• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Why 'New Science' Convinces Some People

KarlD

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 6, 2009
Messages
307
I was thinking today about why some people get taken in by what i would call charlatans peddling their new science stuff about zero point energy and anti gravity pills and so on and i think part of the problem is that the supporters don't seem to understand that any scientific theory has to be falsifiable, there has to be some experiment that you can do which would if it didn't give the reults predicted would invalidate the theory.Most new science does not fall into the trap of providing testable predictions so they get away with making ridiculous claims.
Thats my thought for today anyway :D
 
KarlD said:
Most new science does not fall into the trap of providing testable predictions so they get away with making ridiculous claims.
Thats my thought for today anyway :D
A bit of a sweeping statement, wouldn't you say?

Unless you're claiming that "most new science" is concerned with anti-gravity pills and zero-point energy - in which case, I'd say you're reading the wrong magazines.
 
Actually zero point energy is a testable concept, there's the Casmir effect for example

What's dodgy is the claims that devices have been built can utilize zero point energy to actually do work - it's because people don't understand the science that the perpetual motion machine builders manage to fool investors time and time again.
 
I was listening to coast to coast the other day which had an interview with a guy who was working with Einstein theories and such, anyway, his claim was that we're all made up of dots, which equal out to infinity, meaning we're all apart of the " source "

hehehe :p just figured I'd share, there was a website given but I never wrote the URL down :(
 
there has to be some experiment that you can do which would if it didn't give the reults predicted would invalidate the theory

what about astronomy? most of that is theoretical, because we can't test most of it. Even most lab tests are just representations.
 
LaurenChurchill said:
there has to be some experiment that you can do which would if it didn't give the reults predicted would invalidate the theory

what about astronomy? most of that is theoretical, because we can't test most of it. Even most lab tests are just representations.

I think the two most difficult fields to develop any theory about whats happening are biology and astronomy because they both present difficult test subjects, but with astronomy the theories are based on fiarly sound basic scientific ideas which have been experimantaly tested.

Maybe i have been reading the wrong magazines because all the ones i read go on about megnetic water and so on.
 
KarlD said:
Maybe i have been reading the wrong magazines because all the ones i read go on about megnetic water and so on.

Stop reading Nexus! :)
 
It´s not just the falsifiability. Most people don´t understand the basics of the scientific method.
 
You may have noticed I like silly puzzles and stuff so here is a good one connected to scientific method:
I have a rather strange pack of playing cards one side is an ordinary card the other has a number on it, I have this theory that number cards Ace to ten have an even number on the back, and 'royal' cards Jack, King, queen hve an odd number on the back, I draw 4 cards one with a 2 on the back, one with a 3 on the back,a jack and a queen, how many draw cards do I have to examine to prove my theory?
 
Real Water – with added electrons!
The makers of Real Water say tap water is 'damaged'.
Rebecca Hill asked a chemist and nutritionist what they made of the claim

"Did you know that most of the water you're drinking every day may actually be damaging your health?"
This is the bold claim made by Nevada-based Affinity Lifestyles. Fortunately, they have the solution: Real WaterTM with E2 technology.

The Real Water website describes how the water we drink – from the water I have in my glass right now, to the water you made your cup of tea with this morning – has been "damaged".

In an attempt to blind the reader with science, there are reams of misplaced claims and pseudo-facts. Take the claim that "many food and beverages ... are devoid of electrons" – which would make it an entirely new state of matter. :shock:

Real Water doesn't appear to be a hoax or the work of Chris Morris and co. I've had confirmation from a US store that they stock the product and I have got as close to buying a 24-pack of Real Water ($36 + p&p) as is possible without comitting my credit card details.

There are too many dubious scientific claims to cover in one post, but here are the best (or worst) bits.

Acidic, unhealthy water
According to the company "most of the water we drink is very acidic ... many nutritionists believe that most diseases flourish and grow rapidly in an acidic environment."

