David Icke and the shape-shifting lizards

[Guido]

For offbet idea - that book I recommended is billiant. I think Luke likes it too.

[Haffner]

Haffner - that is very interesting. But as history has shown us again an again, religion has been in most cases wrong when trying to explain scientific phenomena. "Oh look something unexpected happened, that we can't explain. Therefore: God" I'm not ruling out the possibility that this is supernatural, but I'm not willing to say that it probably is, without a furthur rigorous investigation first.

I understand and respect your post. Thank you for being so fair, to me it paints you in a very favourable light.

[Sean]

Guido

From your words I think you're trying to say that the present scientific paradigm is the same thing as the scientific method. Many cranks out there however are very interested in the scientific method and proving their hypotheses- and becoming no longer cranks. Indeed we can't waste too much time with endless theories that are too wild and unprovable of course, but only because it's impractical to do this, not necessarily because they're 'unscientific'.

Regarding Nietzsche and why we should want truth, well he was a misguided relativist as I understand him, whereas I certainly believe in a transcendental reality or truth: there are long standing philosophical problems with truth but his reduction of it to a personal desire for recognition from others or issues of status from cleverness etc is just too much. Truth is the very basis of our lives and the reality around us.

By the way Kuhn (or was it Popper) also criticizes the scientific method that we both praise in respect of the initial selection of the hypothesis to test for: there's nothing in our observations per se that dictates what to look for- we chose that, and go on to build wider theories on our results, but there could be all sorts of other things we never thought to look for that could have changed the model. This really stayed with me.

The example given was the perturbations of Uranus, suggesting there was another planet- which was duly looked for and finally found. But later it emerged that the calculations were wrong and either there was no perturbation or Neptune had nothing to do with it: we just decided to look for something and kept on and on looking till we finally found something, and satisfied ourselves that our wider theories were right.

[Sean]

Hi marazm1, nice link. I've had a browse through that book and though much/ all of it is probably nonesense,  I was surprised at how well written and researched it actually seems to be; he's also quite a good speaker...

[Guido]

Are you talking about the book I suggested? You can easily test these things for yourself.

[Guido]

Many cranks out there however are very interested in the scientific method and proving their hypotheses- and becoming no longer cranks. Indeed we can't waste too much time with endless theories that are too wild and unprovable of course, but only because it's impractical to do this, not necessarily because they're 'unscientific'.

To whom are you referring specifically? I think there is a danger of using 'scientific method' on things to dress them up as more than they can hope to really to say. It makes things sound more convincing in our culture. But who was it who says extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

By the way Kuhn (or was it Popper) also criticizes the scientific method that we both praise in respect of the initial selection of the hypothesis to test for: there's nothing in our observations per se that dictates what to look for- we chose that, and go on to build wider theories on our results, but there could be all sorts of other things we never thought to look for that could have changed the model. This really stayed with me.

This is a very interesting point.

[Sean]

Guido, pal

I detect a definite tone of conservativism in you- you'll make a good physicist no doubt.

Also I used to be really into cosmology and came across a researcher, sorry forget the name but could find out, who questioned the red-shift theory of intergalactic distance determination. He worked with statistics and highlighted photos of high red-shifted objects visibly interacting with lower shifted ones- ie the line-of-sight explanation being clearly wrong.

He put up with a tonne of scorn, but published a book, which I bought and read avidly.

Similar thing with Fred Hoyle and his far out theories but which again make you think.

[Guido]

No - giving that crap up. Geology for me . Politically I am far from conservatism, but I don't think that's what you mean here. How do you mean conservative?

Also I used to be really into cosmology and came across a researcher, sorry forget the name but could find out, who questioned the red-shift theory of intergalactic distance determination. He worked with statistics and highlighted photos of high red-shifted objects visibly interacting with lower shifted ones- ie the line-of-sight explanation being clearly wrong.

He put up with a tonne of scorn, but published a book, which I bought and read avidly.

That sounds very interesting. What was the book called?

[Tancata]

By the way Kuhn (or was it Popper) also criticizes the scientific method that we both praise in respect of the initial selection of the hypothesis to test for: there's nothing in our observations per se that dictates what to look for- we chose that, and go on to build wider theories on our results, but there could be all sorts of other things we never thought to look for that could have changed the model. This really stayed with me.

