:01:31 PM
Well, at least those practicing homeopathy are drinking enough water.
Maybe everyone was just dehydrated, you know?
It is not homeopathic treatment that is so damaging.
It is the rejection of non-homeopathic treatment.
Do we have a :requia: emote yet?