If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Republic)   Those nerdy scientists have become a bunch of bullies, according to people who believe in telepathy and hate getting criticized   (newrepublic.com) divider line 141
    More: Dumbass, Deepak Chopra, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Kellogg School of Management, Chapman University, telepathy, Jerry Coyne, scientific progress, telomerase  
•       •       •

5064 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2013 at 4:10 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-19 04:13:23 PM
But Sheldrake is respected in his (morphic) field!
 
2013-11-19 04:14:03 PM
Nerds tend to be bully with other nerds. Read any IT thread about a subject. Or just go to Slashdot and read any filtered comment rated below +1. You can see how they speak to one another.

Or I guess just read the random thread on Fark. Same thing.
 
2013-11-19 04:14:09 PM
Truth hurts.
 
2013-11-19 04:14:12 PM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-11-19 04:16:28 PM
images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-11-19 04:16:44 PM
 Every time you eat a chicken or a banana it transforms into a human. ~ Chopra


No.
 
2013-11-19 04:17:39 PM

skinink: Nerds tend to be bully with other nerds. Read any IT thread about a subject. Or just go to Slashdot and read any filtered comment rated below +1. You can see how they speak to one another.

Or I guess just read the random thread on Fark. Same thing.


except when two of them are talking complete idiocy, and the one who's still grounded in reality is called the bully
 
2013-11-19 04:18:06 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Every time you eat a chicken or a banana it transforms into a human. ~ Chopra


No.


Why, that's a rather silly take on Chopra's beliefs.

*reads TFA*

WTF.
 
2013-11-19 04:20:03 PM
Here are a few examples of my recent participation in real science.
...
As a member of the American College of Physicians, I am board certified and maintain licenses in Massachusetts and California.


So you're a human mechanic. Does this make auto-mechanics scientists too?
 
2013-11-19 04:20:34 PM
And of course the comments are filled with people who think their unverifiable beliefs about consciousness are scientific because they put down thick layers of mysterious sounding language.
 
2013-11-19 04:21:07 PM
Also oblig:

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-19 04:22:36 PM
The moon exists in consciousness-no consciousness, no moon-just a sluggishly expanding wave function in a superposition of possibilities. All happens within consciousness and nowhere else.

I bet bong hits with Deepak would be super fun.
 
2013-11-19 04:23:05 PM

impaler: Here are a few examples of my recent participation in real science.
...
As a member of the American College of Physicians, I am board certified and maintain licenses in Massachusetts and California.

So you're a human mechanic. Does this make auto-mechanics scientists too?


Most physicians are not scientists. Many physicians engage in scientific research studies, and all are the practical and artistic application of science, but they are not necessarily scientists.

Maintaining the minimum amount of CEUs necessary to renew your medical license is NOT participating in real science.

Neither is pontificating on word salad from the big science thesaurus.
 
2013-11-19 04:23:56 PM
Guess who's watching Penn & Teller's "Bullshiat!" right now?

/Must have been my ESP knowing this thread was coming up...
 
2013-11-19 04:24:11 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Every time you eat a chicken or a banana it transforms into a human. ~ Chopra


No.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-11-19 04:25:48 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Every time you eat a chicken or a banana it transforms into a human. ~ Chopra


No.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-19 04:26:57 PM

Arkanaut: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Every time you eat a chicken or a banana it transforms into a human. ~ Chopra


No.

Why, that's a rather silly take on Chopra's beliefs.

*reads TFA*

WTF.


I was sort of giving Chopra a pass on his whining, thinking "yanno, it's not good, but at least it's not creationist shiat....until I read that.
 
2013-11-19 04:28:05 PM

berylman: The moon exists in consciousness-no consciousness, no moon-just a sluggishly expanding wave function in a superposition of possibilities. All happens within consciousness and nowhere else.

I bet bong hits with Deepak would be super fun.


Wow.  Dude's so solipsistic he's crawled up his own ass.

/that line of reasoning is a short step away from "if we ignore our problems they'll all go away"
//Chopra hasn't gotten there because he apparently doesn't understand how reasoning works
 
2013-11-19 04:28:30 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Every time you eat a chicken or a banana it transforms into a human. ~ Chopra


No.