Sorry to butt in, I just thought I'd comment on this (no doubt in a deeply conservative  way).

Hypotheses don't just come from nowhere - they are aimed at explaining a set observations, and to even be runners at all, they have to be consistent with all available observations.

The hypothesis then has to withstand repeated attempts to falsify it. If it survives enough of these, it becomes a theory.

Now it's true, of course, that various factors will influence the kinds of things that get investigated. For instance, scientists will put a lot more time into curing diseases which affect the rich countries, &c &c.

BUT, this fact does not alter the validity of theories produced by the scientific method. The idea of building ever bigger theories on insecure foundations is misleading. If this happens, it will get caught fairly quickly, because the new hypotheses being created will not fit the data.

[Sean]

That sounds very interesting. What was the book called?

I found it- Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies by Halton C. Arp

Amazon synopsis
For twenty years, the author has contested the 'establishment' view of quasars as the most distant objects in the universe. In this book, Arp presents the original observations and fundamental data on quasars and galaxies, and explains why he has concluded that: far from being the most distant objects in the universe, quasars are associated in space with relatively nearby galaxies; quasars' enormous redshifts do not arise from the expansion of the universe, but rather are intrinsic properties of the quasars themselves; many galaxies show redshift anomalies related to quasars' redshifts; quasars and galaxies have an origin far different from that assumed in the 'standard' big-bang model of the universe; many astronomers, despite the accumulation of compelling evidence, defend what Arp believes is a fundamentally incorrect assumption about cosmic objects.

[Sean]

Tancata, I think you missed the point-

Hypotheses don't just come from nowhere - they are aimed at explaining a set observations, and to even be runners at all, they have to be consistent with all available observations.

Yes but which observations are being chosen to explain?

BUT, this fact does not alter the validity of theories produced by the scientific method. The idea of building ever bigger theories on insecure foundations is misleading.

I didn't say it alters theories' validity. I said, or implied, that it is not given which theories should be advanced in the first place. We are the blind in the dark. We may be able to say something about a highly specific thing, but the wider picture would seem forever beyond us.

[Tancata]

Yes but which observations are being chosen to explain?

Well, I suppose that's true. Only revelation or quackery has all the answers.

I didn't say it alters theories' validity.

That's not true - you said other things that weren't considered could "change the model"  .

We are the blind in the dark. We may be able to say something about a highly specific thing, but the wider picture would seem forever beyond us.

Compared to the centuries of ignorance that went before, I think we're doing OK.  Just think about all the amazing stuff we know today which we didn't know 100 years ago. Vital stuff in every field of science.

[BachQ]

I am a firm believer that most people believe what they want to believe regardless of any evidence to the contrary, because facing up to the truth is to painful and scary.

I believe you! ......

[knight66]

I am impressed that you thought about this so deeply before you replied.

Mike

[jwinter]

Hey D, are you trying to bump every wacky thread Sean ever started today?  Dude, you gotta chill, this much sheer nonsense needs to be spread out over time.  It's like fine wine -- a sip now and then is fine, but too much at once might cause us to lose our minds.  You do know that we have small and puny minds, don't you?... 

[BachQ]

Hey D, are you trying to bump every wacky thread Sean ever started today?  *** too much at once might cause us to lose our minds. 

LOL ...... I hear ya!      Lemme know if 2 threads/day is excessive ....... We wouldn't want to send too many GMGer's to the psych ward ....... 

[Hector]

Excuse me. It is the US that seems obsessed with the idea they have been abducted by aliens and I have never even met anyone in this country who gives David Ike credence for his seeming beliefs.

Now, see proof positive, I rest my case....


"And in other news, 67% of Democrats and 98% of Libertarians report being abducted by space aliens. 54% reported "grey" aliens, 42% reported "reptilian" aliens, and 4% were too traumatized to remember. 89% of all Democrats abducted remember being probed in one or more orifices."

Exactly, but is he any dafter than Scientology, I ask myself?

They could prop each other up in the Fantasy section of any library or bookshop.

Now, on to more serious questions: how many angels can you get on the head of a pin?