Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Ghosts (Real or Bull)
- Thread starter manicmicky
- Start date
The problem I see with this line of thinking is that there are still plenty of things out there that exist, but yet cannot be explained. I dont like to close doors.
We may not have the technology now, but one day, this 'energy' will be given the light of day and we'll know what it really is. Remember, they used to know the world was flat.
It was in one of his popular books, whichever one it was in which he described his role in the Challenger investigation. He did not say that most research was corrupt in the usual mercenary sense of the term, but that for any number of reasons nominal "science" is usually flawed in not truly supporting its conclusions. I'm sure it's so.
I don't, but I read analyses by those who do, and I understand the process sufficiently to realize that the experiments retailed in the mass media are usually what any logical person who was paying attention in middle school science class would recognize as baloney. The samples are too small (often ridiculously so), the statistics make no sense, the experiment has not been repeated, interested influence, etc., etc, etc.
On wonders how such claptrap "science" winds up taking so much expensive airtime.
The answer is usually very simple: Some interested and moneyed party paid publicists to see that it happened.
I also read a lot of science history, which is very good in revealing the inescapable nasty, chaotic and bizarre forces that keep good science from being accomplished or recognized when it is.
Physics (fortunately or not) doesn't seem to Capital to have the potential for short-term teraprofits, therefore it gets relatively little compared to something like pharmacology, and what money there is tends to be more disinterested -- but never exactly free.
And of course, physics is not spared any of the petty rivalries, vanities, tyrannies, politics great and small and plain pig blindness that screws up every other human endeavor.
These are typically shells that obfuscate the source of the money, if (and to the degree) there's any mercenary reason to do so. A "study" finding that sugary breakfast cereal is good for kids might be funded by some "Foundation for Pediatric Nutrition," which will more often than not be traceable to a basement office at General Mills.
It was not obvious, for example, that the funder on that gelatin study owned Knox.
This is penny-ante stuff.
If you actually believe that science is generally working under a neutral system of decisive peer review and overview when money, lives and public policy are at stake (in other words, science that actually matters), you desperately need to read Whitaker's most recent book, which is an excellent and well-researched examination of how it all goes totally wrong and stays there. Whitaker is not a crackpot or $cientologist but a nationally respected and Pulitzer nominated science journalist.
For the past twenty years or so -- initially simply because I found it interesting -- I have been piecemeal researching the scientific history of the bacteriophage, which turns out to be an astonishing story with every possible dramatic element, a true epic thriller -- war, politics, murder, lust, spies, atrocities, corruption, tyranny, superpower confrontations, etc. I had no idea when I started. Some day, there will be a good popular book written about it, but it awaits the resolution of its climax, which is currently going on as I write.
A bacteriophage is nothing more than a naturally occurring (and thus unpatentable) virus that attacks and kills a specific bacteria or group of bacteria.
Consider the implications.
It is hard to restrain myself from writing a few chapters of that book here, but to cut to the chase, bacteriophages can and probably will replace antibiotics -- an outcome that has been feverishly obstructed by the pharmaceutical industry. Bacteriophages have vast potential, which has been recognized for nearly a hundred years, awaiting the technological advances needed for their exploitation. These have been available for a few decades now.
The bizarre outcome in 2010 is that because the drug industry has obstructed their therapeutic use because they stand to lose billions if they're approved, the FDA does not allow them for human medical use -- but because the prepared foods industry stands to make billions on them extending safe shelf life of food products, the FDA recognizes them as GRS ["generally recognized as safe"] as a food additive.
So, you can eat bacteriophages, but you can't take them as medicine.
That's a big oversimplification, but it's the best I can do with the space available in describing just one serious case of a crucial "science" in the human interest being totally subverted to Mammon.
I'll check it out.
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
Who says I'm closing doors? Just because I'm skeptical, doesn't mean I'm close-minded. I'd be perfectly willing to believe that ghostly phenomena are the spirits of dead people if someone can show me reliable proof, or at least a logical explanation.
Yes, things like gravity and Alzheimer's disease.
Who's closing doors to things that exist? The door is open to anything that can be demonstrated to exist.
A logical explanation is that human spirits are eternal, and manifest themselves after life in ways that cannot be investigated via naturalistic inquiry.
You see, there are things that exist, but don't have an explanation. There are also things that have an explanation, but don't exist.
That wasn't Feynman's claim.
The point is that most "scientific" experimentation doesn't support the conclusions...for whatever reason -- ineptitude, wishful thinking, self-interest or whoring for funding.
There are plenty of all to go around.
It's rare that I hear an experiment described that makes any sense at all, and if it's bunk to make decisive claims about humans at large based on a single finding from, say, thirty-one Welsh college students, what motivation prompts such idiocy in the first place and why is anyone wasting my time breathlessly telling the public about it as though it mattered?
Even with the best will in the world, watertight experimental protocols of sure validity don't grow on trees, nor does disinterested interpretation of their results. It's a rare researcher who doesn't want to see his hypothesis proven, and has nothing riding on an experiment's outcome.
In Whitaker's book, for example, he gives many examples of experimental results and statistics that give a clear negative outcome being cleverly re-framed without actual falsification to portray a positive one.
