Logical Critical Thinking

[rynner2]

"It was the absence of transitional fossils that first made me question Darwin's idea of gradual change. I realised, too, that the procedures used to date rocks were circular. Rocks are used to date fossils: fossils are used to date rocks."
Oh, we're on to evolution and geology now, are we?

As usual, you seem to have skimmed the literature and only picked up those things that seem to support your bizarre world view. Since you won't take the time to look at stuff that contradicts that view, I won't waste much of my time refuting your comments, because I know you'll ignore or dismiss my arguments as usual.

But I will reply briefly, for the benefit of those others who may have wondered the same things, but who are prepared to look at the evidence.

"absence of transitional fossils": natural selection acts mostly to maintain the status quo by weeding out harmful mutations. But in a time of environmental change, some of these mutations may aid species survival, and lead to new species. But the 'status quo' periods are generally much longer than the 'environmental change' periods, which is why we find fewer 'transitional' fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

"Rocks are used to date fossils: fossils are used to date rocks": No, there are many other ways to date rocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoluminescence_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_dating (with several different methods)

For shorter time periods there is the well-known radio-carbon dating, and dendrochronology.

These different methods can be used to cross-check the age of rocks and fossils, and sort out any anomalies. So the procedures are not circular.

 

[Mythopoeika]

"absence of transitional fossils": natural selection acts mostly to maintain the status quo by weeding out harmful mutations. But in a time of environmental change, some of these mutations may aid species survival, and lead to new species. But the 'status quo' periods are generally much longer than the 'environmental change' periods, which is why we find fewer 'transitional' fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Yes! Also, it is worth noting that very, very few creatures that die end up as fossils.

 

[Jerry_B]

Jerry_B
"Pons and Fleishman had their work published for peer review."
If I were you, I would check-out the history on this one?

Why? Their findings were published in the Journal of Electro-analytical Chemistry.

 

[Anome]

Also, the nature of gradual change is that it is practically un-noticed in the short term, but easily seen in the long term. So that the slow evolution of some features may not distinguish two "adjacent" specimens, but after a million years or so that slow change has resulted in massive differences.

Plus, we keep finding "transitional" specimens. But then we have a gap either side of that transition. There is no way we will ever find the full continuum of evolution in the fossil record, because that would mean that every single rock on the surface of the planet would have to be a fossil of something. Given the nature of geological processes, this is highly unlikely.

 

[Ghostisfort]

rynner2
I won't waste much of my time refuting your comments, because I know you'll ignore or dismiss my arguments as usual.

"Rocks are used to date fossils: fossils are used to date rocks": No, there are many other ways to date rocks.

For shorter time periods there is the well-known radio-carbon dating, and dendrochronology.

These different methods can be used to cross-check the age of rocks and fossils, and sort out any anomalies. So the procedures are not circular.

Radio carbon dating can be calibrated with historical artefacts and dendrochronology and so I have few problems with that. It is however unreliable for anything outside of the range of recorded history or tree growth as there is no means for calibration.

Now when we come to other radiometric measurements, there is a serious problem with calibration. How do you calibrate for something that has no date? The dates used are those that fit nicely with the scientific consensus (opinion). The rock and fossil dates are arbitrary and the circular system was concocted long before the onset of radio dating.

This fudging of dates also has implications for planetary age, solar system age and the age of the universe. They all need to fit into the cosy little system that is science and they are like a glue that holds it all together.
I don't want to take this into the evolution argument as this seems to induce a weird madness in the scientistic mind.

I do take note of your comments and as it happens I had an interesting astronomy subject planned just for you. However, we seem to have been sidetracked as usual. Later maybe?

 

[Ghostisfort]

Mythopoeika
A scam?
A scam designed to keep scientists in jobs, no doubt!

"absence of transitional fossils": natural selection acts mostly to maintain the status quo by weeding out harmful mutations. But in a time of environmental change, some of these mutations may aid species survival, and lead to new species. But the 'status quo' periods are generally much longer than the 'environmental change' periods, which is why we find fewer 'transitional' fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

You see, I do read all the posts.
Again, I don't want to get into evo'. It needs a thread all of its own.

