TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Archaeology
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-15-2010, 11:21 AM   #26
ResidentAlien
Guest
 
ResidentAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
As for RA/RS: It's a simple typo.


Twice? Methinks Freud would have something to say on that. Tell me about your mother...
ResidentAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 12:42 AM   #27
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,872
Potato-Washing Cult

hundredth monkey phenomenon

Quote:
I live and work alone and travel light, relying largely on my memory and making a point of letting intuition guide my way. --Lyall Watson

The hundredth monkey phenomenon refers to a sudden spontaneous and mysterious leap of consciousness achieved when an allegedly "critical mass" point is reached. The idea of the hundredth monkey phenomenon comes from Dr. Lyall Watson (1938-2008) in his book Lifetide (1979). Watson, who had a Ph.D. in ethology for work done at the London Zoo with Desmond ("The Naked Ape") Morris, was writing about several studies done in the 1960's by several Japanese primatologists of Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Watson alleged that the scientists were "reluctant to publish [the whole story] for fear of ridicule." He wrote that he had "to gather the rest of the story from personal anecdotes and bits of folklore among primate researchers, because most of them are still not quite sure what happened." So, wrote Watson:

Quote:
I am forced to improvise the details, but as near as I can tell, this is what seems to have happened. In the autumn of that year an unspecified number of monkeys on Koshima were washing sweet potatoes in the sea. . . . Let us say, for argument's sake, that the number was ninety-nine and that at eleven o'clock on a Tuesday morning, one further convert was added to the fold in the usual way. But the addition of the hundredth monkey apparently carried the number across some sort of threshold, pushing it through a kind of critical mass, because by that evening almost everyone was doing it. Not only that, but the habit seems to have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously, like glycerine crystals in sealed laboratory jars, in colonies on other islands and on the mainland in a troop at Takasakiyama.

Yes, according to Watson, one monkey taught another to wash sweet potatoes who taught another who taught another and soon all the monkeys on the island were washing potatoes where no monkey had ever washed potatoes before. When the "hundredth" monkey learned to wash potatoes, suddenly and spontaneously and mysteriously monkeys on other islands, with no physical contact with the potato-washing cult, started washing potatoes! Was this monkey telepathy at work or just monkey business on Watson's part?
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 07:37 AM   #28
Goodeknight
IndyFan
 
Goodeknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 1,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Quazar
Science hasn't "proved anything"?! Really?

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that every single fact accumulated by human knowledge about the nature of existence has been proven by science.

Science, by definition, is the process by which things are proven.
That's a semi-valid response to Mickiana, but what people don't recognize is that scientific "facts" change every day. Science is often as much about faith as religion!

Until recently, it was a scientific fact that there were nine planets in the solar system. Now it's a scientific fact that there are eight. Of course, some are arguing it's a scientific fact that there are 10.

When I was in grade school, I wrote some paper about the solar system and the teacher accused me of making up my facts. I was way, way off with the diameter of the sun. To prove my research, I brought in the antique encyclopedia where I found that "fact." He said simply that he believed me, but the old encyclopedia was out of date.

And that's over basic stuff like the size of the sun and the number of planets in the solar system. Take on something a little more complex like human evolution or the nature of the entire universe and science can't come close to fully explaining everything around us.

Even Louis Leakey admitted there were huge gaps in his theories of how humans evolved. Thereby the Missing Link. Now paleontologists find a bit of tooth or jaw bone, draw a humpbacked quasihuman around it and get an article and a foldout poster in National Geographic.

As for saying "every single fact accumulated by human knowledge about the nature of existence has been proven by science" that's completely wrong. If you ask scientists to explain the Big Bang (when the universe came into existence out of nothingness even though science states clearly 'you can't create something from nothing') or the creation of life, they often say, "Well, the laws were different then. After the Big Bang you get the natural laws we see today. Before that, they didn't apply."

Huh?

Furthermore, one key part of the scientific process is that an event must be replicable. "Atoms can be split." "Show me." "Okay." Easy enough. Now tell a scientist, "Create life where there was no life." "I can't." "So how did it first happen?" "I don't know, but I came up with a BS theory that I can't prove..."