Yes, and I'm equally positive that it's viewed as "too mundane" to be done with scrupulous rigor by those who are doing it, which is the point.
How many quickly concealed mishaps by hung-over lab assistants have contaminated experiments over the years, I wonder.
Distinctions between science and technology are not clear and tend to be arbitrary, but the problem with psychopharmacology, as one example, is clearly in its science.
That's easy to answer.
These discussions tend toward the assumptions that people who believe in haints, ESP or whatever are self-deluded and that "scientists" could debunk the evidence and testimony supporting the existence of haints because "scientists" embody the platonic ideal of perfect, disinterested objectivity, clear observation and watertight logic.
Which of course is a load of horsefeathers.
It seems to be pretty elastic, not merely in current observation but in the history of science.
"Science" is not pristine in its acceptance of the truth, but mainly is a war of authority and reputation. Sometimes truth and integrity win out (eventually), sometimes they don't.
"Scientists" behave every bit as badly as anyone else when their interests and vanities are at risk -- frequently far worse than normal grownups.
You'd think, but not so much.
Quite the contrary, unfortunately.
Bongo, I think you're engaging in a typical postmodernist skeptical attack that boils down to this: Impose hopelessly utopian methodological standards on scientific research, find that researchers don't obey those standards, and then conclude that scientific results are invalid. You're also lumping all scientific research together.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's how I would describe what you're doing here. You also appear to be reciting postmodernist memes with uncanny accuracy.
Look, I'm skeptical of some scientific claims too, especially in medicine and the behavioral sciences. I'd put scare-quotes around "science" in some cases too.
But if you really think that science is a war of authority and reputation, here's a list of some opinions. You decide which one you think is most likely to be false:
1. Diamond and graphite are crystals of the same element
2. The electron has pretty close to -1.60217646e-19 C of charge.
3. Many diseases are caused by germs
4. Sanitary practices reduce the incidence of sepsis following surgery
By the way, if I'm wrongly accusing you of postmodernism, my apologies.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's how I would describe what you're doing here. You also appear to be reciting postmodernist memes with uncanny accuracy.
Look, I'm skeptical of some scientific claims too, especially in medicine and the behavioral sciences. I'd put scare-quotes around "science" in some cases too.
But if you really think that science is a war of authority and reputation, here's a list of some opinions. You decide which one you think is most likely to be false:
1. Diamond and graphite are crystals of the same element
2. The electron has pretty close to -1.60217646e-19 C of charge.
3. Many diseases are caused by germs
4. Sanitary practices reduce the incidence of sepsis following surgery
By the way, if I'm wrongly accusing you of postmodernism, my apologies.
Well, if I am, then Feynman (who was of course a physicist) did too.
I don't think it's utopian to play by the basic rules. One is either doing science or he's not -- and I'm specifically referring to experimental research -- so the validity of the process determines the validity of the results. GIGO.
If there's any distinction to be made it's between pure and applied science.
Pure science, by definition, is done in a more rarified atmosphere where disinterested rigor is presumably more possible, though it's not perfect. Most people are unaware of the separation between the two because almost everything in their experience of science is applied science.
And when you talk about science, it is mostly applied science. So if applied science is something of a cesspit (and it certainly seems to be), then pure science is going to have to get a divorce, a TRO and move out to its own efficiency apartment.
I actually use quotes to suggest derisive skepticism of another's usage.
I don't really understand what you mean by "opinions" here, but I can assure you that Lister went through a ton of crap to get a couple of these "opinions" accepted (and for his trouble got to be memorialized in the nasty group of bacteria, the listeria, which are first commercial targets of American bacteriophages, BTW...that battle was probably going on in the cheese and cold cuts you got on your deli sandwich).
I'm too old to be postmodern.
Actually, I am surprisingly medieval and I suppose my criticisms are as well, that corrupt man in his venality and moral squalor is incapable of the lofty search for knowledge; the Seeker must above all be pure of heart and mind. Ask your local alchemist, he'll tell you.
You might be able to judge the general validity of current scientific research practice by the level of technology it produces.
Yes - that's what I was saying - so it makes sense to call it a poltergeist, as that is much easier than trying to explain it at length - but I really didn't know what it was and I don't think it was a dead person's spirit - if anything it was more like an animal - although what kind of animal is incorporeal, yet can affect solid objects to the point of destruction is nothing that science can explain yet!
From whatever we know of 'ghosts', I don't think you can mention one particular word, e.g. 'energy', to define a ghost.
Like most people on this thread, I'm also in total support of the fact that not everything is explainable with our current level of knowledge and our civilization's scientific status.
In fact, rather ironically, I hate intensely the objectivity of most science and scientists today who are firm in their belief that science (as it is today) can explain all that we see around us. I'll go so far as to say that science, today, can neither exceed nor explain the human psyche and its powers in their entirety.