Long, long ago, 'it was a dark and stormy night' I think? Governments decided that they wanted their own tame genius.
They decided to enrol all the scientific types in a social security system and thereby control genius.
Now, if the tabloids are anything to go-by, social security is not conducive to genius. But, as long as enough of the plebs thought they were genius, then all was OK.
This system grew so big, that it was consuming as much money as a British country and the plebs were beginning to notice that they got nothing in return.
The government had a problem that they couldn't solve because the genius had become so complex and so secret that no one in government knew what they were doing.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Also, the nature of gradual change is that it is practically un-noticed in the short term, but easily seen in the long term. So that the slow evolution of some features may not distinguish two "adjacent" specimens, but after a million years or so that slow change has resulted in massive differences.

Plus, we keep finding "transitional" specimens. But then we have a gap either side of that transition. There is no way we will ever find the full continuum of evolution in the fossil record, because that would mean that every single rock on the surface of the planet would have to be a fossil of something. Given the nature of geological processes, this is highly unlikely.

None of this works without dates and there are no real dates.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Jerry_B
"Pons and Fleishman had their work published for peer review."
If I were you, I would check-out the history on this one?

Why? Their findings were published in the Journal of Electro-analytical Chemistry.

I think you will find that they were criticised by colleagues for inviting the press before peer publication.
The situation, due to the debunking of almost the whole of science, is that the US patent office has refused to consider anything entitled "Cold Fusion" now or in the future. This was a concerted effort to kill-off a much needed technology at birth.
What is left is the endless project, jobs for the boys, hot fusion that has consistently failed for around fifty years.

 

[Jerry_B]

I think you will find that they were criticised by colleagues for inviting the press before peer publication.

Now you're just shifting the goalposts to suit your outlook. Very bad form. You can't deny that their work was submitted for peer review and published. Therefore, there wasn't any suppression of their work.

Can you actually prove that cold fusion is not allowed by the US Patent Office?

 

[Jerry_B]

Long, long ago, 'it was a dark and stormy night' I think? Governments decided that they wanted their own tame genius.
They decided to enrol all the scientific types in a social security system and thereby control genius.
Now, if the tabloids are anything to go-by, social security is not conducive to genius. But, as long as enough of the plebs thought they were genius, then all was OK.
This system grew so big, that it was consuming as much money as a British country and the plebs were beginning to notice that they got nothing in return.
The government had a problem that they couldn't solve because the genius had become so complex and so secret that no one in government knew what they were doing.

Proof please.

 

[Anome]

Also, the nature of gradual change is that it is practically un-noticed in the short term, but easily seen in the long term. So that the slow evolution of some features may not distinguish two "adjacent" specimens, but after a million years or so that slow change has resulted in massive differences.

Plus, we keep finding "transitional" specimens. But then we have a gap either side of that transition. There is no way we will ever find the full continuum of evolution in the fossil record, because that would mean that every single rock on the surface of the planet would have to be a fossil of something. Given the nature of geological processes, this is highly unlikely.

None of this works without dates and there are no real dates.

Oh well, you certainly got me there...

No, hang on, that's complete garbage. We have dates. They don't say that a particular specimen died at 8:30am on the 15th of January 50,183,287 BC, but they tell us what order the specimens we find appeared on the planet.

No doubt you'll just dismiss this, probably because you don't actually have an answer to it.

 

[Ghostisfort]

I think you will find that they were criticised by colleagues for inviting the press before peer publication.

Now you're just shifting the goalposts to suit your outlook. Very bad form. You can't deny that their work was submitted for peer review and published. Therefore, there wasn't any suppression of their work.

Can you actually prove that cold fusion is not allowed by the US Patent Office?

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[84] Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Patents
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55939247/25/M ... on-Patents

 

[Ghostisfort]

Anome
Also, the nature of gradual change is that it is practically un-noticed in the short term, but easily seen in the long term. So that the slow evolution of some features may not distinguish two "adjacent" specimens, but after a million years or so that slow change has resulted in massive differences.

Short and long term and a million years suggest dates and time measurement.
It is not possible to pick-up a rock and assign a date that is not arbitrary or a convenient invention of scientific consensus.
Rock and fossil dating is a circular process.
When this actually sinks into ones consciousness its a staggering thought.
That every scientific discipline dependent on geology is based on a guess.
Every date is selected to reinforce the illusion of continuity and give the appearance that the various scientific disciplines agree.