Acidity is measured on the pH scale, with 7 classed as neutral and anything lower being acidic (caused by hydrogen ions, H+); anything higher being alkaline (caused by hydroxide ions, OH-).
In fact, tap water is very slightly acidic because small amounts of carbon dioxide in the air dissolve in it.

"The lowest possible pH of carbonated water is around 5," says Professor Stephen Fletcher, a researcher in the department of chemistry at Loughborough University. "There is a thousand times more acidity in the vinegar you put on your chips. So the pH (acidity) of tap water is not dangerous at all."

Nutritionist Sue Baic agrees: "Normal tap water is perfectly healthy. In the UK the Drinking Water Inspectorate carefully monitors the chemical and microbiological safety of our water."

Clumpy free radicals
The makers of Real Water claim that during its journey through various pipes, filters and other treatment systems normal water is "stripped of its electrons", causing them to "clump", which prevents them from hydrating our cells. Even worse, the water molecules are now "basically free radicals ... [which] literally zap or pull away life force from the cell." :roll:

Professor Fletcher says: "Water molecules do not act as free radicals, do not form permanent 'clumps', and are not damaged by pipes. Free radicals are very nasty and short-lived chemicals that contain what chemists call an 'unpaired electron'. The acid component of water (called a hydrogen ion) emphatically does not have an unpaired electron. In fact, it has no electrons at all."

Electron Energized technology
The E2, or Electron Energized, technology supposedly "adds hundreds of millions of free electrons" to "unclump" the water and give it an alkaline pH.

Professor Fletcher takes issue with the claim that the water was positively charged in the first place: "Water is always charge-balanced due to a scientific principle called 'electroneutrality'. It follows that the E2 technology cannot add 'hundreds of millions of free electrons' to anything, no matter how it works."

I asked Real Water about the treatment, but public information officer Xzavia Ross said: "Our process is proprietary so there really is no way we can disclose the process by which we add electrons to the water." 8)

Scientific evidence
Upon clicking the tantalisingly labeled Science Articles tab you're directed to a page with the message: "Coming Soon". What a disappointment. Nevertheless, I asked the company for more information.

Ross said: "Since you have familiarised yourself with our website you should know that ... the pH test is a wonderful indicator with scientific evidence of alkalinity."

There's no arguing with that – it is indeed a very common and reliable indicator of acidity and alkalinity. What it isn't is an indicator of whether this acidity damages our health.

Ross suggests I refer to five "articles and books [that] are all evidence to back up the claims about the detrimental effects of normal water on humans versus alkaline".

While I didn't have time to read them all, one of their recommended reads, the You are Not Sick, You Are Thirsty! series of books seems to be extolling the virtues of ordinary water. Author Dr F Batmanghelidj's website even has a link to an old New York Times article documenting his discovery that stomach ulcers could be treated with water alone.
This doesn't sound like a damning indictment of water to me.

On the one hand this is an amusing read, leaving you astonished at the amount of tripe you can find online. On the other, this is a real company, making real sales at the expense of those who believe their outlandish claims. In an age when people are increasingly worried about their health, perhaps the most beneficial thing to take in large doses is scepticism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/ ... -electrons

Bet they've got a nice sideline in snake oil! ;)
 
Actually zero point energy is a testable concept, there's the Casmir effect for example
What's dodgy is the claims that devices have been built can utilize zero point energy to actually do work - it's because people don't understand the science that the perpetual motion machine builders manage to fool investors time and time again.
The thing we all need most is a clean and cheap energy system and I don't see the mainstream doing anything about it. For myself, this makes it interesting particularly when someone says they have an answer.
Zero point is a pretty meaningless term when it comes to energy generation.
Can anyone explain what tapping the zero point actually means and how this could be achieved?
 
