The Intelligent Professor

Matt deMille

New member
Well, RS, all I can say is that when someone attacks me, I defend myself. Call it "whining" if you will, but I don't bring up my attackers in threads. They come to me. They bring themselves into it. I consider their antics to be the real "whining", because they're like children trying to get attention. Myself, I try to be rational and reasonable.

Sharkey (aptly named) came out of the blue and attacked me for no reason;

Sharkey said:
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.

What did I say in this thread, prior to his posting, to justify that? If he had come along and simply said, as Finn did, that I'm not recognizing or respecting scientific protocol, that would have been fine. But in a few sentences he manages to cram in as many insults and stupid comments as he can.

I'm not the bad guy here. Disagree with me if you will. Science is strengthened by opposing opinions. But do so in a reasonable way. As long as people continue to ridicule me, then I will simply expose their foolishness for what it is. If you see me as the worse of the two for that, I'm sorry but I have to say that's your shortcoming, not mine.
 
Last edited:
Matt deMille said:
Well, RS, all I can say is that when someone attacks me, I defend myself. Call it "whining" if you will, but I don't bring up my attackers in threads. They come to me. They bring themselves into it. I consider their antics to be the real "whining", because they're like children trying to get attention. Myself, I try to be rational and reasonable.

Sharkey (aptly named) came out of the blue and attacked me for no reason;

What did I say in this thread, prior to his posting, to justify that? If he had come along and simply said, as Finn did, that I'm not recognizing or respecting scientific protocol, that would have been fine. But in a few sentences he manages to cram in as many insults and stupid comments as he can.

I'm not the bad guy here. Disagree with me if you will. Science is strengthened by opposing opinions. But do so in a reasonable way. As long as people continue to ridicule me, then I will simply expose their foolishness for what it is. If you see me as the worse of the two for that, that's your shortcoming, not mine.
I didn't start it...sigh.:(
 

Matt deMille

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I didn't start it...sigh.:(

How about we just let it be? I'm tired too. And this isn't going to go anywhere good. How about we just dismiss it as a misunderstanding? (no blame, either way)

Hand extended: Truce?
 
Matt deMille said:
How about we just let it be? I'm tired too. And this isn't going to go anywhere good. How about we just dismiss it as a misunderstanding? (no blame, either way)

Hand extended: Truce?
Truce from what? How have I maligned you?

You just continue to be you, despite what you say.

Regarding the other guys, RA has been around a long time, and these type of appeals have been made to him to me and on and on. He posts where and how he choses and doesn't claim to be anything but, well, a dick.
ResidentAlien said:
I've never claimed to be anything but a dick.

You can continue to lay blame at others feet but you engage in it just as lustily...though you always say you're above it and you're just going to ignore them.

Do as you will...
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
Well, okay.

But I do have one question: If it's okay to "be a dick" around here, simply because that's someone claims to be, then, that's considered acceptable behavior at The Raven? That makes it okay for someone like that to be supported in threads or gets backing from posters?

I really hope that's not the case, because I'd like to think a lot better of this site.
 
Matt deMille said:
If it's okay to "be a dick" around here, simply because that's someone claims to be, then, that's considered acceptable behavior at The Raven? That makes it okay for someone like that to be supported in threads or gets backing from posters?
Well I guess we see things from different vantage points. I don't endorse being a dick, but having been one from time to time, (for various reasons good and bad), understand it in others...to a degree. RA's "guest status" proves there are limits.

I'd be surprised if you could provide any support or backing for his rancor. His command of rational thought is inversely proportional to his fuse, a combination which can be entertaining to say the least.
Matt deMille said:
I really hope that's not the case, because I'd like to think a lot better of this site.
You go on hoping, I'm only around here because I agree with the free hand we're given, (now that can be taken two ways....)



Maybe we should start a "Therapy Thread"...
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Maybe we should start a "Therapy Thread"...

Actually, I often wondered if there shouldn't be a "Flaming thread", a place that's no-holds-barred, but with the stipulation that it doesn't happen anywhere else, and anything questionable, meaning anything that is perceived as inappropriate could be rerouted to this thread. Oh well.