I do realise that this is disconcerting to those who use science as a security blanket. There seems to be a further myth that there is an either/or choice between science and the-god-of-the-gaps, organised religion. This is untrue and it's entirely possible to reject the myths of both science and religion. Once this is achieved a whole new ball-game is revealed.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Proof please.

Proof of what? that the science community exists, that the government spends money on it, that there is no control outside of science itself, that I've asked for justification of the money spent and the lack of returns?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

I do realise that this is disconcerting to those who use science as a security blanket. There seems to be a further myth that there is an either/or choice between science and the-god-of-the-gaps, organised religion. This is untrue and it's entirely possible to reject the myths of both science and religion. Once this is achieved a whole new ball-game is revealed.

In as much as it can be said that we know anything accurately, definitively, or quantitatively, these days, it's safe to assume that, at least 9 times out of ten, it was proven scientifically, using the scientific method. It's quite difficult to prove anything scientifically, without falling back on science to prove it.

I must admit, Ghostisfort, your above statement does come across a bit like the beginning of a story by H.P. Lovecraft. One where you just know that things will end badly for the narrator, as things, by definition, both unnameable and indescribable, eventually escape from non-Euclidean dimensions to claim him.

 

[Ghostisfort]

...

I do realise that this is disconcerting to those who use science as a security blanket. There seems to be a further myth that there is an either/or choice between science and the-god-of-the-gaps, organised religion. This is untrue and it's entirely possible to reject the myths of both science and religion. Once this is achieved a whole new ball-game is revealed.

In as much as it can be said that we know anything accurately, definitively, or quantitatively, these days, it's safe to assume that, at least 9 times out of ten, it was proven scientifically, using the scientific method. It's quite difficult to prove anything scientifically, without falling back on science to prove it.

I must admit, Ghostisfort, your above statement does come across a bit like the beginning of a story by H.P. Lovecraft. One where you just know that things will end badly for the narrator, as things, by definition, both unnameable and indescribable, eventually escape from non-Euclidean dimensions to claim him.

The scientific method is an interesting concept in that no scientist seems to be able to define it? Disciplines such as astronomy and evolution are not able to use whatever it is because of time and space.
I love your terminology!
I'm on very cordial terms with the "unnameable and indescribable, (that) eventually escape from non-Euclidean dimensions". They often give me help and encouragement in writing these threads.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

The scientific method is an interesting concept in that no scientist seems to be able to define it? Disciplines such as astronomy and evolution are not able to use whatever it is because of time and space.
I love your terminology!
I'm on very cordial terms with the "unnameable and indescribable, (that) eventually escape from non-Euclidean dimensions". They often give me help and encouragement in writing these threads.

So, if you don't believe in science and no definition of the scientific method meets your exacting requirements, what do you believe, what method do you use? Are you of the opinion that nothing can be known? Or, are you of the opinion that things are exactly how you say they are, until you decide differently?

 

[Ghostisfort]

So, if you don't believe in science and no definition of the scientific method meets your exacting requirements, what do you believe, what method do you use? Are you of the opinion that nothing can be known? Or, are you of the opinion that things are exactly how you say they are, until you decide differently?

Forget Lovecraft, try Patrick Harpur?
Too many clues Mercurius.

 

[Jerry_B]

Proof of what? that the science community exists, that the government spends money on it, that there is no control outside of science itself, that I've asked for justification of the money spent and the lack of returns?

No. Just prove this statement you made:

Long, long ago, 'it was a dark and stormy night' I think? Governments decided that they wanted their own tame genius.
They decided to enrol all the scientific types in a social security system and thereby control genius.
Now, if the tabloids are anything to go-by, social security is not conducive to genius. But, as long as enough of the plebs thought they were genius, then all was OK.
This system grew so big, that it was consuming as much money as a British country and the plebs were beginning to notice that they got nothing in return.
The government had a problem that they couldn't solve because the genius had become so complex and so secret that no one in government knew what they were doing.

 

[Jerry_B]

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[84] Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Patents
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55939247/25/M ... on-Patents

Neither of those are proof. Do you have anything that is directly sourced from the US Patent Office itself?