At least once when a universe was created from the explosive expansion of an unimaginably dense point of mass, and the as-yet-not-fully-understood particles expelled create atoms, a few of those atoms hung out with the wrong crowd and eventually transformed into a Chopra. ~ Me

The good news is that every atom that became a Chopra has a nonzero chance to later become a banana, and those atoms are unlikely to ever become a part of a Chopra again.  Additionally, if they do become part of a Chopra, they are likely to be part of a different Chopra, and that Chopra will necessarily be less douchey than the original Chopra.~ Also Me

BUY MY BOOK
 
2013-11-19 04:28:55 PM
I am mentally bullying telepaths right now.

Ha! ha!
Stop bullshiating yourself!
Stop bullshiating yourself!
Why are you bullshiating yourself!
 
2013-11-19 04:29:06 PM
cdn.tripwiremagazine.com
 
2013-11-19 04:30:27 PM
All science is pseudo-science at some level.  Your's just happens to be a bit pseudo-ier than some others.
Beyond that, are those your mom's glasses?
 
2013-11-19 04:31:39 PM

impaler: Also oblig:
[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x284]

Tim Minchin


Why not link to one of his songs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg


Also:

i88.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-19 04:32:57 PM
Credentials!  Lots of people have 'em.  Do they make you right?  Ask this guy--he had credentials:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-19 04:35:24 PM

Bondith: berylman: The moon exists in consciousness-no consciousness, no moon-just a sluggishly expanding wave function in a superposition of possibilities. All happens within consciousness and nowhere else.

I bet bong hits with Deepak would be super fun.

Wow.  Dude's so solipsistic he's crawled up his own ass.

/that line of reasoning is a short step away from "if we ignore our problems they'll all go away"
//Chopra hasn't gotten there because he apparently doesn't understand how reasoning works


Well, if you destroy your consciousness, say, with a bullet through the head, all your problems will go away, so maybe Chopra's right.
 
2013-11-19 04:36:22 PM

fickenchucker: Guess who's watching Penn & Teller's "Bullshiat!" right now?

/Must have been my ESP knowing this thread was coming up...


Champions of REAL magicians who openly admit that they are doing magic tricks.  I have the utmost respect for that art form, I've seen magicians do amazing things.  See also:  James Randi, sort of the "old guard" of pseudoscience debunking, and naturally a friend of Penn and Teller.  Famous magicians do tend to know each other, I guess that's natural.
 
2013-11-19 04:37:31 PM
Oh god damnit, it's Chopra.

I think a lot of the problem comes from initial confusion regarding Quantum Mechanics, and what scientists mean when they say 'observe'.

Normal people hear 'observe', and think OH MY GOD! Conciousness itself alters reality! Things don't exist until we see them! WE HAVE SPECIAL POWERS!" (Or, at least, I'm assuming that's how Chopra got started on this bullshiat).

What we MEAN, and what it means in Quantum Mechanics, is basically "The universe interacts with this object in almost any fashion whatsoever, since that could, theoretically, be measured."
 
2013-11-19 04:39:29 PM

fickenchucker: Guess who's watching Penn & Teller's "Bullshiat!" right now?

/Must have been my ESP knowing this thread was coming up...


I lost a huge ammount of respect for that show (And them) when, after someone pointed out they were being intentionally misrepresenting in one episode, they responded along the lines of "HEy, it's just entertainment, it's not meant to inform people!"

/That and they seem to have some sacred cows that they don't, for some reason, investigate on that show.
//Like, say, Libertarianism. Since no one can seem to agree on what that IS, you'd think that would make a wonderful, amusing Bullshiat episode. Yet for some *strange* reason, they never approached it...
 
2013-11-19 04:40:03 PM

The_Philosopher_King: impaler: Also oblig:
[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x284] Tim Minchin


Why not link to one of his songs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg


Also:

[i88.photobucket.com image 600x418]


Funny how people who don't believe in divination are much better prognosticators than those that do.
 
2013-11-19 04:41:34 PM
Felgraf:
What we MEAN, and what it means in Quantum Mechanics, is basically "The universe interacts with this object in almost any fashion whatsoever, since that could, theoretically, be measured."

Can you elaborate a bit on that?  I'm still fairly confused.  My limited understanding, at least when it comes to quantum entanglement, is that at the very moment that either entangled particle is "observed", the probability wave collapses and instantly the two take on opposite states, no matter how far apart they are.  In this context, what does it really mean to "observe" it?  Would a better word to be to "measure" it?