it's because people don't understand the science that the perpetual motion machine builders manage to fool investors time and time again.
I've noticed that scientists who have their own web pages invariably include a page on perpetual motion. There is this one for example - more on request.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/home.htm
The problem I have with these is that it's patently (forgive the pun) obvious why these devices don't work. For example: the over-balancing wheel has to drag the full weight of the whole wheel whatever happens inside.
Now, when we come to more complex issues like that of the John Keely page on the same website, I found several mistakes that were quite obvious to me, but not to the professor. In fact I had done some research on Keely out of interest some time before I came upon his web page.
I wrote to the professor and he did change some of what he had written, but the overall direction remains the same.
I can only assume that showing pathetic attempts at perpetual motion engenders a mindset that rejects anything that is not given the seal of approval by such as Donald Simanek. I'm not sure that this is science and I find it a little sad. I find it sad because most of those who read his pages are science students and none of them seem to have bothered to check his conclusions.
BTW: I found Donald to be an obliging kind of a guy who did his best to answer my questions.
 
Ghostisfort said:
it's because people don't understand the science that the perpetual motion machine builders manage to fool investors time and time again.
I've noticed that scientists who have their own web pages invariably include a page on perpetual motion. There is this one for example - more on request.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/home.htm
Thanks for posting that. The Energy Sucker was new to me, but interesting because it depends on optical properties that I know about. The reason it doens't work is basically because not all the rays focus as the 'perpetrator' alleges! (There's a certain parallel with the way 'orbs' are sometimes formed on compact camera photographs - but I've said enough on that elsewhere! ;) )
 
I was thinking today about why some people get taken in by what I would call charlatans peddling their new science stuff...
New science fails to get a fair hearing these days.
The best example I can think of - something that fits well with this thread is the Science Fair Motor. This was well publicised at the time, but has failed to receive any serious discussion let alone research. http://www.eternaltruth.net/Science/Cal ... -09-00.htm

I built one of these myself and it looked much like the one in the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTSBH26gDiQ

It's certainly new science and it is very efficient although I'm not sure about it being free energy. Anyone above ten years old can build one of these and do some experiments as I did. I found it works best without the transistor. I used a magnetic operated contact from an old bell.
Happy New Sciencing.
 
While I understand the fascination with perpetual motion, and that it is some sort of holy grail... I would be more than happy with "Almost but not quite perpetual motion". Rather than "free energy", I`d prefer them to focus on developing "very efficient energy"...

Speaking of new science though - I always find high end audio magazines a wonderful source of it. :D
 
Speaking of new science though - I always find high end audio magazines a wonderful source of it.
I think you will find that this is classified as technology, not science?

The point of Wally Minto's Wonder Wheel is that its not perpetual motion, it's driven by the sun. It just looks like a PM machine.
 
Tamyu may be referring to the pseudoscience that allows audiophile companies to sell speaker cables at an incredibly high price.
 
Tamyu may be referring to the pseudoscience that allows audiophile companies to sell speaker cables at an incredibly high price.
LCD flat screens and replacement power supplies are also overpriced. Every advertiser uses the word science to give credence to their product. In most instances little or no science is involved.
Our education, the media and government all use science in this way.
Everything has to be seen as scientifically rational or it has no value.
 
Somewhere around here I have a saved clipping from an audiophile magazine advertising speaker cables... Explaining how they have run the wires through the fingers of virgins who drank nothing but magnetized iron-enriched water for a day before - and detailing with many charts and figures how this has changed the acoustic properties. There are similar claims for the other materials used (though I can`t recall them at the moment.)

I have seen advertisements for cables that supposedly generate their own power from the acoustic signature of the music being played through them.

This does not say "technology" to me - it says pseudoscience. I find it fascinating.
 
Ghostisfort said:
Everything has to be seen as scientifically rational or it has no value.

Not everything...?

Aside from that, what's often used is 'science-like' jargon or phrasing. Adverts for skincare products do this alot, both with what they call their compouds/ingredients and in describing how it all 'works'.
 
I have developed a deep and lasting affection for the Irish people, because Dermot O'Logical tests everything in my bathroom.
Not everything...?
OK, I see a trend
This does not say "technology" to me - it says pseudoscience. I find it fascinating.
I find the word pseudoscience fascinating - 'something that pretends to be science'. We would need to define science? Nit picking, I know!
Do we use Fort's definition on this board?
 
Back
Top