End of the world or a new awakening?

[agent77]

@Munjibunga: I'm wondering why you are so adamantly opposed to the idea that the universe effects our moods. What kind of research have you done?

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by agent77

@Munjibunga: I'm wondering why you are so adamantly opposed to the idea that the universe effects our moods. What kind of research have you done?

Some little thing called "burden of proof."

Of course the universe affects our moods. If a piece of the universe falls off a table and lands on my toe, it puts me in a bad mood.

[1958Bassman]

Originally Posted by Chef FourString

Everything has an equal and opposite reaction. For things to become truly great for us humans something equally as tragic must also accrue. Imo, I think we are seeing the beginning of our great travesty. I hope I live long enough to see the good come to pass.

Equal and opposite reaction applies to forces acting on a body (object), not necessarily events. Events are met with human reactions that are hardly proportionate.

According to this link, the Spanish Inquisition lasted 354 years, from 1480 until 1834, when it was disbanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

I sincerely hope the current insanity doesn't last that long.

[jeffbonny]

Originally Posted by fdeck

Some little thing called "burden of proof."

Without the burden of proof (actually can we change "proof" to convincing or overwhelming "evidence"?) all you're left with is belief which is a poor substitute for knowing. Unfortunately many of scientific bent tend towards believing that if there is no empirical evidence for something then that something necessarily does not exist. Ultimately without an open mind they fall into the same pit of belief that those they mock are mired in. Healthy skepticism is one thing, mocking denial is quite another.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

Without the burden of proof (actually can we change "proof" to convincing or overwhelming "evidence"?)

Sure, that's cool. One might also include the lack of confounding evidence for a hypothesis that's parsimonious and falsifiable. This is what we mean by "proof" of theories such as electrodynamics and Darwinism.

all you're left with is belief which is a poor substitute for knowing.

So accept the burden of proof.

Unfortunately many of scientific bent tend towards believing that if there is no empirical evidence for something then that something necessarily does not exist. Ultimately without an open mind they fall into the same pit of belief that those they mock are mired in. Healthy skepticism is one thing, mocking denial is quite another.

For me, being open-minded means being open to the introduction of robust evidence. I will even help you search for that evidence if my curiosity is piqued. In my view, scientific thought is the epitome of humility and open-mindedness, because we accept that all of our beliefs are tentative, and we are open to changing our minds when we are proven wrong.

[jeffbonny]

Originally Posted by fdeck

Sure, that's cool. One might also include the lack of confounding evidence for a hypothesis that's parsimonious and falsifiable. This is what we mean by "proof" of theories such as electrodynamics and Darwinism.

Agreed (although I would change Darwinism to Evolution. Darwin sometimes ignored scientific method and some of his later conclusions are nothing short of appalling belief based on social conditioning..but this might be an unreasonable derail).

So accept the burden of proof.

Absolutely.

For me, being open-minded means being open to the introduction of robust evidence. I will even help you search for that evidence if my curiosity is piqued. In my view, scientific thought is the epitome of humility and open-mindedness, because we accept that all of our beliefs are tentative, and we are open to changing our minds when we are proven wrong.

I think yours is an extremely healthy perspective. My general concern with the scientific community is that if you never consider the seemingly absurd then you never bother to search for evidence of its existence. I'm not suggesting a program of rampant fairy chasing but rather the abeyance of a completely dismissive attitude in the face of no apparent evidence.

Another reason not to be dismissive is that it becomes difficult (and for some impossible) to admit their theories were wrong and accept new evidence. Mainstream Egyptology is a good example of decades of dismissing certain theories making it difficult to accept new evidence that conflicts with the accepted suppositions.

[Chef FourString]

Originally Posted by 1958Bassman

Equal and opposite reaction applies to forces acting on a body (object), not necessarily events. Events are met with human reactions that are hardly proportionate.

According to this link, the Spanish Inquisition lasted 354 years, from 1480 until 1834, when it was disbanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

I sincerely hope the current insanity doesn't last that long.

Energy has a positive and a negative, does it not?

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by Chef FourString

Energy has a positive and a negative, does it not?

The total energy of a system is always positive.

But force and momentum can be positive or negative relative to a given coordinate axis.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

I think yours is an extremely healthy perspective. My general concern with the scientific community is that if you never consider the seemingly absurd then you never bother to search for evidence of its existence. I'm not suggesting a program of rampant fairy chasing but rather the abeyance of a completely dismissive attitude in the face of no apparent evidence.

That's fair. It reminds me of a quote from Neils Bohr:

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."

A great deal of the progress made in early quantum mechanics had to do with carefully uncovering the philosophical assumptions underlying classical theory, and then looking for ways to ditch those assumptions.

Perhaps the dismissive attitude comes from the seemingly dogged persistence from some particular camps: Sure, mainstream scientific knowledge could be wrong, but why do the proposed failures of science have such a boring similarity and predictability?

[oniman7]

Originally Posted by Chef FourString

Energy has a positive and a negative, does it not?

But it's histrionic romanticism to attribute electric or quantum values to human attributes of positive and negative just because they use the same words. If, indeed, that's what you were doing

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by agent77

@Munjibunga: I'm wondering why you are so adamantly opposed to the idea that the universe effects our moods. What kind of research have you done?

I require solid evidence in order for me to begin to believe something. There is no scientific evidence to support what you're saying, so there is no reason to believe it. In other words, it has the validity of a fairy tale.

