3 crop circles near Orillia

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 07:21 PM

Bill D,

What good are rules if you can't break them every chance you get? We wouldn't be flying today if someone hadn't decided to try to find a way to violate the laws of gravity. Granted, they used other physical laws to do it, but who knows what other physical laws there could be that would make things that we now consider fantastic to be possible. I don't think we know all of the laws of physics yet, do you?

Only those who can see the invisible can do the impossible.

Carol

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: little john cameron
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 09:04 PM

How about Planck's Hypothesis, was he not a physicist?

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 09:11 PM

*smile*...big difference between investigating physics and believing in your own hypotheses before they have been tested....

(and you don't violate the law of Gravity...you overcome it!)..and you need to be careful what you mean by 'rules'...a rule in a game or social situation can easily be broken, whereas rules of logic cannot...You can ignore them, but you can't change or evade them...Thus, it is possible to be absolutely correct in a theory, but for bad reasons...or to use perfectly consistent reasoning and be wrong because you started with incorrect premises..etc, etc...

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Brendy
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 09:12 PM

Don't you just love Quantum Physics!!!

B.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Brendy
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 09:14 PM

Sorry. My HTML is all over the place tonight!!! It should have been:

Don't you just love...etc.

B.
(I hope)

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 09:27 PM

Brendy, yes, I do love Quantum Physics (what I understand of it).

Bill D, I have spent a lifetime overcoming odds that to others would seem impossible by doing precisely that, by changing and evading the rules of logic. The history of my life is proof that it can be done. Who decided on these rules, anyway, and who is going to try to enforce them? They may work for you, and maybe that's a good thing, but they have never worked for me, and I think I prefer it that way.

Best wishes,

Carol

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: little john cameron
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 09:29 PM

Ah never said he was right ah said he was a physicist wi a hypothesis

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 09:35 PM

To quote Bob Dylan (which I love to do): "I believe in the impossible, you know that I do."

Bob is right.

Today's scientific assumptions will soon be added to and modified, and sometimes discredited and discarded, by new scientific discoveries. This has been the case throughout history. Modern physics has already thrown much of the old Newtonian model of reality on its ear.

Numerous things are considered impossible by most people until somebody does them...and then, if and only if that somebody gains public notice and acceptance. If she (I say "she", just to break a certain habit that's prevalent out there...) doesn't gain general notice and acceptance, then those things continue to be considered impossible by the authorities and the general public.

Here's an example of something like that:

Shortly after the Spanish-American War in 1898, a Cuban doctor proposed the theory that yellow fever was being transmitted to people through mosquito bites...an unheard-of notion at the time. Yellow fever was a scourge in Cuba, particularly to visiting American troops.

Virtually the entire existing medical and scientific community in both the USA and Cuba absolutely ridiculed and vilified him for even suggesting such a ridiculous notion. The general opinion was that it was unsanitary living conditions, bad food, and impure water that caused yellow fever.

Eventually the US Army medical staff decided to shut up this lone dissenter once and for all by conducting a test. Two groups of soldiers were sequestered in tents for an extended period of time. The first set of tents was absolutely filthy...even human excrement and rotting carrion was liberally rubbed on the floors and walls (pity the poor guys inside those tents!)...but they were very well sealed with screens so no mosquitos could enter.

The second set of tents was kept scrupulously clean, but had openings to allow mosquitos to enter.

After a testing period of a few weeks, not one soldier in the filthy but screened tents came down with yellow fever. Numerous soldiers from the clean tents did contract yellow fever. Bingo! Case closed. The Army set about at once eliminating mosquitos by removing sources of stagnant water or coating such water with a thin layer of oil to kill the mosquito larvae. During the next 12 months they drastically reduced yellow fever in the island of Cuba, especially in Havana, by this approach.

The REALLY ASTOUNDING postscript to this, however, is that the general medical community in North America (outside of the Army), and the media continued to hound and ridicule this Cuban scientist for some considerable time after the aforementioned experiment had confirmed the truth of his theory. It took several years before his views received general acceptance...and became the NEW orthodoxy.

Point is...old mental habits die hard.

We will one day have faster than light travel, auric diagnosis of illness (physical or mental or spiritual), and all kinds of things that are presently considered impossible by most scientists. We will also have brotherhood and equality on this planet, and eliminate poverty and war...and that's also considered impossible by cynics everywhere.

Or...we'll blow ourselves up and die from pollution and other assorted follies...all in service to the dollar and military supremacy.

The choice is yours and mine.