/no tolerance for pseudoscience, but I admit quantum physics is pretty mind boggling.
 
2013-11-19 04:41:51 PM

Rabid Badger Beaver Weasel: Truth hurts.


www.mtv.comwww.futurestyle.orgd3na4zxidw1hr4.cloudfront.netuserserve-ak.last.fm
O RLY?
 
2013-11-19 04:49:14 PM

Felgraf: Oh god damnit, it's Chopra.

I think a lot of the problem comes from initial confusion regarding Quantum Mechanics, and what scientists mean when they say 'observe'.

Normal people hear 'observe', and think OH MY GOD! Conciousness itself alters reality! Things don't exist until we see them! WE HAVE SPECIAL POWERS!" (Or, at least, I'm assuming that's how Chopra got started on this bullshiat).

What we MEAN, and what it means in Quantum Mechanics, is basically "The universe interacts with this object in almost any fashion whatsoever, since that could, theoretically, be measured."


I am reminded of a monologue by retired actress Julia Sweeney. She stated that, after becoming fascinated with the subject of quantum physics specifically due to Mr. Chopra's statements on the subject, she took several quantum physics courses. Amongst the lessons that she learned from those courses were, and this is a direct quote, "Deepak Chopra is full of shiat!"
 
2013-11-19 04:50:42 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Every time you eat a chicken or a banana it transforms into a human. ~ Chopra


No.


2.bp.blogspot.com

agrees.
 
2013-11-19 04:52:16 PM

Felgraf: Oh god damnit, it's Chopra.

I think a lot of the problem comes from initial confusion regarding Quantum Mechanics, and what scientists mean when they say 'observe'.

Normal people hear 'observe', and think OH MY GOD! Conciousness itself alters reality! Things don't exist until we see them! WE HAVE SPECIAL POWERS!" (Or, at least, I'm assuming that's how Chopra got started on this bullshiat).

What we MEAN, and what it means in Quantum Mechanics, is basically "The universe interacts with this object in almost any fashion whatsoever, since that could, theoretically, be measured."


Quantum mechanics is deeply strange, so some people decide that it supports whatever else they happen to believe that is strange.
 
2013-11-19 04:53:34 PM

nekom: Felgraf:
What we MEAN, and what it means in Quantum Mechanics, is basically "The universe interacts with this object in almost any fashion whatsoever, since that could, theoretically, be measured."

Can you elaborate a bit on that?  I'm still fairly confused.  My limited understanding, at least when it comes to quantum entanglement, is that at the very moment that either entangled particle is "observed", the probability wave collapses and instantly the two take on opposite states, no matter how far apart they are.  In this context, what does it really mean to "observe" it?  Would a better word to be to "measure" it?

/no tolerance for pseudoscience, but I admit quantum physics is pretty mind boggling.


I should note: I am not a theorist, graduate quantum mechanics was two years ago, and research is frying my brain, but!

If I recall correctly, what they mean by observed is, literally, *anything hitting it*. That is, after all, how we'd measure it, in theory: By bouncing something off it, or passing it through something with which it would interact (IF it has polarization A, it can't pass through this, but if it has polarization B, it can!). Interacting with *any matter* at all collapses the wave function.

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that Quantum Mechanics is, computationally, kind of a mathematical abstraction. There are some arguments that things aren't actually 'wave forms', but that it's something else in play, but that kind of goes over my head a little.

Do be careful with the 'opposite states' thing: They take on opposite *initial* states. If I take pains to make sure the first paticle I measure is in state A) (By hiting it with something to force it into state A), I do *not* force the other particle into state B)-you cannot make FTL communication by using Quantum Entanglement (Because there is no way to see if a wave form has 'collapsed'.)
 
2013-11-19 04:54:58 PM

Raoul Eaton: Quantum mechanics is deeply strange, so some people decide that it supports whatever else they happen to believe that is strange.


Well, yes, but I really do believe some of it is founded in a misunderstanding. It is VERY EASY to hear "Observed" and think "Holy shiat, a fundamental force of the universe is altered merely by a concious mind looking at it!", and going from there to Quantum mechanics=NEw Age Mysticism is right.
 