So if you want to talk about the "nature of existence" a scientist is the last person you want. Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. Better yet, ask a pastor.
Goodeknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 12:18 PM   #29
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Damn, goodeknight! Well said! Can I quote this in another thread? It's exactly what needs saying.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 01:25 PM   #30
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,872
alright, maybe a different tact...

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodeknight
After the Big Bang you get the natural laws we see today. Before that, they didn't apply."
To whom?

So if a tree falls in the woods and no one's there to hear it, it DOESN'T make a sound!

I guess the cosmos revolve around man...
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 01:27 PM   #31
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodeknight
Science is often as much about faith as religion!
"Faith" as I understand it is insurmountable belief into something, a thingthat isn't easily toppled.

If you debated five years ago with a man who believed in God is likely to still believe in God, unless of course he's had some kind of personal experience that had him falling out of faith. But the rule of thumb is that you can't end his faith in God by simply coming up with your best arguments against a higher entity's existence. Many have tried, and technically all have failed.

Now, if you run into a man who five years ago said that there are nine planets in our solar system, can well now be saying that there are "eight plus one planetoid". In case he doesn't, show him a textbook with enough references and there is a good chance he'll agree with the sentiment then.

Scientific facts can, have been and will be toppled by enough evidence to the contrary. That's not a feature associated with faith. Or if it is, I must say I have not been aware of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodeknight
So if you want to talk about the "nature of existence" a scientist is the last person you want. Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. Better yet, ask a pastor.
So, when you don't know an answer to a question, it is preferable to make up one (this, incidentally, is the source of all religion) instead of just being honest and saying "I don't know"? Our mileages may vary here, but I certainly don't see what's wrong with the latter.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 02:24 PM   #32
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
To whom?

So if a tree falls in the woods and no one's there to hear it, it DOESN'T make a sound!

I guess the cosmos revolve around man...

That was one of the sillier philosophical questions. There's often a mouse or a little bird around to hear it crash to the ground on our behalf!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
"Faith" as I understand it is insurmountable belief into something, a thing that isn't easily toppled.

Faith is a terrifying and irrational concept by definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Scientific facts can, have been and will be toppled by enough evidence to the contrary. That's not a feature associated with faith. Or if it is, I must say I have not been aware of it.

Scientific facts that can't be toppled are those which can be tested and proved - like cause and effect with chemicals. Those are the ones that become 'Laws'. The more questionable areas of science remain hypotheses or theories, based on research and expectation. And I'm sure scientists have 'discussions' more heated than anything we've ever witnessed here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
So, when you don't know an answer to a question, it is preferable to make up one (this, incidentally, is the source of all religion) instead of just being honest and saying "I don't know"? Our mileages may vary here, but I certainly don't see what's wrong with the latter.

I'm pretty sure I'm achieving the same mileage as obtained by the Finnmobile. Going to a pastor for answers is just going to give you another possibility. Which is why I see faith as a terrifying concept. For the things a human will do when they have no doubt of their rectitude, we only have to look at history, or watch the daily news.

Yesterday Britain was called a "third world country" because there were opponents to the pope's visit.

Today the pope described atheists as fascists. And that comes from a man responsible for covering up the systematic abuse of children for the good of his own company.

I'd rather rather listen to the competing theories of the scientists.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 02:40 PM   #33
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
That was one of the sillier philosophical questions. There's often a mouse or a little bird around to hear it crash to the ground on our behalf!
Talking to the animals Dr?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Yesterday Britain was called a "third world country" because there were opponents to the pope's visit.

Today the pope described atheists as fascists. And that comes from a man responsible for covering up the systematic abuse of children for the good of his own company.
Oh you had to go there!

What that reads like to me?

Spaceman Stu is being primed to take over for that clown Ronald McDonald who is responsible for the systematic increase in obesity in children and the covering up the global child abuse comitted by clowns.

Blaming the Pope for "covering up systematic abuse" is like blaming Ronald McDonald when you get a bad cheeseburger, and bad political science to boot.
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 02:57 PM   #34
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
So, when you don't know an answer to a question, it is preferable to make up one (this, incidentally, is the source of all religion) instead of just being honest and saying "I don't know"? Our mileages may vary here, but I certainly don't see what's wrong with the latter.