I believe in the impossible, you know that I do. I've already seen the possible, and I am less than enormously impressed.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: little john cameron
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 09:37 PM

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Escamillo
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 10:29 PM

I like people who beleive in the "impossible", who have hopes, as long as they don't try to sell me their books and T-shirts, and as long as they don't blame scientists for not acheiveing those impossibles yet.

Dodecaphonism was a "no-no". Non-tonal music was an aberration. Until someone demonstrated that music could be made another way. I would be eagerly waiting for someone to demonstrate what we consider impossible. AND if someone shows me a viable way of reasoning, not based in fallacies, I would work hard to help him/her give birth to his discoveries.

Un abrazo - Andrés

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 10:48 PM

Y un abrazo a usted, Andres...gracias!

What is dodecaphonism?

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: sophocleese
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 10:56 PM

A wild stab at the term, Little Hawk, comes out as 20 tones or noises. I'd guess its a 20 toned scale instead of a 12 tone scale. Either that or its the mating call of the dodo bird, which is now extinct.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Brendy
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 11:26 PM

There is such a beast as an Online Dictionary, LH

B.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: sophocleese
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 11:32 PM

Oops damn, I made a wrong guess. I figured on this thread it wouldn't matter if I didn't check another source but just made up my own language rules. Seemed logical to me.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Escamillo
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 11:36 PM

From the Greek dö deká and Phonos (twelve sounds), dodecafonism is the name given to the system of 12 notes in music composition, which are the same 12 semitones of the classical well-tempered scale, but used independently of any grouping or relationship (no tonic, dominant, etc) but only a SERIES of sounds, or a sound base for the construction of many SERIES, with which music can be made.

Serialism (the use of subsets of those 12 sounds in particular orders) is what governs a great part of modern academic works. Arnold Schoenberg was the father of dodecafonism, about whom you may find a good article in This clicky thing

One can like this music or not, but it is a good example of things that were considered absurd and impossible circa 1911 when Schoenberg invented it, but was finally widely accepted.

However, the similarity with pseudo-science and science ends here. He was not a pseudo-musician, he was an important musician and tonal composer, he knew everything about scales and modes before inventing a new way of expression.

Un abrazo - Andrés

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Rana
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 11:42 PM

Now wasn't it the White Queen who believed in as many as six impossible things before breakfast?

Rana

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: sophocleese
Date: 19 Aug 00 - 11:43 PM

So that time when I was very nervous and was told my singing was "Very Schoenberg" it wasn't a compliment?

Drat!

Thanks Andres.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Brendy
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 12:29 AM

Oh, I don't think it really matters, soph. When it comes to definitions, that is.

Especially when it pertains to crop circles in Orillia.

B.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 02:50 AM

Escamillo,

You say are eagerly awaiting the demonstration of something that we consider impossible. I can't predict which of the currently impossible things will become possible in either the near or distant future (and if I could, I certainly wouldn't tell anyone about it ;). However, I can point to quite a lot of things that were formerly considered impossible, that we now take for granted. You are using one such example right now.

Best regards,

Carol

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 03:09 AM

When was it considered impossible?

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 03:29 AM

Before it was considered possible.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Escamillo
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 04:23 AM

Carol said: "I can point to quite a lot of things that were formerly considered impossible, that we now take for granted. "

Yes Carol, that is what I would like to see: the impossible dreams become realities, but how many of those things were demonstrated or put in practice by self-educated(?) people, who bypassed the scientific methods, or studied unrelated matters, not to mention Von Danikens and commercial fortune-seekers ? Let's try to recall one. None appears. When something important was discovered, it came from scientists and knowledgeable people, as the case of dodecafonism I mentioned above.

There is an interesting idea from the great Isaac Asimov (who was a believer in extraterrestrial life as well as a UFO detractor):

Arthur Clarke's Law of the Science Establishment: When a young and still unrecognized scientist states a weird theory which produces a negative reaction in the established old scientists community, there are high probabilities that his/her theory is correct.

Isaac Asimov's Corollary : yes, but when that weird theory is widely supported and acclaimed by the masses of the general public, then it is far more probable that the old scientists are right, after all.

Un abrazo - Andrés (not a scientist, unfortunately);)

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 05:18 AM

Escamillo, I believe that Thomas Edison was largely self educated. As a child he was schooled at home. My understanding is that at least his early research was done independently. In fact, I think that many inventors in earlier times did their research independently. Sometimes it's necessary to be unshackled by any outside agency for true creative genius to take place.