2013-11-19 04:56:46 PM
Felgraf:
If I recall correctly, what they mean by observed is, literally, *anything hitting it*. That is, after all, how we'd measure it, in theory: By bouncing something off it, or passing it through something with which it would interact (IF it has polarization A, it can't pass through this, but if it has polarization B, it can!). Interacting with *any matter* at all collapses the wave function.

So in essence, to "measure" it, it is necessary to force it to interact with something, and that interaction rather than the "observation" collapses the wave?  That makes sense.  So the answer to "ZOMG how does it KNOW you measured it?" is really "It doesn't." then?
 
2013-11-19 04:59:54 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Every time you eat a chicken or a banana it transforms into a human. ~ Chopra


No.


And poop.  It turns into a human and poop.
 
2013-11-19 05:01:52 PM
Consciousness? I care not for it. It's unconsciousness I crave. Where's my martini. Plus, quantum physics makes brain matter shoot out of my ears.
 
2013-11-19 05:03:13 PM
Photons do not have consciousness, nature does not have a mind, the moon is there whether humans see it or not, and intelligence is not inherent in nature, but a product of naturalistic evolution.

I, too, tend to agree with this, but technically he doesn't know these things so he shouldn't say them so definitively or absolutely. He should say, "There is absolutely no credible evidence that..."
 
2013-11-19 05:05:22 PM

nekom: Felgraf:
If I recall correctly, what they mean by observed is, literally, *anything hitting it*. That is, after all, how we'd measure it, in theory: By bouncing something off it, or passing it through something with which it would interact (IF it has polarization A, it can't pass through this, but if it has polarization B, it can!). Interacting with *any matter* at all collapses the wave function.

So in essence, to "measure" it, it is necessary to force it to interact with something, and that interaction rather than the "observation" collapses the wave?  That makes sense.  So the answer to "ZOMG how does it KNOW you measured it?" is really "It doesn't." then?


Exactly right! You've got it, I think. =)
And I suspect the reason we just call it 'observation' when teaching it is because it is easier to say "When it is observed" (since they assume other scientists know what they mean) then to say "When anything interacts with this for any reason whatsoever'."
 
2013-11-19 05:06:37 PM

jigger: Photons do not have consciousness, nature does not have a mind, the moon is there whether humans see it or not, and intelligence is not inherent in nature, but a product of naturalistic evolution.

I, too, tend to agree with this, but technically he doesn't know these things so he shouldn't say them so definitively or absolutely. He should say, "There is absolutely no credible evidence that..."


It's hard to blame people, though, sometimes.  Who needs psychics when the universe itself is so freaking weird?  I mean, there was a time that people didn't understand what stars, comets, planets, etc were and assumed them to be spirits or whatever else.  One can hardly blame them for believing that, as they had no proper explanation for them.  So this completely freaking BIZARRO stuff starts getting discovered, quantum entanglement, black holes, superfluid helium, etc. and even some relatively smart people are going to see theological implications.
 
2013-11-19 05:08:48 PM
Felgraf:
Exactly right! You've got it, I think. =)
And I suspect the reason we just call it 'observation' when teaching it is because it is easier to say "When it is observed" (since they assume other scientists know what they mean) then to say "When anything interacts with this for any reason whatsoever'."


Thanks for clearing that up, though I'm still blown away by that.  I mean, in theory information IS still breaching the speed of light.  Unless it isn't.  Again, who needs bullshiat when real science is so mind boggling?
 
2013-11-19 05:09:11 PM
yes, observation in the quantum world means "interaction" and it certainly doesn't mean consciousness. however, that interaction doesn't seem to occur when a particle is "hit", it seems to occur when the particle that bounces off of the targeted particle is measured, however it is measured.

that's my understanding of it.
 
2013-11-19 05:10:16 PM

nekom: jigger: Photons do not have consciousness, nature does not have a mind, the moon is there whether humans see it or not, and intelligence is not inherent in nature, but a product of naturalistic evolution.

I, too, tend to agree with this, but technically he doesn't know these things so he shouldn't say them so definitively or absolutely. He should say, "There is absolutely no credible evidence that..."