My culture holds human intellect and spirituality (as well as the paranormal) in regard that is almost nonpareil in today's materialistic global society. As such, you'd expect me to be the last person here to be accused of being narrow mindedly objective (almost in a scientific way
) in my refusal of the existence of ghosts 
Again, while you may say (as Matticus did) that this phenomenon may, someday, be explained, it has not been explained yet. I, myself, am waiting eagerly for that day. Because it's possible that out of a million people claiming to have seen a 'ghost', there's one who is not "seeing" things and something funny could be going on. Till that day, I'll be waiting.
+1
I liked an earlier post of yours, fdeck, where you mentioned how most science and scientific research is too mundane to attract any publicity. Most of the research today is hardly of any use to third parties seeking to benefit by influencing it. As such, saying that a majority of it is "bunk" is tantamount to ignorance.
Hey gk, how're you doing now? Feeling better I hope
From whatever we know of 'ghosts', I don't think you can mention one particular word, e.g. 'energy', to define a ghost.
Like most people on this thread, I'm also in total support of the fact that not everything is explainable with our current level of knowledge and our civilization's scientific status.
In fact, rather ironically, I hate intensely the objectivity of most science and scientists today who are firm in their belief that science (as it is today) can explain all that we see around us. I'll go so far as to say that science, today, can neither exceed nor explain the human psyche and its powers in their entirety.
My culture holds human intellect and spirituality (as well as the paranormal) in regard that is almost nonpareil in today's materialistic global society. As such, you'd expect me to be the last person here to be accused of being narrow mindedly objective (almost in a scientific way
Again, while you may say (as Matticus did) that this phenomenon may, someday, be explained, it has not been explained yet. I, myself, am waiting eagerly for that day. Because it's possible that out of a million people claiming to have seen a 'ghost', there's one who is not "seeing" things and something funny could be going on. Till that day, I'll be waiting.
check out philosopher russel blackford's blog post about "scientism".
BIG +1 on that. You can say I'm an anti-"scientist"
I think we have to be open minded about our world. There are myriad fields where the meticulous accuracy of science is desirable. There are many fields where it leads only to tunnel vision.
here's a blog entry by whitaker: Invalid Link Removed
he seems to argue that the problem is with the pharmaceutical industry, and he implies that he would trust the results of competently-performed studies funded by sources devoid of conflicts of interest.
all the messy human stuff in science, though, is self-correcting, to as high a degree as any human-run system allows. it's not perfect, but science is really the only way we can know anything (inasmuch as we can ever truly know anything
).
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
BIG +1 on that. You can say I'm an anti-"scientist"
I think we have to be open minded about our world. There are myriad fields where the meticulous accuracy of science is desirable. There are many fields where it leads only to tunnel vision.
hm. not sure if we're speaking the same language, here. the blackford post (and, if you like, biologist jerry coyne's responses to it in his own blog) attempts to demonstrate that logical empiricism isn't necessarily a "scientistic" (from the pejorative "scientism") viewpoint. that is, i believe, counter to your argument.
what forms of non-scientific inquiry are valid, and under what circumstances?
i'll repost the video on open-mindedness:
That's at least party valid, but I'm sure you see the flaws, starting with the fact that that's only relevant to the applied sciences.
If you do look at things like that, you also have to remember that success or failure has to be clear and apparent and not subject to more hokum, smoke and mirrors.
On the whole, by your guideline, pharmacology is in deep water, making wildly profitable drugs that materially worsen numerous conditions they purport to treat, never mind making up drugs for "diseases" that don't even clearly exist. The progress of real medicine for real diseases is overall much slower than the public (and medical professionals) have been led to expect, and the drug companies seem to have the biggest voice and control the dialogue in defining and announcing "progress" anyway.
And as fdeck asks, what disciplines even have any business calling themselves "sciences" in the first place?
Sure, physics gets a shoo-in, but what about...oh...archaeology or psychology, for example? What clear standards do they have and what do they produce but a bunch of idle, unfounded speculations and pontifications that change from week to week while petty academic empires and hierarchies are established, tenures granted, nests feathered and egos inflated?
How are they real sciences?
When I was a very young man I was a spook, foot soldiering for a few years as a deniable asset for a highly-classified technical intelligence program. As decades passed, a lot of the technology and science in this program became less cutting-edge and secret and became part of general scientific research, often with startling results.
A couple of years ago, before I disconnected from TV entirely, I was half-watching a "science" program when I suddenly recognized that they were discussing the exact applied technology this intelligence program developed, now applied to (among other things) archaeology. One of the recent discoveries completely devastated the past hundred years of received wisdom about South American pre-Colombian civilization in several fields of "science." It was all dead wrong, right down to the most basic premises. Generations of "scientists" built their careers on completely erroneous speculation and rigorous academic conformity to gross, groundless error established as "fact."
So, was that even science in the first place? Was it just a career scam, a bad joke, what?
If you axe me, this whole science business needs to heed the sage advice of Archie Bell and Do the Tighten Up...never mind that the Drells seem to be about as loose as parapsychology, but maybe they were just having an off day.
[Aside to young people in scientific and technological majors at university: If you ever get tapped to work in technical intelligence, go for it if you have the requisite personality (and that is a big "if"). Technical intelligence is the neatest field in the world. And it gets results, even if nobody finds out about it for thirty or forty years.]