Best regards,

Carol

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Naemanson
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 08:56 AM

Carol - I think you are right about Edison. However, he strictly followed the scientific method and worked tirelessly to perfect his inventions. And he based his work on the work of scientists, not popular media.

As an example, People said you could not use electricity to light a city. Edison proved them wrong. However he was convinced that direct current was the best method. He was wrong but he worked very hard to show that alternating current was too dangerous. (As an aside: Do you know what he invented to prove his point? The Electric Chair!)

Edison was not a scientist. He was a technician and an experimenter. Down through history there have been plenty of people who say things cannot be. Fortunately there are plenty of people who do not listen.

There is an important difference between what Carol and Andres are talking about. The pseudoscientists resist a complete scientific analysis of their claims. They rely on the acceptance of a populace who wants to believe them. (Unfortunately they are making money off that populace which keeps them from revealing how they do what they do)

The scientists on the other hand want to see the pseudosciences explained. If it turns out to be possible to use telepathy then that will open up a whole new field of study and understanding. If it turns out that the UFO's are real then think of what that would mean to this world.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 01:35 PM

*sigh*...Carol...I bring a **formal** use of the word 'logic' to the discussion, you reply with a 'popular' use...we cannot talk about it much this way....I repeat, you do not 'break' the rules of logic, what you have done...admirably..... in your life is overcome difficulties and go against 'odds' or popular wisdom...(not knowing the details, I can't say exactly)...my quibble is with those who claim to USE logic, and do it incorrectly...

If someone says, "I believe" in'X', I cant argue with him...it is his privilege...but if he says.."I saw 'this', and 'that' didn't happen, therefore 'X' is true, then he can be shown to be using either correct or incorrect logic...but not necessarily proven right or wrong. And IF his logic is correct, he may still be wrong, because 'that' may have indeed happened, and he missed it...etc...

(and no one exactly 'invented' those 'rules'...they have just been refined over time and names given to them...Laws of physics may be 'better understood' as time passes...not changed...but laws of logic just *are*...)

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 05:28 PM

Bill D, was that the sigh of a martyr? ; )

I guess I have no real argument with you because I will never claim to use logic, either correctly or incorrectly. (However, when you say the rules of logic "just are", how is that different from someone saying non-terrestrial intelligences "just are"?)

Naemanson,

My only quibble with you is that what you call "pseudoscientists", I would call "charlatans". I am uncomfortable with the word pseudoscience because I think some people use it a little too liberally. I think that there are people who are doing legitimate research that is labeled pseudoscience by people who are unwilling or unable to accept it as a possibility within their accepted paradigm.

I think the difference is in the profit motive.

Carol

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Naemanson
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 06:47 PM

Carol, I think charlatan carries a negative connotation that has no place in this discussion. I would agree to the use of the term as it relates to a specific individual such as Uri Geller. The people I am referring to as pseudoscientists are those who truly believe in what they are doing and could never conceive of using it for profit only. These people truly believe they are helping people.

I have a dear friend, my former voice teacher, who falls into this classification. She does voice analysis and reads auras, locates power centers in the earth and all that other stuff. We love each other as only the closest friends can but we also understand each other's position on this subject. She knows she will never convince me to change my mind without an accurate unbiased experiment and I know that she will never change her mind. Null set. We cancel each other out and maintain a healthy friendship.

The charlatan, on the other hand sees the believers as sheep ready for the clippers. No device is too low to use to take their money and explain away why the result was not as intended.

I'll let Bill address the subject of logic. He has done a great job so far.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 06:57 PM

Ah yes! The profit motive. That and the unhealthy desire for excessive accumulation of temporal power are the primary forces presently threatening life on this planet, and retarding the application of real scientific progress in a great many areas.

Not that it's wrong to make a profit...I certainly try to do so when running my export business, but I don't destroy nature and use 3rd World people as slave labour while doing so.

If the profit motive were not the dominant factor in high level decisions in our society, we would not presently be burning petroleum products in the form of fossil fuel...we would be using them to make much more valuable synthetic products (plastics, etc.), and deriving our propulsion energy from non-polluting sources. This could have been done decades ago.

We would not be embargoing Cuba (they interfered with the profits of some very big players in the USA). Cuba would most likely be a valued friend and partner of the USA.

We would be providing free health care for everyone.

Point is, the DOMINANT factor in doing anything should be the accomplishment itself...to do something which is valuable and beneficial to everyone concerned, not just to a few CEO's and stockholders. Secondary to that, one would of course try to make a profit in the process, which would be pretty straightforward, given that one was rendering a valuable service.