I think this a problem that comes from both sides of the overall scientific debate (in very broad terms, here). Indeed, it would be easier (and more responsible) to say "I don't know". I think non-scientists get angry because many a scientist does indeed claim to know, and I think that's where the "faith" comes in. Science is often near an answer, or has a good idea, but humans, just by being human, sometimes don't have the patience to wait for all the facts to come in. Many scientists just assume the path they're on will eventually prove to be the right one, and thus claim being right before it's (scientifically) justified. Or, worse, when new ideas counter what they've come to trust, they become defensive. Again, they're human.

An example: In the video posted earlier in this thread, the speaker laughingly dismisses 2012. Well, that's a bias, isn't it? I mean, 2012 hasn't come yet, so how can he possibly know with such certainty as to laugh at it what's going (or not going) to happen? The point I'm making is that science has just as many faith-based, biased or thick-headed individuals as any religion or fringe group does.

But I digress. I believe it's unfair to give a blanket statement to any group. Certainly there are many, many scientists who are indeed exactly what they should be: Open-minded, objective, and curious. But there are also those who steamroll ahead or bury their heads in the sand, and I think those are the ones to whom the "faith" concept is applied. On the flipside, religious people and paranormal investigators are the same way. There are those who are open-minded, objective and curious, but there are also those who defend dying positions, making the more serious bearers of their name look bad.

It would be nice if both scientists as well as religious folk and paranormal researchers -- all when making their claims as to what is -- could simply be humble enough to say "I think" or "Maybe" or just "I don't know". Too much human emotion leads to assertion and a need to win (indeed, to "be right"), and leads us into the dark alleyways of dogma.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 03:04 PM   #35
ResidentAlien
Guest
 
ResidentAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,303
Wow. More baseless claims insulting the scientific community.


I can play this game too.


Alien fetishists are a group of people who rush to conclusions based on seeing what they'd like to see because they're too uneducated to understand that analyzing ancient things from a modern perspective is an innately flawed endeavor. They make things up and rely on faith and construct their own elaborate mythology that is no different than religious idealism, only rather than be based around ancient stories, it's based around stories from Weird Stories and other pulp publications.



Gee! This is fun!
ResidentAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 03:07 PM   #36
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Talking to the animals Dr?

Oh you had to go there!

What that reads like to me?

Spaceman Stu is being primed to take over for that clown Ronald McDonald who is responsible for the systematic increase in obesity in children and the covering up the global child abuse comitted by clowns.

Blaming the Pope for "covering up systematic abuse" is like blaming Ronald McDonald when you get a bad cheeseburger, and bad political science to boot.

Well before he was elected pope, he was the Vatican's top enforcer (he was given the nickname "God's Rottweiler"). There have been some dirty cover-ups, and some terrible revelations. Priests get moved around so they avoid coming to justice. It's not an attack on anyone's faith in God, but rather an attack on the intermediaries who set themselve between the faithful and their God. To top it all he came out and called the atheists of Britain fascists. I won't bring his membership of the Hitler Jugend into the argument as I don't know whether he volunteered or was forced, but the Catholic church had a little bit of history with fascist dictators.

As for Ronald McDonald, it's easy to confuse him with Stephen King's child molesting It. All clowns are creepy!
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 03:24 PM   #37
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Faith is a terrifying and irrational concept by definition.
People who prefer their religious beliefs over scientific concepts often argue that science isn't infallible. And they're right, it isn't. But what they fail to grasp is the fact that every known scientific law, fact or commonly accepted theory is already far better explanation for the existence of different phenomena than anything religion has ever come up with.

When science errs, it's not really a point for religion. All we have is what is already a good explanation being replaced by even better one.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 04:31 PM   #38
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
People who prefer their religious beliefs over scientific concepts often argue that science isn't infallible. And they're right, it isn't. But what they fail to grasp is the fact that every known scientific law, fact or commonly accepted theory is already far better explanation for the existence of different phenomena than anything religion has ever come up with.