A flaming thread would give people a chance to get it out of their system, sparing all other threads from the derailment which happens.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:
Actually, I often wondered if there shouldn't be a "Flaming thread", a place that's no-holds-barred, but with the stipulation that it doesn't happen anywhere else, and anything questionable, meaning anything that is perceived as inappropriate could be rerouted to this thread. Oh well.

A flaming thread would give people a chance to get it out of their system, sparing all other threads from the derailment which happens.

I don't think The Raven should cater for bad temper anywhere. Not only would such a "Flaming thread" become a centre for bullying and bile, but it's effects would be felt across any other threads those members found each other in. If disagreements can't be worked out in civil tones, rather than in a metaphorical Fight Club, then I don't believe The Raven is the right place for such members.

Our recent "Guest" does have an extremely short fuse, but as I've noted before, there are alternate ways to defuse such situations. As Rocket just wrote, he does provide humour with it. However, his personal mark in the sand is much further from the point I'm going to cross. I just think that there's little merit in going so far that you meet yourself coming back. Few arguments are won when civility gives way to antagonism.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Matt deMille said:
But I do have one question: If it's okay to "be a dick" around here, simply because that's someone claims to be, then, that's considered acceptable behavior at The Raven? That makes it okay for someone like that to be supported in threads or gets backing from posters?
ResidentAlien dances on a fine line between what's acceptable and what's not. We've had similar cases before him and likely will after. They all have ended up tripping on the wrong side of the line and have regularly got their knuckles rapped for it.

At the moment he's the only specimen of this type around because well, eventually they either get tired of their own charade or go so far in testing the limits they end up doing something that finally makes the cup spill.

But now I must tell you to get back on topic. If one wishes to discuss our moderation guidelines further, feel free to head over to the Feedback section.
 

teampunk

Member
Matt deMille said:
Well, okay.

But I do have one question: If it's okay to "be a dick" around here, simply because that's someone claims to be, then, that's considered acceptable behavior at The Raven? That makes it okay for someone like that to be supported in threads or gets backing from posters?

I really hope that's not the case, because I'd like to think a lot better of this site.

you should have just ignored him. it would have saved pages and pages of pointless arguements.
 

Goodeknight

New member
Back on topic??

Wow. Out of 70 posts, I'd guess at least 50 should have been left to PMs where two people can bicker back and forth endlessly without completely derailing a thread.

So this is my attempt to get things back on track.

One of the great hoaxes of all time, in my opinion, was the Piltdown forgery.

Modern human skull + orangutan jawbone = "missing link"

And though relatively simple, it took 40 years until the hoax was exposed in 1953. Great lesson for scientists to always stay on their toes. Don't take anything at face value, particularly if it seems to completely back up your own personal theories. If it does, that's when you should be even more skeptical.

While most people say it was Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes / Lost World author) who did it, I believe he really just remains one of the top three or four 'prime suspects.'

And, in case anyone forgot what this thread was supposed to be about....
Rocket Surgeon said:
What are some of the outlandish hoaxes or interpretations you've encountered in your own travels? Hopefully the focus of the thread will be perception and its confirmation or its refutation.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
goodeknight said:
One of the great hoaxes of all time, in my opinion, was the Piltdown forgery.

Modern human skull + orangutan jawbone = "missing link"

And though relatively simple, it took 40 years until the hoax was exposed in 1953. Great lesson for scientists to always stay on their toes. Don't take anything at face value, particularly if it seems to completely back up your own personal theories. If it does, that's when you should be even more skeptical.

Good one, goodeknight.

goodeknight said:
While most people say it was Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes / Lost World author) who did it, I believe he really just remains one of the top three or four 'prime suspects.'

He was also responsible for giving credence to the fairy hoax. Young girls drew fairies, painted them and pinned them on wires to photograph them. They claimed these were photos of real fairies and the hoax gained support, not least from Doyle.

This one was firmly debunked when the girls themselves came clean.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cooper.htm

cottingley-fairies.jpg
 

China Jim

New member
Why must we bicker over who built what and how?

Since my return to the Raven and to the archeology forum I have found this one thread to be intolerable. I do understand and accept that each and everyone one of us has an opinion on one subject or another but when we degenerate to name calling and cursing that detracts from what we got into this line of study to begin with to first locate non-refutable fact which unlike what Doctor Jones said will lead to the truth. Truths with out facts are lies and Facts that can lead to untruths ie misconceptions are also lies we must learn to differentiate one from another. I have always been so amazed that many subscribers to this forum must place a fantastic reason for ()always my favorite) the construction of the pyramids both middle eastern and Meso-American I have heard and read many books and articles on both sides of the spectrum and as always I say prove it with out a shadow of a doubt that aliens, animal headed god like beings or fallen angels helped in the construction of the edifices I myself prefer the Occum razor principle the simplest answer is the correct one It is a proven fact that at the time of the building of the Great Pyrimids on the Giza plateau that the Egyptians had already enginered and constructed mighty cities and stepped pyrimids I belive it was Imhotep (not the guy from the mummy movie) under Pharoh Gozer who originated the non-stepped or modified the non-stepped design. Did Imhotep or his forunners have superscience alien help I say no, Egyptian mathematicians and engineers already had the knowldge passed down from (wait for it) the Babylonians,Sumerians, and Chaldean cultures and these chaps were no slouches when it came to building objects so it is with in reason that taking this academic knowldge the Egyptian boffins(love that word)modified and expanded upon it to allow them to use geometry as well as astronomy (Oh the biblical tower of Babel was a early observatory )to build and position the three great pyramids of Egypt in the proper land based and astronomical based position. So mystery solved no little green men,insect, or animal headed gods helped build the pyrimids just men like you and me had the drive and imagination to take that one step beyond the norm. We ( as in the historical and archeological community) know that the first attempts at pyrimid building in Egypt didn't quite work out as designed but through trial and error and the input of new information the ancient engineers ( Thank You L. Sprauge de Camp) was able to get said monuments
built. Meso-America the same way the Aztec and Mayan pyramids were stepped pyramids built by men not visiting gods. I noticed on the post that references were made to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, while Doyle was a trickster and a joker at times my answer to Piltdown is still out on his involvement in it.
But if one wishes to look at his or I should say his created characters reactions to facts vs non facts or suppositions I recommend you all go to the Sherlock Holmes quote site concerning Holmes ideas on observation and deduction their are sparks of truth that we as historians and archeologist fans should take to heart. His one creation I enjoyed more than Holmes was George Edward Challenger his foray (Challengers) into the world of spiritualism I was not pleased with but as of the writing of Land of the Mist Doyle had joined the spiritualist movement so Challengers foray into it was natural. But the three proceeding stories about Challenger was always my favorite and yes Challenger in three of them of them did present outlandish theories but as we can see in the end he was proved right. I on the one hand applaud those who stick by there convictions concerning if EIBs helped build the pyramids and other supra-normal beings and incidents but as I stated earlier my friends you have to prove it. I do understand that in the two or three disciplines that this site encompasses i.e. Anthropology, Archeology, and History that unlike say the hard sciences of say mathematics, chemistry, and the like we need hard artifacts and proven written records unlike the hard sciences we cannot prove by our theories or ideas by testing them, as they can do in say chemistry and certain non-quantum forms of mathematics that's what we must show and reference is verifiable facts by verifiable scientist. Well I believe I have obviated enough and I will await your replies.
James Campbell
Ba Ma (pending)"The true scientific mind is not to be tied down by its own conditions of time and space. It builds itself an observatory erected upon the border line of present, which separates the infinite past from the infinite future. From this sure post it makes its sallies even to the beginning and to the end of all things." George Edward Challenger
 

Montana Smith

Active member
China Jim said:
Since my return to the Raven and to the archeology forum I have found this one thread to be intolerable. I do understand and accept that each and everyone one of us has an opinion on one subject or another but when we degenerate to name calling and cursing that detracts from what we got into this line of study to begin with to first locate non-refutable fact which unlike what Doctor Jones said will lead to the truth. Truths with out facts are lies and Facts that can lead to untruths ie misconceptions are also lies we must learn to differentiate one from another. I have always been so amazed that many subscribers to this forum must place a fantastic reason for ()always my favorite) the construction of the pyramids both middle eastern and Meso-American I have heard and read many books and articles on both sides of the spectrum and as always I say prove it with out a shadow of a doubt that aliens, animal headed god like beings or fallen angels helped in the construction of the edifices I myself prefer the Occum razor principle the simplest answer is the correct one It is a proven fact that at the time of the building of the Great Pyrimids on the Giza plateau that the Egyptians had already enginered and constructed mighty cities and stepped pyrimids I belive it was Imhotep (not the guy from the mummy movie) under Pharoh Gozer who originated the non-stepped or modified the non-stepped design. Did Imhotep or his forunners have superscience alien help I say no, Egyptian mathematicians and engineers already had the knowldge passed down from (wait for it) the Babylonians,Sumerians, and Chaldean cultures and these chaps were no slouches when it came to building objects so it is with in reason that taking this academic knowldge the Egyptian boffins(love that word)modified and expanded upon it to allow them to use geometry as well as astronomy (Oh the biblical tower of Babel was a early observatory )to build and position the three great pyramids of Egypt in the proper land based and astronomical based position. So mystery solved no little green men,insect, or animal headed gods helped build the pyrimids just men like you and me had the drive and imagination to take that one step beyond the norm. We ( as in the historical and archeological community) know that the first attempts at pyrimid building in Egypt didn't quite work out as designed but through trial and error and the input of new information the ancient engineers ( Thank You L. Sprauge de Camp) was able to get said monuments
built. Meso-America the same way the Aztec and Mayan pyramids were stepped pyramids built by men not visiting gods. I noticed on the post that references were made to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, while Doyle was a trickster and a joker at times my answer to Piltdown is still out on his involvement in it.
But if one wishes to look at his or I should say his created characters reactions to facts vs non facts or suppositions I recommend you all go to the Sherlock Holmes quote site concerning Holmes ideas on observation and deduction their are sparks of truth that we as historians and archeologist fans should take to heart. His one creation I enjoyed more than Holmes was George Edward Challenger his foray (Challengers) into the world of spiritualism I was not pleased with but as of the writing of Land of the Mist Doyle had joined the spiritualist movement so Challengers foray into it was natural. But the three proceeding stories about Challenger was always my favorite and yes Challenger in three of them of them did present outlandish theories but as we can see in the end he was proved right. I on the one hand applaud those who stick by there convictions concerning if EIBs helped build the pyramids and other supra-normal beings and incidents but as I stated earlier my friends you have to prove it. I do understand that in the two or three disciplines that this site encompasses i.e. Anthropology, Archeology, and History that unlike say the hard sciences of say mathematics, chemistry, and the like we need hard artifacts and proven written records unlike the hard sciences we cannot prove by our theories or ideas by testing them, as they can do in say chemistry and certain non-quantum forms of mathematics that's what we must show and reference is verifiable facts by verifiable scientist. Well I believe I have obviated enough and I will await your replies.
James Campbell
Ba Ma (pending)"The true scientific mind is not to be tied down by its own conditions of time and space. It builds itself an observatory erected upon the border line of present, which separates the infinite past from the infinite future. From this sure post it makes its sallies even to the beginning and to the end of all things." George Edward Challenger

Jim, this isn't the 'pyramid' thread. You want Dr. Tyree's philosophy class right down the hall (it's the door with "Ancient Aliens" on it.) ;)

This one's finally gotten back to hoaxes.
 

Matt deMille

New member
In regards to the common use of the "Occum Razor" principle throughout this site, I'd like to point out that the most important discoveries in history have proven to be anything but "the simplest answer". After all, the Earth was the center of the universe. Simple. Except it wasn't. We had to discard that simplistic, egocentric perception and begin to study all the cosmos around us. If the "assumptions" of that time, such as there being other worlds were, as the razor principle suggests, simply shaved away and not investigated, where would we be in terms of science today?

To me, Occum's Razor seems like very flawed thinking. It seems more like an easy out for those who don't want to address questions. Science should not dismiss anything based on whether it is simpler or harder. If multiple theories have equal evidence, no proverbial razor should be used, but rather, the various possibilities should be left open, with scientists humbly saying "We don't know. It could be this, it could be that. The research is ongoing".

"Simple" is a matter of interpretation and open to preference. After all, supports of fairies, or aliens, or whatever other phenomena could (and do) see the paranormal as the "simplest" explanation. Simple is relative. Thus, I fail to see the popularity of the Occum Razor principle.
 
Orson Welles' The War of the Worlds radio show from October 30, 1938.
CBS reminded listeners during the show it was a performance but they got in trouble for saying "we interrupt this program" for effect.

Not familiar with either...

Thanks.

goodeknight said:
One of the great hoaxes of all time, in my opinion, was the Piltdown forgery.

Modern human skull + orangutan jawbone = "missing link"

And though relatively simple, it took 40 years until the hoax was exposed in 1953. Great lesson for scientists to always stay on their toes. Don't take anything at face value, particularly if it seems to completely back up your own personal theories. If it does, that's when you should be even more skeptical.

While most people say it was Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes / Lost World author) who did it, I believe he really just remains one of the top three or four 'prime suspects.
Montana Smith said:
He was also responsible for giving credence to the fairy hoax. Young girls drew fairies, painted them and pinned them on wires to photograph them. They claimed these were photos of real fairies and the hoax gained support, not least from Doyle.

This one was firmly debunked when the girls themselves came clean.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cooper.htm

cottingley-fairies.jpg
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Matt deMille said:
In regards to the common use of the "Occum Razor" principle throughout this site, I'd like to point out that the most important discoveries in history have proven to be anything but "the simplest answer". After all, the Earth was the center of the universe. Simple. Except it wasn't. We had to discard that simplistic, egocentric perception and begin to study all the cosmos around us. If the "assumptions" of that time, such as there being other worlds were, as the razor principle suggests, simply shaved away and not investigated, where would we be in terms of science today?

But that's a misunderstanding of simple as employed in this context. A geocentric conception of the universe was revealed to be wrong in part because it required such a <I>complicated</I> system of equations and various accounts of why the other celestial bodies moved in the ways they did that varied from body to body due to the geocentric assumption. Occam's Razor holds in this case because the switch to a heliocentric view of the solar system was able to explain with much simpler and more consistent physics why the various planets moved in the ways they did.
 

Matt deMille

New member
That may be true. What I'm saying is that it wasn't simple according to the mind-set of the authorities of the time. It was an idea that was resisted.

Today, we have similar difficulties. What others consider to be the simpler explanation is only simple in terms of what we understand and accept, indeed what fits our collective mind-set. This is why I feel Occum's Razor is dangerous in terms of scientific study. Nor do I see the need to go to any conclusion, simple or difficult, as fast as the razor supports. Why the hurry? If we don't have all the data, we should just say "we don't know".

I believe the same human need that fuels this mind-set is also responsible for a need to have an immediate explanation to everything, no matter how scant the evidence. It seems more reasonable to have a "We don't know" approach rather than trying to label and categorize everything. Alas humans lean toward the latter, then to save face they force themselves make assumptions which become institutionalized and dogmatic, all the more difficult to unravel later, making a razor necessary. I think our science and or society would be better off by simply not entangling things to begin with, and the key to that is being humble and admitting "We don't know".

For example, take the "Baghdad Battery". Science immediately places it in the best context they have at the time, despite it defying everything that is known about the culture from which it supposedly came. They try to say so-and-so made it for such-and-such a reason. But, what's wrong with a simple "We don't know"? Why not wait until other or at least similar "batteries" are found? Why the immediate need to put a tag on everything?

I think the razor approach is an unwilling accomplice in this hurried, we-must-prevent-anything-from-saying-we-aren't-on-top attitude that hinders rather than helps discovery.
 
Moon-Landing Hoax Myths

Flags Wave

Forty years after U.S. astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the moon, many conspiracy theorists still insist the Apollo 11 moon landing was an elaborate hoax.

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... the American flag appears to be flapping as if "in a breeze" in videos and photographs supposedly taken from the airless lunar surface.

The fact of the matter is ... "the video you see where the flag's moving is because the astronaut just placed it there, and the inertia from when they let go kept it moving," said spaceflight historian Roger Launius, of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C.

The astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods holding the flag in place several times, creating the appearance of a rippling flag in photographs.
 
Top