We would build cities for the health and happiness of human beings, not automobiles.

We would provide a hell of a lot more public mass transit in North America.

And so on.

Who is presently running this planet? The spiritual blood brothers of the Ferengi, the most morally corrupt aliens on Star Trek. "Rules of Acquisition"...that is the credo of our society. He who dies with the most toys wins. Shame, shame, shame.

Brendy - I didn't know there was an online dictionary...besides, it's more fun to just ask. It stimulates conversation. I could phone out for groceries too, but I prefer to go downtown and actually buy them firsthand. I could watch music videos, but I prefer to see a live show. I could have virtual sex, but I prefer the real thing.

"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Brendy
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 07:26 PM

And you could have a virtual life.

And go virtually live it.

Before you virtually bore us to death.

B.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Alice
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 08:27 PM

GUEST Lyle, I am a supporter of CSICOP, also. I donated to James Randi's educational foundation, even on my meager income. My web page on Fraud, Quacks, and Cults has been online since 1998. Apart from Wolfgang, I did not know how many others on the Mudcat were aware of the Skeptical Inquirer.

Anyone interested in making a cool million should check this out. The $1,000,000 Paranormal challenge.

always in awe of the mysterious wonderland,

Alice

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 08:48 PM

*big grin*...Martyrdom is highly overrated,,,,that was the sigh of someone who used to have to explain the point to freshmen in college...and STILL have them repeat the wrong answer on tests...

I suspect it would make more sense to compare the rules of logic to those of math. 3+2=5...always...you don't get to choose whether it will be 4.83 on Sundays after supper...logic is like that. Logic is NOT homey sayings like Abe Lincoln used..that is 'folk wisdom'.

If I say there is a dog in front of the house, we can both go look, since, presumably we both recognize dogs...and can compare notes. It follows that we 'should' be able to identify space aliens the same way...except that we have no standard...and they never seem to wait to be identified..(and, we can look around the area for the dog..not sure where to look for aliens who don't wait){ the problem of investigating, ghosts, elves, spirits, ESP, gods, auras, Tarot cards, etc., is a bit different, since people can't seem to agree on what would count as evidence..[evidence of 'dogs' is pretty well standard..*grin*]

Now, as a matter of interest, I am confident that somewhere in the universe there ARE other intelligent beings...just too big a place not to be....but I am NOT convinced that they could get to us, or, if they could, that they HAVE!...the same math that makes me bet they exist also makes me aware of how hard it is to GO between the stars. Better science than ours? Perhaps...sure hope they quit playing games and drop in and show us before I die.....

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Brendy
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 09:00 PM

- Click here -

B.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 09:03 PM

BillD, it does help to connect LOGIC to Math. Maybe Carol can understand this--if "A" is true, and "B" is true, then a conclusion--"C" is true. If either A or B is false, then C must also be false, because of false premises. We must start from valid data if we are to have valid conclusions. Carol, Rules of Logic ARE, just like gravity IS,or as Bill says, 2 + 3 ALWAYS equals 5, at least in THIS Universe. Logic is not Common Sense, nor is it Folk Wisdom. Logic is a special kind of math which uses words instead of numbers.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Cap't Bob
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 09:16 PM

The circles are actually caused by "side hill gougers" ~ These animals have evolved traits that make them highly adapted for walking on hill sides. Legs on one side shorter than legs on the other side. Occasionally they wander out onto flat land where they continually walk in circles. Their only hope for escape is to run faster and faster until the centrifugal force is great enough to propel them to a hill side. Apparently the "side hill gouger" in this case had to make three attempts before he escaped to his hillside domain.

Cap't Bob

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Brendy
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 09:24 PM

....And as if by magic....

B.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Alice
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 09:46 PM

another crop circle photo...

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Alice
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 09:56 PM

and...www.circlemakers.org Yes, they are works of art, deliberately made by human artists. At the time crop circles began to appear, I was in fine arts school. The trends at that time were going toward performance art, conceptual art, site-specific art, and earthworks, like Cristo's wrappings and Spiral Jetty. The crop circle makers were and are artists working in this genre of contemporary art.

Alice

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 09:56 PM

Bill D,

I think I understand now why logic doesn't work for me. I can count a pile of something ten times and come up with a different number every time. I say this humorously, but it is also true. Numbers are very amorphous things to me. I'm sure this makes no sense to you at all, but I think it has something to do with the way my brain is wired.