It's hard to blame people, though, sometimes.  Who needs psychics when the universe itself is so freaking weird?  I mean, there was a time that people didn't understand what stars, comets, planets, etc were and assumed them to be spirits or whatever else.  One can hardly blame them for believing that, as they had no proper explanation for them.  So this completely freaking BIZARRO stuff starts getting discovered, quantum entanglement, black holes, superfluid helium, etc. and even some relatively smart people are going to see theological implications.


But I was saying that Coyne doesn't know if photons have consciousness or not. They sure don't look like they do and so far nothing even suggests that they possibly could, but to say that you know absolutely that they do not is incorrect. It's also not, dare I say, scientific.
 
2013-11-19 05:11:20 PM
Nerdy bullies?

www.smbc-comics.com
 
2013-11-19 05:12:17 PM

nekom: Felgraf:
Exactly right! You've got it, I think. =)
And I suspect the reason we just call it 'observation' when teaching it is because it is easier to say "When it is observed" (since they assume other scientists know what they mean) then to say "When anything interacts with this for any reason whatsoever'."

Thanks for clearing that up, though I'm still blown away by that.  I mean, in theory information IS still breaching the speed of light.  Unless it isn't.  Again, who needs bullshiat when real science is so mind boggling?


the information itself is "non-local' they say.. but the ability to tell anything meaningful from that information must include information that can only travel at the speed of light, so whether anything is or isn't "transmitted", it won't ever matter to us.

it's like rolling two dice and having that result "pop up" on both sides instantly.. but until you communicate what that result is - and you can only do that classically - at light speed - you'll never be able to tell that the two were the same number or different.

/again that's what I understand
 
2013-11-19 05:12:22 PM
jigger:
But I was saying that Coyne doesn't know if photons have consciousness or not. They sure don't look like they do and so far nothing even suggests that they possibly could, but to say that you know absolutely that they do not is incorrect. It's also not, dare I say, scientific.

I'm not 100% positive, but I THINK this is from Sagan's dragon in the garage example, the wording would be something like "Unless and until there is evidence to the contrary to review, I'm tentatively dismissing this."  Or as James Randi often says "It doesn't seem very likely to be true."  So yes, I agree with you fully on that.
 
2013-11-19 05:12:38 PM

Dimensio: Felgraf: Oh god damnit, it's Chopra.

I think a lot of the problem comes from initial confusion regarding Quantum Mechanics, and what scientists mean when they say 'observe'.

Normal people hear 'observe', and think OH MY GOD! Conciousness itself alters reality! Things don't exist until we see them! WE HAVE SPECIAL POWERS!" (Or, at least, I'm assuming that's how Chopra got started on this bullshiat).

What we MEAN, and what it means in Quantum Mechanics, is basically "The universe interacts with this object in almost any fashion whatsoever, since that could, theoretically, be measured."

I am reminded of a monologue by retired actress Julia Sweeney. She stated that, after becoming fascinated with the subject of quantum physics specifically due to Mr. Chopra's statements on the subject, she took several quantum physics courses. Amongst the lessons that she learned from those courses were, and this is a direct quote, "Deepak Chopra is full of shiat!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5-mLoeNxn0
 
2013-11-19 05:13:03 PM

nekom: Felgraf:
Exactly right! You've got it, I think. =)
And I suspect the reason we just call it 'observation' when teaching it is because it is easier to say "When it is observed" (since they assume other scientists know what they mean) then to say "When anything interacts with this for any reason whatsoever'."

Thanks for clearing that up, though I'm still blown away by that.  I mean, in theory information IS still breaching the speed of light.  Unless it isn't.  Again, who needs bullshiat when real science is so mind boggling?


Well, it's not, because A) You can't actually transmit information by it (You can't tell whether or not a wave form has collapsed, if I remember right), and *Fiddling* with particle A doesn't fiddle with particle B.

But it is flipping WEIRD, I agree.

sobriquet by any other name: yes, observation in the quantum world means "interaction" and it certainly doesn't mean consciousness. however, that interaction doesn't seem to occur when a particle is "hit", it seems to occur when the particle that bounces off of the targeted particle is measured, however it is measured.

that's my understanding of it.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that's wrong. And that *would* actually imply conciousness, or at least 'life' since it has to be some form of being which does the 'measuring', whether it's a plant reacting to the photon by photosynthesizing, or a human pissed off that they can't get the @#%@#^#@$ beam for their optical setup to align properly.
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report