 

[rynner2]

New Scientist this week has a leading article called "When Science Goes Wrong".

E-mail Trailer: Reptiles don't exist. Atoms don't always have the same weights. Sometimes, the harder you look at the venerable facts in your school textbooks, the more elusive the truth becomes, as this week's lead story explains.

Rewriting the textbooks: When science gets it wrong

THE business of gaining understanding of the world about us rarely follows a simple path from A to B. False starts, dead ends and U-turns are part of the journey. Science's ability to accept those setbacks with aplomb - to say "we got it wrong", to modify and abandon cherished notions and find new ideas and explanations that better fit the emerging facts - is what gives it incomparable power to make sense of our surroundings.

It also means we must be constantly on our toes. While revolutionary new ideas such as evolution by natural selection, or quantum physics, are once-in-a-generation occurrences, the sands of science are continually shifting in less dramatic ways. In the following, we focus on nine recent examples - a tweak of a definition here, a breaking or weakening of a once cast-iron concept there - that together form a snapshot of that process in action.

etc...

http://www.newscientist.com/special/rew ... =textbooks

Now to me that doesn't sound like a monolithic government-controlled conspiracy of 'tame' geniuses, but a free and healthy group of questioning individuals who aren't afraid to question even their own cherished ideas. In fact, you could say that they are employing Logical Critical Thinking!

Of course, I could be wrong...

 

[Ghostisfort]

New Scientist
13 THINGS THAT DO NOT MAKE SENSE
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600
Magazine issue 2491
First prined in NS 19 March 2005.
Updated 19 December 2007 by Michael Brooks
No change 23 05 2011

The placebo effect

The horizon problem

Ultra-energetic cosmic rays

Belfast homeopathy results

Dark matter

Viking's methane

Tetraneutrons

The Pioneer anomaly

Dark energy

The Kuiper cliff

The Wow signal

Not-so-constant constants

Cold fusion

Also:

"The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
August 23, 2010 | 11:50 am
This story is from the Aug. 23, 2010 issue of Stanford Report.
When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up protecting the lives of space-walking astronauts and maybe rewriting some of the assumptions of physics."
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breakin ... -elements/

The only strange thing about all of this is that Tesla predicted this over a century ago and no one ever bothered to check it out. He said that radioactivity was the result of cosmic rays?

The first time I came across a mention of this was in 2001. This guy found that the rate of decay varied according to the time of year and in just the way that Tesla predicted. A copy of his PDF can be found here: http://www.pdfcari.com/Radioactive-Deca ... inos?.html
The same effect has been noted by several other researchers over the years and completely ignored by physicists. (See my website)
The implication is that atomic theory is completely wrong in principle and I can't wait to see how they wriggle out of this mess. One thing is certain, they will not admit that the theory is wrong.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Long, long ago, 'it was a dark and stormy night' I think? Governments decided that they wanted their own tame genius.
They decided to enrol all the scientific types in a social security system and thereby control genius.
Now, if the tabloids are anything to go-by, social security is not conducive to genius. But, as long as enough of the plebs thought they were genius, then all was OK.
This system grew so big, that it was consuming as much money as a British country and the plebs were beginning to notice that they got nothing in return.
The government had a problem that they couldn't solve because the genius had become so complex and so secret that no one in government knew what they were doing.

Please go into further detail, so that we may know exactly what it is you're talking about.
So you're saying all the real geniuses are on benefits?

 

[Ghostisfort]

Please go into further detail, so that we may know exactly what it is you're talking about.
So you're saying all the real geniuses are on benefits?

No, I did not say they are/were geniuses (can you say geniuses?), I said that they should appear to be geniuses to a sufficient number of people.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Please go into further detail, so that we may know exactly what it is you're talking about.
So you're saying all the real geniuses are on benefits?

No, I did not say they are/were geniuses (can you say geniuses?), I said that they should appear to be geniuses to a sufficient number of people.

I still don't understand.
More detail is required, thank you.

Yes, 'geniuses' is a perfectly valid use of the word. 'Genii' is rarely used (if ever).

 

[rynner2]

The only strange thing about all of this is that Tesla predicted this over a century ago and no one ever bothered to check it out. He said that radioactivity was the result of cosmic rays?