I also want to say that I'm not advocating either for or against any of the paranormal concepts that have been brought up in this thread. I just had some problems with the way things were worded in some of the posts.

Naemanson,

Does your friend call herself a scientist? If she does, then I concede your point. If she doesn't, then I still have a problem with the word pseudoscientist. Perhaps metaphysician would be a better word.

Carol

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 09:59 PM

Brendy - Thanks for the compliment.

I looked up the two addresses you listed. Very interesting. By golly, maybe it is "side-hill gougers" making some of those crop circles! Ha Ha. Do the males run clockwise or counter-clockwise?

As for the other one, on those guys who spend their free nights creating beautiful crop circles...pretty impressive. Downright astounding, in fact. It's almost more extraordinary in a sense than if aliens had done it. I mean, look at the time and trouble involved. It doesn't surprise me that they can't find women who want to do this. I've noticed all my life that women are generally a whole lot more mature than men (with some notable individual exceptions, of course).

Curiously enough, the hoaxers seem to have had some UFO encounters themselves lately. Stranger and stranger...maybe the aliens are trying to figure out who is making crop circles and why. Ha ha. If so, they no doubt think it's a religious ritual of some kind.

I had some friends once who went to a great deal of trouble creating what appeared to be a comatose body lying on a road at night, just around a hairpin turn. They made a dummy with some clothing and stuffing and laid it across the road. Meanwhile, another guy hid in the bushes dressed exactly like the dummy. In due course of time a car came around the corner and ran over the dummy. The driver screeched to a halt 15 or 20 feet down the road. The dummy was whisked off in an instant by a pull rope, and the non-dummy quickly lay in the road in its place. My friends had conveniently made tire marks across his clothing beforehand, one across his chest, and one across his legs.

The driver came rushing over, yelling "Oh my God, oh my God..."

As the poor man bent down to take a closer look, the supposed victim stood up, dusted off his clothing, and said "Why the hell don't you watch where you're driving!" He then walked away, leaving a very upset, virtually incoherent man standing in the road.

My sick friends thought this was pretty funny, but they were only 17 at the time, so I guess I can forgive them.

So, that was a hoax. A well planned one. Like the crop circles those guys did. However, not every body lying across a road is therefore a hoax. Perhaps the same can be said of crop circles...or UFO's...or anything else unusual that you could care to mention.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Alice
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 10:09 PM

Little Hawk, did you read how you, too, can become a circle maker? Cool, eh! It's at the circlemakers website link I provided. Here's a quote:
-------

This site is designed and maintained by artist and circlemakerJohn Lundberg [left] at developmental labs in London, UK. Welcome to the 'circlemakers' website. Within this site you will find a wealth of information by and about England's crop circlemakers. You'll be able to learn how to become a circlemaker using our easy to follow 'Beginners Guide'. Read about the history of circlemaking, 'hear' a circle being made and learn about some of the weird experiences the circlemakers have encountered whilst out making formations and gain some insight into 'why' this tight band of individuals spend their summers out in the fields of England flattening cereal crops in various intricate patterns! There's loads of stuff here, so stop loitering and explore the site. Don't forget to sign the guestbook before you leave... see you in the fields.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Naemanson
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 10:14 PM

Metaphysician? I didn't know metas ever got sick! *BG*

My friend is a believer in pseudoscience not a "researcher" though recent reports are that she's writing a book and may be crossing the line. I do know that she is convinced she is doing good with her work.

Perhaps a key here is the term researcher. How do these conepts in pseudoscience come about. Where do they come from? In real science a learned person comes up with a hypothesis based on an observation. S/he then designs a test to see if that hypothesis is true. If, after extensive testing, it is proved true s/he publishes the findings and other scientists try it out. It may fit into whatever they are working on and be helpful. Or it may throw all their work into the trash. Either way science has marched on.

Would someone, not a skeptic, please provide a similar type of explanation for where the concepts and beliefs of pseudoscience come from?

Oh, and BTW, one does not "believe in" science. Science is an accumulation of proven facts and unporoved hypotheses.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Brendy
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 10:19 PM

Don't know if this guy's a sceptic, or not, Naemanson, but, Click here anyway.

B.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 10:19 PM

Little Hawk, was that some logic I detected in your last paragraph?

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 10:29 PM

Naemanson, once again, I have a problem with your wording. I think it might be instructive to look up the word "metaphysics" in your cyber-dictionary. I think that most people like your friend consider themselves to be students of that school of thought, rather that either real, or pseudo, science. There is a real difference there. Numbers may be amorphous to me, but words are not.