When science errs, it's not really a point for religion. All we have is what is already a good explanation being replaced by even better one.

Certainly.

I often think it would be a comfort to have faith, but to fall into its arms would be turning my back on reality, however bleak it might look at times. I'm fully aware that scientists aren't immune from mis-representing themselves for personal gain, but at least they deal with information that can be put to the test, as opposed to priests and pastors who can interpret religious books as they see fit. I was brought up a Christian, because my parents had been. But I didn't like what I saw, or how the faithful acted. Through personal circumstances my parents drifted away from it. I had already begun to question and disbelieve, and now my parents no longer believe.

There are so many man-made obstacles between us and a supposed God (all the paraphenalia of organized religions, which in times past included Latin so that the average peasant would be reliant on the priest). And so many interpretations of God and what God stands for. And so much ill done in the name of God. When you question and unravel the mysteries, faith dissipates as the human machinations reveal themselves. Much of my lack of faith is derived from the study of history, sociology, and psychology, which Marx summed up neatly as religion being the opium of the people. Without firm evidence, and knowing that human motivations often revolve around power and greed, it would feel like a lie to give myself over to an abstract ideal which would blind me to all other possibilities.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 05:29 PM   #39
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
What defines BS for me, at last in regards to false claims of alien contact, are a lot of subtleties. Now, before going further, I would like to say that, in making this point, I have to venture into my own experiences...

About my experiences: What I'd been through was traumatic. Devastating. Without going into all that, suffice it to say that to judge the BS-level of others is about judging their reaction to things, their sincerity,...
Since this thread primarily deals with the exposition of hoaxes, here are a couple of questions:

Why would someone be unable to speak about a supposed trip to Giza because of a bad experience they had there, yet provide more talk about multiple close encounters with living aliens? What could possibly be MORE TRAUMATIC than looking directly into the eye of an extra-terrestrial?

Of course, these questions have been raised only to discuss the "possibilities". It's up to the individual to do the research and draw their own conclusions...
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 05:39 PM   #40
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
People who prefer their religious beliefs over scientific concepts often argue that science isn't infallible. And they're right, it isn't. But what they fail to grasp is the fact that every known scientific law, fact or commonly accepted theory is already far better explanation for the existence of different phenomena than anything religion has ever come up with.

When science errs, it's not really a point for religion. All we have is what is already a good explanation being replaced by even better one.

Well said.

Maybe I've had bad luck when it comes to talking with scientists. If I'd met more who can present such a reasonable stance as this, I'd probably be a lot less bullheaded when it comes to criticizing the scientific establishment or talking about paranormal phenomena.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Since this thread primarily deals with the exposition of hoaxes, here are a couple of questions:

Why would someone be unable to speak about a supposed trip to Giza because of a bad experience they had there, yet provide more talk about multiple close encounters with living aliens? What could possibly be MORE TRAUMATIC than looking directly into the eye of an extra-terrestrial?

Of course, these questions have been raised only to discuss the "possibilities". It's up to the individual to do the research and draw their own conclusions...

It's called human emotion. Something you and certain others around here seem to have in abundance, given your endless appetite for cheap-shots and insults. Your anger and frustration speaks volumes. Yes, insults: "supposed" trip indeed. Once again, you're operating with no evidence, and clearly trying to make it sound as though I'm lying.

Back to human emotion. In other words, it's personal. I've had 35 years to deal with the alien encounters. I've had only a few to deal with Egypt. Like a war veteran: He might get over the trauma of combat 20 years prior, but still get irrationally emotional over some guy on the street insulting him.

Emotions don't follow scientific law nor do they adhere, as Belloq said, to time schedules.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 05:42 PM   #41
ResidentAlien
Guest
 
ResidentAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
Once again, you're operating with no evidence


Well gee, you don't have any either.


And again, saying someone has no evidence about your personal experience is exactly the reason that Anecdotal Evidence is fallacious. That's exactly the reason that your appealing to it has raised my ire repeatedly.

So stop bringing it up if you don't want people refuting it. There is no evidence for it.
ResidentAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 06:17 PM   #42
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
...given your endless appetite for cheap-shots and insults. Your anger and frustration speaks volumes. Yes, insults: "supposed" trip indeed. Once again, you're operating with no evidence, and clearly trying to make it sound as though I'm lying.
Don't get confused as these are not "cheap-shots and insults". I did not mock your name nor did I insult you. These are legitimate questions. Please, answer...

What happened during your supposed trip to Giza that is more traumatic than meeting an alien face-to-face?
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 07:41 PM   #43
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Don't get confused as these are not "cheap-shots and insults". I did not mock your name nor did I insult you. These are legitimate questions. Please, answer...

What happened during your supposed trip to Giza that is more traumatic than meeting an alien face-to-face?

As long as you continue to say "supposed" trip I'm going to take that for what it is -- a strong suggestion that I am lying, and thus, another insult.

Besides, I said before in the AA thread I'd rather not talk about it. It's uncomfortable and personal. If I was being treated with respect, maybe I'd be encouraged to shake off my feelings and tell the tale. But I'm not going into an uncomfortable place for someone who refuses to show me even basic courtesy. No way. You don't deserve it.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2010, 07:41 AM   #44
China Jim
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hurricane WV
Posts: 89
The Intelligent Professor

After skimming over many of the missives on this thread I must say that I salute you all. It is good to read a debate that is kept civil and with respect. Unfortunately we live in a culture today where such civility is a rare beast indeed, I know not how many contributors to the Raven listen to talk radio either conservative or liberal but a forum were civilized debate should be the rule it usually turns into "I am the on air broadcaster and if what you say does not agree with my liberal or conservative mind set then I will either cut you off or insult you by saying you are a mindless zombie" (drinking the kool-aid seems to be one of there favorite terms). I will admit I will listen to some of the shows that Whitley Streiber has been on and IMHO I find him to be a certifiable member of crazy town I have learned along time ago not to take what every Tom, Dick or Harry Mudd says as gospel if these folks such as Streiber, Hoagland, J.A. West and many others out there in the fringe science fields want to make there claims stick then as they said in the Car Fax commercials "Show me the Car Fax" I say gentlemen then show me your proof not suppositions about alien encounters, faces on Mars and Egypt had a super advanced technology If such claims were true I am sure no matter what the cost legitimate scientist would jump on it like as my father used to say "jump on it like a dog on a bone" since science is the search for knowledge facts and ultimately truth these claims should be looked into and either proven or debunked.
China Jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2010, 11:09 AM   #45
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
Hi, China Jim.

Well, I'm with you on the desire for truth and objectivity. If scientists would just dig into data and find the answers, that's be great. But that'd also be in a perfect world, which we don't have.

The real problem is politics. Meaning, for political reasons, scientists tend to avoid looking at data supporting paranormal claims. For example, say a good, true scientist is intrigued and wants to look at the data, problem is he can't because his superiors fear what such a study might do to their lab's reputation. Now, maybe even his superiors themselves are genuinely interested, but they may fear what the backers of their lab might think. It's endless. Nobody knows when it's safe to seriously look.

It's like when there's a cop driving 50mph on the freeway. Everyone knows they're entitled to drive 55 or even 65 or 70, but since the cop is hugging 50, nobody dares go faster. Nobody wants to be the one to take that chance and break ahead.

The same thing happens with science and the paranormal. There's been such a curtain of ridicule draped over everything that no scientist will break ranks and give the data proper scientific attention. Reinforcing this fear is that those few scientists who have done so have been barraged with ridicule. A perfect example would be the late John Mack. A Pulitzer-prize winning psychiatrist at Harvard, he started to investigate reports of alien abduction. Harvard warned him to back off as it made the school look bad. John Mack, however, continued to study the phenomena, and was blacklisted for it. So, if a Pulitzer-winning Harvard psychiatrist isn't credible enough, or if someone held in such high esteem who should be trusted on his studies can so easily be shut down just because of what it "might" do to the "reputation for the school", would any scientist have any better chance? Maybe, but nobody is going to risk their careers to find out.

So, again, in a perfect world, yes, scientists should be all over this stuff, separating the genuine data from the BS (and yes, there's a lot of BS that I'd like to see go away myself), and then taking the ball of the genuine data and running with it. Unfortunately, our culture has built up so much scorn, ridicule and distrust around these issues that it has polarized the scientific community.

Sagan is often quoted; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I find that term rather poetic, more of the catchphrase of a promoter than the responsible view of a scientist, given that most extraordinary discoveries did not require extraordinary evidence for scientists to pursue them. But, okay, let's use that, but I'd like to add to it: "Extraordinary evidence requires an extraordinary investigation". That's really what we need. An extraordinary effort on the part of science. Could we get a number of high-profile, respectable labs with no bias (no history of debunking OR promoting the paranormal) to publicly declare "bring us your paranormal evidence and we'll examine it". That would be a good first step.

Last edited by Matt deMille : 09-17-2010 at 11:15 AM.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2010, 11:35 AM   #46
Sharkey
Guest
 
Sharkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In the balcony, stage right.
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I find that term rather poetic, more of the catchphrase of a promoter than the responsible view of a scientist...

You are officially blinded to science.

No where in your incoherent ramblings is there anything even remotely resembling an understanding of science. Everyone who has read them is now more stupid because of them. May God have mercy on your soul...or whatever hybrid pirate alien you recruit for.
Sharkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2010, 12:14 PM   #47
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
I've had 35 years to deal with the alien encounters. I've had only a few to deal with Egypt.
35 years ago was 1975. In a recent "Temple of Doom" thread you said you were born in '74. You also mentioned in the "Ancient Aliens" thread that your first 2 encounters were outside. What were you doing outside alone as a 1-year-old baby? If you were accompanied by someone older, why didn't the other person/s witness the same thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
As long as you continue to say "supposed" trip I'm going to take that for what it is -- a strong suggestion that I am lying, and thus, another insult.

Besides, I said before in the AA thread I'd rather not talk about it. It's uncomfortable and personal. If I was being treated with respect, maybe I'd be encouraged to shake off my feelings and tell the tale. But I'm not going into an uncomfortable place for someone who refuses to show me even basic courtesy. No way. You don't deserve it.
The word, 'supposed', was not meant as an insult. It would be nice to know the truth but there is more to suggest that you were never inside a Giza pryamid than there is to suggest that you were.

Considering the below quotes from you, what is worse and more uncomfortable than meeting an alien 3 times?

From Matt deMille:
"I have, later in life, had a gun to my head, seen people die, and been in various other "see your life" moments, and they did little to faze me. That's not "tough talk", either. That's a testament to the degree to which these earlier experiences of seeing these entities had on me. Once you've looked into alien eyes, there's nothing else that compares."

From Matt deMille:
"Bottom line, the only thing that really helped was being a bit like Rocky or Indy: Suck it up, get tougher than life, and go on with my head held high. It took a few years but I did it. And I never faltered."

From Matt deMille:
"Like I said before, seeing aliens will girt your mind against pretty much anything this world can throw at you."
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2010, 12:15 PM   #48
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkey
You are officially blinded to science.
While I agree, Mr. deMille's knowledge of scientific conventions seems exceptionally pitiful, nothing good comes with simply calling it out and leaving it at that. So once again, let's get down from our high horses and ivory towers and at least try to aproach the problem from the core basics...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
The real problem is politics.
This is a bold statement and something I'd call erraneous. The true "problem" might instead lie in the fact that unlike religion or wild mass guessing, science has certain rules it needs to play by, you know, to be science.

Most scientists tend to avoid paranormal phenomena because it's hardly empirical. There seems to be no consistent rules and any given occurence is technically impossible to repeat in a controlled environment. (Then again, if they were, would it be paranormal anymore?)

Science is also peer-reviewed. If a scientist gets 'blacklisted' it is likely because he skipped a few hoops or did not present his findings correctly, e.g. claiming something skimmed out of a simple hypothesis to be theory or trying to present something as the leading theory while there are more generally accepted explanations out there that contest less the Occam's razor. In other words, didn't play by the rules.

The peer-review process also means that science does not happen in a fortnight. A scientist can't simply publish his or her results and expect them to be immediately generally accepted, but instead has to wait if it gets support and gains recognition and spins some continuation research by other names in the field. A popular debating point especially among laymen even to this day, the theory of evolution is a fine example. (The Raven among all other forums holds some equally curious and frustrating threads on the subject, look 'em up.) The scientific community didn't simply nod, accept it and take it as part of their MO the day The Origin of Species was published in 1859, but actually took some building upon by subsequent scientists like Gregor Mendel and Hugo de Vries and wasn't widely accepted as the leading theory on the field until 1930s. That's over 70 years after Charles Darwin came forth with his theory and half a century after his death. He was never there to reap the fame.

Even more brutal example is Aristarchus, who was a 3rd century BC astronomer and generally credited as the first man to recognize that Earth goes around the sun, not vice versa. As we all know, this scientific fact was generally accepted in the 17th century, which is 1800 years after his time. If there's an afterlife, I'm sure he had a hearty yet sardonic laugh.

I'm not very familiar with Dr. Mack's research and whatever he came up, but if something's there it should get recognized, eventually. As I stated in the beginning of this wall of text, there is no consistent way to collect data concerning this subject and it certainly doesn't help that only a fraction of people coming across it are scientists. So we may yet have quite a wait ahead of us. I can tell however that if we want yet another respectable scientist to pick it up, acting like a conspiracy theorist isn't very encouraging.

Last edited by Finn : 09-17-2010 at 01:25 PM.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2010, 01:30 PM   #49
Matt deMille
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 490
I agree, Finn. I do wish the evidence would go through the proper scientific channels. And it does take time. But I do believe that we are overlooking basic human shortcomings here. Science may be peer-reviewed, but those peers are not always objective. For example, mention "Atlantis" to them. You'll more likely get a snicker and a giggle, when what you should be able to get is "Well, what's your theory?" Even if a scientist has heard a similar claim a thousand times before, he should still be open to possibilities on it. After all, Newton himself said he failed countless times trying to invent the light bulb ("I found ten thousand ways that didn't work . . .") Sometimes things take thousands of different approaches, but the mainstream which I criticize seems to just not have that kind of patience.

And I believe that patience is limited due to politics and money. Scientists, after all, don't just sit around the lab all day with no pressure. They have deadlines. They have peers to appease, backers to please, and more. Everything in this world revolves around money. However idealistic a scientist may be, someone has to pay for the lab, his paycheck, etc. That backing always has strings attached. What I'm arguing is not the scientists themselves, but the establishment around them that demands progress, and simply will not afford the time or the faith to give the "extraordinary investigation" that extraordinary claims require.

I actually feel sorry for the scientists. *They* usually mean well. But, the same as in any human endeavor, it's the people with the money that determine the agenda, and that is not always in the best interests of science.

For example: Take the Giza site and Hawass. Good ol' Hawass has denied countless investigations at the site because he knew they were supporters of the ancient alien theory. Well, if there's no chance of the AA-theory being proven, what's the harm? Why not let them dig? Because their very presence would raise questions. Tourists would ask "What's with those guys over there?" And Hawass would either have to lie or state their theory. Either one is uncomfortable at least. They don't even want to consider an alternative . . . because Egypt is their baby. It's the backbone of the country's tourist-trade. It's their national pride. Even if Hawass means well as an archeologist, he's probably got strict orders from the Egyptian government not to allow things that would encourage interest that would potentially distract from their "culture". See, it's a big, tangled web. It's the same thing you'd run into if you found evidence claiming anything that overturned any culture. It's why the Vatican keeps artifacts locked away, because they contest the church's teachings. And religion is just as strong as national or cultural pride, and things would indeed be suppressed or ignored if it threatened one's pride.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkey
You are officially blinded to science.

No where in your incoherent ramblings is there anything even remotely resembling an understanding of science. Everyone who has read them is now more stupid because of them. May God have mercy on your soul...or whatever hybrid pirate alien you recruit for.

And this continued childish behavior is supposed to set you above the person who is being mature, rational and reasonable? Claiming to be scientific doesn't give you any loftier a position or give any weight to your argument. If you're so smart and so scientific, demonstrate it. Show us. And that means by raising good questions rather than cheap insults. You remind me of a person who claims to be Godly and thus by proxy "good" simply because he goes to church. Just because you claim scientific rationale doesn't count. Practice it. Prove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
You also mentioned in the "Ancient Aliens" thread that your first 2 encounters were outside. What were you doing outside alone as a 1-year-old baby? If you were accompanied by someone older, why didn't the other person/s witness the same thing?

Stoo, as always, I get criticized for not checking facts or making things up, but you're once again doing the same thing. I did not say I was outside nor did I say I was 1yo. You have pulled these out of thin air. I said I saw the entities outside. That doesn't mean I was outside, too. Have you ever heard of a window? I looked through it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
The word, 'supposed', was not meant as an insult. It would be nice to know the truth but there is more to suggest that you were never inside a Giza pryamid than there is to suggest that you were.

When nearly every quote you've made of mine for the last few weeks has my name changed to "duh Mille" or some similar stupid (and unscientific) remark, when you say "supposed" in something as mundane as a tourist trip to Egypt (which countless people do every year), it clearly implies insult. You're like the boy who cried wolf. Even if you didn't intend an insult there, your past makes it look all the same. If no insult was intended, you should have made a point to clarify that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
From Matt deMille:
"Bottom line, the only thing that really helped was being a bit like Rocky or Indy: Suck it up, get tougher than life, and go on with my head held high. It took a few years but I did it. And I never faltered."

From Matt deMille:
"Like I said before, seeing aliens will girt your mind against pretty much anything this world can throw at you."

I try to be positive in a troubling world. But I'm also human. And the same as I say about scientists who aren't always logical, so is it true with us all. Emotions have no logical pattern. My reasons for having distaste for discussing Egypt are not necessarily Earth-shattering, but they are personal, and I will deal with them at my own speed. I hope this will be the end of that question. After all, what more explanation is necessary? If I was claiming having gone to the moon, that'd be different. But I'm only saying I visited a place that millions of others have. Is that so hard to believe?

Last edited by Matt deMille : 09-17-2010 at 01:58 PM.
Matt deMille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2010, 02:15 PM   #50
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt deMille
And I believe that patience is limited due to politics and money. Scientists, after all, don't just sit around the lab all day with no pressure. They have deadlines. They have peers to appease, backers to please, and more. Everything in this world revolves around money. However idealistic a scientist may be, someone has to pay for the lab, his paycheck, etc. That backing always has strings attached. What I'm arguing is not the scientists themselves, but the establishment around them that demands progress, and simply will not afford the time or the faith to give the "extraordinary investigation" that extraordinary claims require.
You seemed to miss my point. The peer-review system relies on acceptance by numbers, and this is what I tried to convey. A single scientist or a small group of them may have deadlines, or even if they don't, nothing's stopping them from putting out a thesis that applies to the rules and conventions in a day.

However, for this particular piece of work to be recognized and become generally acceptable, other scientists have to pick it up, try it and expand on it. And this may happen relatively quickly or it may take decades until somebody pays interest on it again, usually upon coming up something similar.

Any instance that funds a scientific study naturally doesn't have to wait for the peer process to end to pick up the benefits. But if we wish it to spread wide and far, other scientists have to pay interest on it, and this rarely happens unless it's somehow related to their own studies. These people don't have to have any strings attached to the backers of the original study so science really isn't that reliant on money breathing down their necks as you imply.

Also, one doesn't have to be a recognized scientist to make progress in a scientific field. Anyone can research anything given they have enough time and interest and then publish their findings. This must however be done according to the conventions. Otherwise it won't be a huge surprise it gets dismissed. Also, anything can be studied. Looking into extraterrestial visits on Earth is not automatically a poppycock subject. However, amateur researchers often make basic mistakes in their enthusiasm and end up skipping some hoops in order to get their voice out and over the rooftops.

You yourself have lately been given some hard time here on these forums. While there are people who clearly do so because they think the subject in question is ridiculous, I'd still say the main reason is - pardon me for saying this, no disrespect meant - is that you clearly don't know the rules.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:53 AM.