From the PDF:"Not quite so well known is Nicola Tesla’s speculation that radioactivity might be caused by small particles which are omnipresent and capable of passing any (non-radioactive) matter almost without leaving any traces [3].
Neutrinos fit that description very well."
So it's Falkenberg who likens Tesla's small particles to neutrinos. Tesla could hardly have spoken of neutrinos 'over a century ago', because their existence was not even postulated until the 1930s, and proof of their existence only came in 1956. (Tesla died in 1943.)

The same effect has been noted by several other researchers over the years and completely ignored by physicists.

Do you mean these 'other researchers' were not physicists? What were they?

The implication is that atomic theory is completely wrong in principle and I can't wait to see how they wriggle out of this mess. One thing is certain, they will not admit that the theory is wrong.

The implication is nothing of the sort. Even assuming the results are as reported, the effects are small, and unlikely to destroy atomic theory 'completely'. They can probably be accommodated by minor adjustments. For all I know, this may have been done already - we only have your unsupported statement that the idea was 'completely ignored by physicists'.

One thing is certain, they will not admit that the theory is wrong.

Au contraire, mon brave, there are thousands of keen young researchers out there who are dying to make a name for themselves by discovering a brand new structure in physics. Nobel prizes beckon for those who successfully break the mould!

(Sadly, for every Einstein or Bohr there are dozens of other mavericks and crackpots who think they have discovered the secrets of the universe...)

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

So, if you don't believe in science and no definition of the scientific method meets your exacting requirements, what do you believe, what method do you use? Are you of the opinion that nothing can be known? Or, are you of the opinion that things are exactly how you say they are, until you decide differently?

Forget Lovecraft, try Patrick Harpur?
Too many clues Mercurius.

Interesting reference. Don't know much at all about Harpur, hardly encountered the name, but he certainly seems to be a Fortean sort of a cove.

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


Would be a good guest for this years UnCon!

 

[Anome]

It is not possible to pick-up a rock and assign a date that is not arbitrary or a convenient invention of scientific consensus.
Rock and fossil dating is a circular process.

Actually, no it isn't. We date the rocks, and that tells us how old the fossils are.

We date rocks on the basis of the decay of radioactive elements in them. We know how much is in various types of rocks when they form, we know at what rate the elements decay. It's not precise, but it's enough to know which rocks and fossils are older than which others, and an order of magnitude on their age.

The scientific method is an interesting concept in that no scientist seems to be able to define it? Disciplines such as astronomy and evolution are not able to use whatever it is because of time and space.

Funny you should mention that, I have a few books on the subject. They disagree over details, but they generally agree.

 

[Ghostisfort]

It is not possible to pick-up a rock and assign a date that is not arbitrary or a convenient invention of scientific consensus.
Rock and fossil dating is a circular process.

Actually, no it isn't. We date the rocks, and that tells us how old the fossils are.

We date rocks on the basis of the decay of radioactive elements in them. We know how much is in various types of rocks when they form, we know at what rate the elements decay. It's not precise, but it's enough to know which rocks and fossils are older than which others, and an order of magnitude on their age.

Maybe, to put all our minds at rest, you could explain:
1. How the age of rocks was determined before the advent of radio dating?
2. How these dates can be proven to be accurate?
3. How on the basis of decay, the radioactive measurements are calibrated to give dates that agree with the method used in number 1.?
4. Why there are a wide range of radiometric dates from such readings and only those close to dates in number 1. are selected?
5. Explain the difference between pristine samples for the measurement of decay in the lab and samples that have been in an ever changing, contaminating environment for billions of years?

 

[Ghostisfort]

Please go into further detail, so that we may know exactly what it is you're talking about.
So you're saying all the real geniuses are on benefits?

No, I did not say they are/were geniuses (can you say geniuses?), I said that they should appear to be geniuses to a sufficient number of people.

I still don't understand.
More detail is required, thank you.

Yes, 'geniuses' is a perfectly valid use of the word. 'Genii' is rarely used (if ever).

It was not intended to be an accurate analogue of things as they are, but just a slightly humorous, tongue-in-cheek caricature of the history of a complex subject.