Best wishes,

Carol

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Brendy
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 10:30 PM

This one isn't as long winded, I think.

B.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 10:34 PM

Thanks Alice, sounds like a great website. I'll take a look.

Naemanson - when I say that someone "believes" in science, all I mean to say is that he believes in the scientific approach to existence more than he believes in any other kind of approach to existence...such as a political, emotional, cultural, artistic, religious, spiritual or romantic approach to existence. He might be inclined to bury his face in issues of "Popular Mechanics" or "Science Digest" or whatever, rather than reading biographies, fiction, history, fantasy or some other subject.

Language is never a perfect tool, but that's what I meant.

He would rather absorb himself in science than anything else...that's what I mean by a guy who believes in science.

I was just such a guy until about age 18. I still believe in science, but I have a considerably greater interest in a number of other things now, science notwithstanding.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 00 - 10:40 PM

well...I JUST stumbled on this site by the NSA which is a release of documents about UFOs under the Freedom of Information Act...have had NO time to read any...(PDF format)...maybe something interesting

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Escamillo
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 12:35 AM

LOL, Capt'n Bob !!

I think someone should should start a thread named "Explaining the Unexplained" or something similar, and give us a space for our theories. Can you imagine how Spaw would explain the cause of AURAS ? Or what's the real reason why aliens don't show up ?

To all: Please don't post here about this, because we would rapidly mess up this serious discussion, but.. (LOL) wouldn't that thread be funny ??

Carol, I guess I can understand your view of logic, I think it's part of a sensible spirit, but when we are trying to find true facts, we are stuck to the pure logic, no matter how cold it could appear. If we were discussing wether these "unexplained" (or well explained) things are desirable or not, it would be a different story. I personally would be the happiest man in Universe the day aliens say HI! (or the Side Hill Gougers make contact)

Un abrazo - Andrés

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Grab
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 09:23 AM

LittleHawk, I know exactly what you mean by a "believer" in science. That's the scientific orthodoxy which was (and is still, to some extent) popular. However, given the number of improbable theories which are true, or at least match the evidence (particle/wave duality, superstring theory, multidimensional space, etc) then I think physical scientists are better at this now.

The problem is that the burden of proof lies on the person with the new idea. If you take us "sceptics" who require some visible/tangible/logical proof to be 100% convinced as the "orthodoxy" on this, it's up to you (or other "visionaries") to explain why the orthodoxy is wrong and to provide proof of this, before your new beliefs become popularly accepted. Once proof is available, rest assured that I will be quite convinced.

But as you yourself said above, you require PROOF. Until the yellow fever experiment was conducted, the doctor's theory was just a theory - it wasn't until the experiment was a success that it was shown to be true. Pasteur's work on disease went much the same way. But these are just the success stories, where the early adoption could have been beneficial. Consider the theories which may have seemed logical at the time, but which never made it into the orthodoxy, because they couldn't be proved. Galvani's experiments with corpses to "create life"? Grinding up human bones to make effective "medicine" from the powder? The "powder of sympathy" which Dava Sobel describes in "Longitude"? All featured in English scientific/medical culture in the 18th and 19th centuries, and seemed eminently logical at the time (at least to a small group of people practising them), but I doubt you'd seriously consider these to be worthy entries to a science book today!

And here's the rub. If dowsing, crop circles, UFOs, crystal healing, etc can be proved to be true, given suitable experiments, then they'll be believed (it may take some time for the word to go around, viz your doctor, but it WILL happen). But until that day, they'll stay as theories which may explain the facts, but can't yet be proven. No more, and no less.

There've been a few attempts to prove/disprove stuff. The problem is that there's either the chance of blind luck (given 10 bags of which only 1 contains a crystal, which one heals best? 10% chance of success there), or in the case of failure the "alternative" theorist can say "Oh, but you didn't follow the rules I said you had to stick to" (a recent test of Breatharianism, a cult which claims you don't need to eat, got stuck with this). To do the experiment, you need a true dispassionate test in which the results can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be true, and in which neither side can claim the other has "weighted" the odds.

Grab.

Subject: RE: 3 crop circles near Orillia
From: Alice
Date: 21 Aug 00 - 10:11 AM

This discussion reminds me of the young American Science Fair student who did her experiment on "therapeutic touch". Her subjects, all self proclaimed practitioners, who did not even get the 50% correct that guessing would have achieved, were of the opinion they performed rather well. Her comment - besides not being able to do what they claimed, they don't even understand statistics.