You can't prove a negative, so no amount of research anyone does can refute the idea that the universe affects our moods, however it is incumbent on one proffering extraordinary claims to provide the requisite extraordinary evidence to support them. No one has ever done that in this case.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

I think yours is an extremely healthy perspective. My general concern with the scientific community is that if you never consider the seemingly absurd then you never bother to search for evidence of its existence. I'm not suggesting a program of rampant fairy chasing but rather the abeyance of a completely dismissive attitude in the face of no apparent evidence.

Ahh, but many scientists have considered the seemingly absurd, and a lot of good science has come out of it. But there's a lot of "rampant fairy chasing" in the general population (as evidenced by numerous posts in this thread) that doesn't merit any deep consideration from a scientific standpoint.

A perfect example of this is crop circles. Many people believe them to be of supernatural origin or to be the work of extraterrestrials. The application of Occam's razor immediately points to human hoaxters, but numerous self-described "crop circle researchers" operate under the a priori assumption that the figures are of supernatural origin. They're idiots.

[agent77]

OK, thanks Munji. But I would like to point out that I never said that I believe in a cosmic shift. Although I don't disbelieve it either. I simply found the History Channel video interesting, and wanted to hear thoughts. But this thread is turning into a Stephen Hawking-esque philosophical debate, with some very insulting posts, which I want no part of.

Since, it has been stated that there is no evidence proving or disproving this, I find continued discussion fruitless.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

I require solid evidence in order for me to begin to believe something. There is no scientific evidence to support what you're saying, so there is no reason to believe it. In other words, it has the validity of a fairy tale.

You can't prove a negative, so no amount of research anyone does can refute the idea that the universe affects our moods, however it is incumbent on one proffering extraordinary claims to provide the requisite extraordinary evidence to support them. No one has ever done that in this case.

I couldn't agree more. I'm always surprised by the amount of people who follow Astrology and similar nonsensical garbage. I suppose if it's printed in the newspaper every day, that's all the evidence most sheep need. BAAaaaaaaaaaa!

[jeffbonny]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

Ahh, but many scientists have considered the seemingly absurd, and a lot of good science has come out of it. But there's a lot of "rampant fairy chasing" in the general population (as evidenced by numerous posts in this thread) that doesn't merit any deep consideration from a scientific standpoint.

A perfect example of this is crop circles. Many people believe them to be of supernatural origin or to be the work of extraterrestrials. The application of Occam's razor immediately points to human hoaxters, but numerous self-described "crop circle researchers" operate under the a priori assumption that the figures are of supernatural origin. They're idiots.

Seems to me we'd be better of if there was a little less fear all around of simply saying "I don't know" when you don't. From an uneducated layman's perspective it seems to me that's where scientific investigation really begins.

Crop circles are a great example. I have to admit the math contained in some of those things fascinates me as does the beauty and the weirdness of some of them. There also seems to be reasonable evidence that it's not possible to create some of them with the technology readily available to hoaxters. But until I see evidence of them being made by aliens or by a subterranean culture of sorcerers descended from Atlantis or by moon based Nazis or even just by plain old everyday human beings playing a prank I'm satisfied saying "I don't know". I'd rather not know than be wrong.

[Tituscrow]

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

Seems to me we'd be better of if there was a little less fear all around of simply saying "I don't know" when you don't. From an uneducated layman's perspective it seems to me that's where scientific investigation really begins.

Crop circles are a great example. I have to admit the math contained in some of those things fascinates me as does the beauty and the weirdness of some of them. There also seems to be reasonable evidence that it's not possible to create some of them with the technology readily available to hoaxters. But until I see evidence of them being made by aliens or by a subterranean culture of sorcerers descended from Atlantis or by moon based Nazis or even just by plain old everyday human beings playing a prank I'm satisfied saying "I don't know". I'd rather not know than be wrong.

Crop circles are made by people. With bits of wood, lengths of rope, a tape measure and a calculator. There is no new-age, crystal dangling mystery to it, other than 'what formulae did they use for THAT one?'

I'm sorry, but Munji is right on this one. Anyone who thinks otherwise, or professes to 'not know' is...well, an idiot.

[Tituscrow]

If you have a spare four minutes, give this clip a watch. It's from an excellent long running UK panel/quiz show called QI. This clip is from an episode all about 'hoaxes'.

http://youtu.be/yVSQuNBreQc

[Floyd Eye]

Wow. lol

[jeffbonny]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

Crop circles are made by people. With bits of wood, lengths of rope, a tape measure and a calculator. There is no new-age, crystal dangling mystery to it, other than 'what formulae did they use for THAT one?'

You my friend are missing my point. You have also just assumed the burden of proving they were all made in the manner you descibe. So show some evidence they were. And please note I said some, not all. Just because some were made by Bob and Doug with plywood and some string does not prove all were. Some quite obviously were not. I work daily with laser measuring devises laying out sound stages for some fairly complex film rigs and I know some of those crop circles could not possibly have been surveyed in the manner you describe let alone executed so simply.

I'm sorry, but Munji is right on this one. Anyone who thinks otherwise, or professes to 'not know' is...well, an idiot.

So I'm an idiot for saying no one has presented a reasonable explanation scientific or otherwise for some of them and until someone does I'm sticking to "I don't know"?

[Floyd Eye]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle