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  
•       •       •

5072 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2013 at 4:10 PM (40 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 05:14:19 PM

Felgraf: 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.


you took the word "measure" to mean life form, and that is not right - it can be "measured" by interacting with a third particle - that particle then bears the result.

Measurement in no way implies consciousness.
 
2013-11-19 05:14:50 PM
I'm trying to wrap my mind around this, give someone a view from 1 expert (doctor, scientist, etc..) and they go okay makes sense, give them 10 in agreement and they go now they must be sure. Give them 100 in agreement and they buy it even more, give them 99 in agreement and 1 disagreeing and some David and Goliath complex kicks in and some sector will gravitate to the 1 since they must hold some truth the other 99 want to hide. Turn those 99 into a monolithic group via a big scary name, Medical Establishment, Big Pharma, etc... and now you have removed the fact it is still made up of a group of people who all have individual identities and have reached a shared consensus and now that rogue one is some sort of saint trying to save us all.

For some reason this is happening with global warming, vaccinations, and new age medicine. I would love to believe that we have moved beyond such snake oil salesmen tactics but as the pool of knowledge has grown people have become convinced that new knowledge is dangerous and there is some old knowledge that is better but we have forgotten in, old stuff worked fine and that 1 rogue will grab on to that and claim some ancient mojo. It's just upsetting that we have so much willful ignorance in your society and people that even worse are proud of their ignorance.
 
2013-11-19 05:16:01 PM

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


No.


If you eat a banana phone does it turn into a human/banana/phone hybrid?
 
2013-11-19 05:16:37 PM
Weird? It would be weird if thingies smaller than light behaved like big things
 
2013-11-19 05:18:29 PM

Felgraf: 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.


Yes, it is easy, and this is the first time I've seen the confusion articulated so nicely and simply in lay terms.  Thanks.

FWIW, I got interested in QM coming at it from the woo end, based on just the confusion you describe.  (I think the book was Dancing Wu Li Masters.)  That got me interested in the science, then I started reading books by scientists and realized the woo wasn't part of the science, and I've since dropped my interest in woo.
 
2013-11-19 05:19:39 PM

Felgraf: 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'."


Do electrons inside of an atom interact with the protons in the nucleus?
 
2013-11-19 05:26:31 PM
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear anyone over the whining toddler in the first three paragraphs of that article.
 
2013-11-19 05:28:39 PM

mike_d85: 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.


This is now a poop thread.

aisforawkward.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-19 05:29:19 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.


Scientists are some of the most condescending, manipulative assholes I've ever met when it comes to a theory they don't like. Even my anthro teacher got in on that game once talking about a theorist he didn't think was reputable. It drives me up a wall. Professionalism is actually something I tend to expect from people with degrees.
 
2013-11-19 05:30:45 PM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

...is being bullied by pseudoscientists.

/obscure?
 
2013-11-19 05:37:01 PM

PsiChick: Professionalism is actually something I tend to expect from people with degrees.


The problem with your statement is that not all hypotheses and not all layperson theories are reasonable or should even be treated with respect or consideration. Depak Chopra falls into the later.

The man basically takes a Scientific Thesaurus and throws together pseudo-philosophical thought which he tries to make sound technobabbly.

Depak Chopra is the medical version of the Rockwell Automation Retroencabulator.
 
2013-11-19 05:42:46 PM

hardinparamedic: PsiChick: Professionalism is actually something I tend to expect from people with degrees.

The problem with your statement is that not all hypotheses and not all layperson theories are reasonable or should even be treated with respect or consideration. Depak Chopra falls into the later.

The man basically takes a Scientific Thesaurus and throws together pseudo-philosophical thought which he tries to make sound technobabbly.

Depak Chopra is the medical version of the Rockwell Automation Retroencabulator.


Ever hear of this guy? I don't have my bookmarks, so it's a shiatty article, but this guy was basically harassed nonstop because of his theory. When they're doing that to their own, yes, there's something wrong.
 
2013-11-19 05:46:10 PM

PsiChick: 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.

Scientists are some of the most condescending, manipulative assholes I've ever met when it comes to a theory they don't like. Even my anthro teacher got in on that game once talking about a theorist he didn't think was reputable. It drives me up a wall. Professionalism is actually something I tend to expect from people with degrees.


Anthropology is a field where the "soft" and "hard" sciences conmingle more than is common elsewhere. This makes many of those with a stronger "hard" science background rather protective of their credibility, and many of those whose background is closer to the traditional humanities very defensive about theirs.
 
2013-11-19 05:48:32 PM

hardinparamedic: Depak Chopra is the medical version of the Rockwell Automation Retroencabulator.


Nailed it.

The phrase I was going to use was, "not even wrong."
 
2013-11-19 05:52:06 PM

RevCarter: PsiChick: 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.

Scientists are some of the most condescending, manipulative assholes I've ever met when it comes to a theory they don't like. Even my anthro teacher got in on that game once talking about a theorist he didn't think was reputable. It drives me up a wall. Professionalism is actually something I tend to expect from people with degrees.

Anthropology is a field where the "soft" and "hard" sciences conmingle more than is common elsewhere. This makes many of those with a stronger "hard" science background rather protective of their credibility, and many of those whose background is closer to the traditional humanities very defensive about theirs.


As I provided a link to point out, it's not soft v. hard sciences. It's all of 'em.
 
2013-11-19 05:52:44 PM

PsiChick: Ever hear of this guy? I don't have my bookmarks, so it's a shiatty article, but this guy was basically harassed nonstop because of his theory. When they're doing that to their own, yes, there's something wrong.


Galileo Gambit.
 
2013-11-19 05:59:14 PM

hardinparamedic: PsiChick: Ever hear of this guy? I don't have my bookmarks, so it's a shiatty article, but this guy was basically harassed nonstop because of his theory. When they're doing that to their own, yes, there's something wrong.

Galileo Gambit.


Not unusual. Same happened to  Warren and Marshall when they proved certain stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria.
 
2013-11-19 06:03:46 PM
So, anybody else think the word "bully" has now been beaten into uselessness through overuse?
 
2013-11-19 06:06:29 PM

simplicimus: Not unusual.


Actually it is unusual, as it only happens to those with extraordinary claims, which are by definition unusual.

Notice how all these people that "science thought were wrong" were awarded the Nobel Prize? Awarded by scientists too - go figure, they're not only assholes, they hypocrites too!

And if you lack basic logic skills, this clearly means that scientist's criticism of Chopra probably means he's right.
 
2013-11-19 06:06:48 PM

simplicimus: Not unusual. Same happened to  Warren and Marshall when they proved certain stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria.


It's not enough to be made fun of for your belief. You also have to be right.
 
2013-11-19 06:09:42 PM

PsiChick: 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.

Scientists are some of the most condescending, manipulative assholes I've ever met when it comes to a theory they don't like. Even my anthro teacher got in on that game once talking about a theorist he didn't think was reputable. It drives me up a wall. Professionalism is actually something I tend to expect from people with degrees.


It's hard to humor fools. It's a difficult thing to sit there and attempt to maintain a professional distance when some moron decides that Darwinism is "outmoded" or that photons are conscious, and, more to the point, decides that his unobservable, untestable drivel of a hypothesis is just as valid as the observed and tested theories already in place. Yes, scientists should be perhaps a bit more tactful & circumspect when dealing with fools, but, let's face it, when you have a fool with deep pockets and a large following, like Chopra, undermining real science, it's hard to remain professionally distant.
 
2013-11-19 06:10:24 PM

hardinparamedic: Galileo Gambit.


No, I'm not claiming  anyone is right or wrong (although, as anyone who knows me can guess, yes, I fall on the psychics-are-just-people-with-a-group-of-symptoms side). I'm saying 'don't be a douchebag'. There's a difference.
 
2013-11-19 06:12:33 PM

FormlessOne: PsiChick: 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.

Scientists are some of the most condescending, manipulative assholes I've ever met when it comes to a theory they don't like. Even my anthro teacher got in on that game once talking about a theorist he didn't think was reputable. It drives me up a wall. Professionalism is actually something I tend to expect from people with degrees.

It's hard to humor fools. It's a difficult thing to sit there and attempt to maintain a professional distance when some moron decides that Darwinism is "outmoded" or that photons are conscious, and, more to the point, decides that his unobservable, untestable drivel of a hypothesis is just as valid as the observed and tested theories already in place. Yes, scientists should be perhaps a bit more tactful & circumspect when dealing with fools, but, let's face it, when you have a fool with deep pockets and a large following, like Chopra, undermining real science, it's hard to remain professionally distant.


So say 'no, this is not supported by evidence' and move on. Harassing people is not okay.
 
2013-11-19 06:13:14 PM

impaler: simplicimus: Not unusual.

Actually it is unusual, as it only happens to those with extraordinary claims, which are by definition unusual.

Notice how all these people that "science thought were wrong" were awarded the Nobel Prize? Awarded by scientists too - go figure, they're not only assholes, they hypocrites too!

And if you lack basic logic skills, this clearly means that scientist's criticism of Chopra probably means he's right.


I never said science doesn't respond to new concepts, just that sometimes the road can be difficult. And Chopra is just a can man selling books and lecture tours.
 
2013-11-19 06:15:28 PM

PsiChick: I'm saying 'don't be a douchebag


To go along with what I said, PsiChick,not everyone is worthy of being nice to, either. Typically, what happens when someone criticisms someone, such as Chopra, Mercola, Adams, et all, all of their followers come out of the woodwork to attack and harass someone for doing so. This has been taken to terrifying extremes by people who have contacted the critics' employers and accused them of things like falsifying their research, or molesting children (escalating quickly)

These people are total assholes who adopt the same tactics they criticize "mainstream science" for using, and then claim that because they're fighting for the TruthTM (Only revealed by paying 19.99 for my new book), it's all okay.
 
2013-11-19 06:23:27 PM

hardinparamedic: PsiChick: I'm saying 'don't be a douchebag

To go along with what I said, PsiChick,not everyone is worthy of being nice to, either. Typically, what happens when someone criticisms someone, such as Chopra, Mercola, Adams, et all, all of their followers come out of the woodwork to attack and harass someone for doing so. This has been taken to terrifying extremes by people who have contacted the critics' employers and accused them of things like falsifying their research, or molesting children (escalating quickly)

These people are total assholes who adopt the same tactics they criticize "mainstream science" for using, and then claim that because they're fighting for the TruthTM (Only revealed by paying 19.99 for my new book), it's all okay.


Thing is, this is science. If someone calls your employer and harasses you, sue their asses for defamy, but until that point,  ignore it. You have evidence? That should be all you need. If you want to go confront, say, flat-Earthers, feel free, but do it in a civil manner.

It kind of doubles back to the fact that we live in a society. You can't make mean people go away, and the fact that people are assholes doesn't give you the right to be assholes in return.
 
2013-11-19 06:30:57 PM

PsiChick: hardinparamedic: PsiChick: I'm saying 'don't be a douchebag

To go along with what I said, PsiChick,not everyone is worthy of being nice to, either. Typically, what happens when someone criticisms someone, such as Chopra, Mercola, Adams, et all, all of their followers come out of the woodwork to attack and harass someone for doing so. This has been taken to terrifying extremes by people who have contacted the critics' employers and accused them of things like falsifying their research, or molesting children (escalating quickly)

These people are total assholes who adopt the same tactics they criticize "mainstream science" for using, and then claim that because they're fighting for the TruthTM (Only revealed by paying 19.99 for my new book), it's all okay.

Thing is, this is science. If someone calls your employer and harasses you, sue their asses for defamy, but until that point,  ignore it. You have evidence? That should be all you need. If you want to go confront, say, flat-Earthers, feel free, but do it in a civil manner.

It kind of doubles back to the fact that we live in a society. You can't make mean people go away, and the fact that people are assholes doesn't give you the right to be assholes in return.


Yes, you're certainly right that professionals should act professionally, but sometimes it is really difficult.

I mean, if I walk into an accountant's office and tell him that spreadsheets are composed of sentient viruses that feed on numbers, and therefore he should change his practice to reflect my ideas, sure it'd be great if he wasn't a douchebag about it, but I'm not sure I can reasonably expect a polite response.

These woo practitioners aren't even in the ballpark where their ideas can have relevant evidence - it's closer to theology than science, and there is a long bitter history to deal with whereby people of religion have tried to tell scientists how they should practice science. I'm not saying that scientists shouldn't try to take the high road, but people can be more or less patient when confronted by the same (offensive) arguments year after year.
 
2013-11-19 06:30:58 PM

Felgraf: 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...


You're reading too much into the series.  They never claimed they were scientists, followed a non-biased scientific method, or came to the table without their own opinions. In fact, they outright say they do have biases.  Their points have always been to encourage people to research the whole story and not latch onto bumper-sticker slogans.

And since the show is 10 years old they did recently revise their second-hand smoke opinions.  But they, and many others, question governmental bans on smoking over the rights of property owners.

About the Libertarian thing, everyone knows they're atheistic Libertarians.  Any philosophy carried to it's extreme isn't viable--society depends on a blending of outlooks to keep extremists in check.
 
2013-11-19 06:35:34 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.


Reading the threads on Slashdot, you'd think they were all the undisputed rock stars of their respective fields or specialties as well as fighting off job offers with a stick.

Your post is a reaffirmation of why I stopped reading SD; the inflated egos there are just too much to take.
 
2013-11-19 06:37:34 PM

kriegsgeist: Felgraf: 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'."

Do electrons inside of an atom interact with the protons in the nucleus?


Of course they do via an exchange of photons. Rarely they dive right into the nucleus and get sucked into a Weak interaction.

As to the other point, we could have saved a lot of aggravation by saying "interaction" instead of "observation." When a particle collides with another particle it is necessarily localized in time and space, and so it's wave function has collapsed.
 
2013-11-19 06:42:07 PM

HighZoolander: Yes, you're certainly right that professionals should act professionally, but sometimes it is really difficult.

I mean, if I walk into an accountant's office and tell him that spreadsheets are composed of sentient viruses that feed on numbers, and therefore he should change his practice to reflect my ideas, sure it'd be great if he wasn't a douchebag about it, but I'm not sure I can reasonably expect a polite response.

These woo practitioners aren't even in the ballpark where their ideas can have relevant evidence - it's closer to theology than science, and there is a long bitter history to deal with whereby people of religion have tried to tell scientists how they should practice science. I'm not saying that scientists shouldn't try to take the high road, but people can be more or less patient when confronted by the same (offensive) arguments year after year.


So maybe they should just, say, turn off the computer? Not everything needs to be responded to, and if you can't respond politely, go pay a freshman to type something up for you.
 
2013-11-19 06:49:25 PM

PsiChick: HighZoolander: Yes, you're certainly right that professionals should act professionally, but sometimes it is really difficult.

I mean, if I walk into an accountant's office and tell him that spreadsheets are composed of sentient viruses that feed on numbers, and therefore he should change his practice to reflect my ideas, sure it'd be great if he wasn't a douchebag about it, but I'm not sure I can reasonably expect a polite response.

These woo practitioners aren't even in the ballpark where their ideas can have relevant evidence - it's closer to theology than science, and there is a long bitter history to deal with whereby people of religion have tried to tell scientists how they should practice science. I'm not saying that scientists shouldn't try to take the high road, but people can be more or less patient when confronted by the same (offensive) arguments year after year.

So maybe they should just, say, turn off the computer? Not everything needs to be responded to, and if you can't respond politely, go pay a freshman to type something up for you.


Well, people are human, and sometimes people on the internet are wrong. You're asking scientists not to argue, whereas you may as well ask people not to express opinions that undermine or make a mockery of their work.

(I had a freshman type this for me, which is why I resisted a response to that condescending/douchy comment)
 
2013-11-19 06:53:46 PM

HighZoolander: PsiChick: HighZoolander: Yes, you're certainly right that professionals should act professionally, but sometimes it is really difficult.

I mean, if I walk into an accountant's office and tell him that spreadsheets are composed of sentient viruses that feed on numbers, and therefore he should change his practice to reflect my ideas, sure it'd be great if he wasn't a douchebag about it, but I'm not sure I can reasonably expect a polite response.

These woo practitioners aren't even in the ballpark where their ideas can have relevant evidence - it's closer to theology than science, and there is a long bitter history to deal with whereby people of religion have tried to tell scientists how they should practice science. I'm not saying that scientists shouldn't try to take the high road, but people can be more or less patient when confronted by the same (offensive) arguments year after year.

So maybe they should just, say, turn off the computer? Not everything needs to be responded to, and if you can't respond politely, go pay a freshman to type something up for you.

Well, people are human, and sometimes people on the internet are wrong. You're asking scientists not to argue, whereas you may as well ask people not to express opinions that undermine or make a mockery of their work.

(I had a freshman type this for me, which is why I resisted a response to that condescending/douchy comment)


I'm more saying that, if you're in a field and someone obviously pathetic challenges you...harassing them? Maybe not your best plan ever.
 
2013-11-19 06:56:56 PM

PsiChick: HighZoolander: PsiChick: HighZoolander: Yes, you're certainly right that professionals should act professionally, but sometimes it is really difficult.

I mean, if I walk into an accountant's office and tell him that spreadsheets are composed of sentient viruses that feed on numbers, and therefore he should change his practice to reflect my ideas, sure it'd be great if he wasn't a douchebag about it, but I'm not sure I can reasonably expect a polite response.

These woo practitioners aren't even in the ballpark where their ideas can have relevant evidence - it's closer to theology than science, and there is a long bitter history to deal with whereby people of religion have tried to tell scientists how they should practice science. I'm not saying that scientists shouldn't try to take the high road, but people can be more or less patient when confronted by the same (offensive) arguments year after year.

So maybe they should just, say, turn off the computer? Not everything needs to be responded to, and if you can't respond politely, go pay a freshman to type something up for you.

Well, people are human, and sometimes people on the internet are wrong. You're asking scientists not to argue, whereas you may as well ask people not to express opinions that undermine or make a mockery of their work.

(I had a freshman type this for me, which is why I resisted a response to that condescending/douchy comment)

I'm more saying that, if you're in a field and someone obviously pathetic challenges you...harassing them? Maybe not your best plan ever.


Well yeah, I can't argue with that. I'm not sure someone rich and famous like Chopra falls into that category, but I've yet to see or hear of a scientist harassing someone who may really be mentally ill.
 
2013-11-19 07:02:12 PM

HighZoolander: I'm more saying that, if you're in a field and someone obviously pathetic challenges you...harassing them? Maybe not your best plan ever.

Well yeah, I can't argue with that. I'm not sure someone rich and famous like Chopra falls into that category, but I've yet to see or hear of a scientist harassing someone who may really be mentally ill.


It seems to be a default response, is the problem. Like I said, they even ended up harassing a Nobel Prize winner. This is par for the course, and that shiat needs to stop.
 
2013-11-19 07:02:29 PM

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


No.

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 400x280]


static2.dmcdn.net

So THAT is why the banana is the atheist's worst nightmare!
 
2013-11-19 07:05:58 PM
To summarize and clarify some of the up-thread discussions:

In quantum mechanics, "observed" means "interacted with another particle (usually a photon) in such a way that the quantity in question changes what the interacting particle would do".

For instance, when you shoot an electron through an orbital containing another electron, whether the one you're shooting bounces, and in what direction, depends on the specific position of the electron in its orbital.  Thus, the orbital has been "observed" and the wave-function collapses, the electron having a specific location instead of a probabilistic one for a few femtoseconds.  This occurs whether the thing shooting the observing particle is a highly advanced bit of technology run by a human or just a wandering bit of charge off a lightning bolt, etc.
 
2013-11-19 07:10:51 PM

PsiChick: So maybe they should just, say, turn off the computer? Not everything needs to be responded to, and if you can't respond politely, go pay a freshman to type something up for you.


Isn't that kind of rude and condescending to say?
 
2013-11-19 07:18:20 PM
I didn't see this posted -- if someone else did, I missed seeing it.

Random Deepak Chopra.
 
2013-11-19 07:21:44 PM

Felgraf: PsiChick: So maybe they should just, say, turn off the computer? Not everything needs to be responded to, and if you can't respond politely, go pay a freshman to type something up for you.

Isn't that kind of rude and condescending to say?


...Good point.
 
2013-11-19 07:28:15 PM

PsiChick: HighZoolander: I'm more saying that, if you're in a field and someone obviously pathetic challenges you...harassing them? Maybe not your best plan ever.

Well yeah, I can't argue with that. I'm not sure someone rich and famous like Chopra falls into that category, but I've yet to see or hear of a scientist harassing someone who may really be mentally ill.

It seems to be a default response, is the problem. Like I said, they even ended up harassing a Nobel Prize winner. This is par for the course, and that shiat needs to stop.


I'm not about to say that it's good, but I'm honestly not convinced that it's worse in science (or among scientists) than in any other field (have you seen how literary critics treat authors/each other?).

It's just human nature. I doubt it will ever stop, however unappealing it may be.
 
2013-11-19 07:29:23 PM

PsiChick: Felgraf: PsiChick: So maybe they should just, say, turn off the computer? Not everything needs to be responded to, and if you can't respond politely, go pay a freshman to type something up for you.

Isn't that kind of rude and condescending to say?

...Good point.


You just earned a few respect points.
 
2013-11-19 07:32:16 PM

HighZoolander: PsiChick: HighZoolander: I'm more saying that, if you're in a field and someone obviously pathetic challenges you...harassing them? Maybe not your best plan ever.

Well yeah, I can't argue with that. I'm not sure someone rich and famous like Chopra falls into that category, but I've yet to see or hear of a scientist harassing someone who may really be mentally ill.

It seems to be a default response, is the problem. Like I said, they even ended up harassing a Nobel Prize winner. This is par for the course, and that shiat needs to stop.

I'm not about to say that it's good, but I'm honestly not convinced that it's worse in science (or among scientists) than in any other field (have you seen how literary critics treat authors/each other?).

It's just human nature. I doubt it will ever stop, however unappealing it may be.


True.
 
2013-11-19 07:34:58 PM
Never mind all this "who said what."  Just check the claims against the crackpot index.
 
2013-11-19 08:18:47 PM

PsiChick: hardinparamedic: PsiChick: I'm saying 'don't be a douchebag

To go along with what I said, PsiChick,not everyone is worthy of being nice to, either. Typically, what happens when someone criticisms someone, such as Chopra, Mercola, Adams, et all, all of their followers come out of the woodwork to attack and harass someone for doing so. This has been taken to terrifying extremes by people who have contacted the critics' employers and accused them of things like falsifying their research, or molesting children (escalating quickly)

These people are total assholes who adopt the same tactics they criticize "mainstream science" for using, and then claim that because they're fighting for the TruthTM (Only revealed by paying 19.99 for my new book), it's all okay.

Thing is, this is science. If someone calls your employer and harasses you, sue their asses for defamy, but until that point,  ignore it. You have evidence? That should be all you need. If you want to go confront, say, flat-Earthers, feel free, but do it in a civil manner.

It kind of doubles back to the fact that we live in a society. You can't make mean people go away, and the fact that people are assholes doesn't give you the right to be assholes in return.


People are learning the hard way that the 'we have science on our side, ignore the quacks' stance *costs lives*.

Consider Vaccination.  Science is sound.  Statistics are sound.  Quacks spread some lies and now we are seeing deaths as a result.

 IMO, especially right now, the pendulum is starting to swing back hard against pseudoscience masquerading as science.  Possibly in small part out of guilt for not slapping down the anti-vaxxers fast enough or hard enough.
 
2013-11-19 08:22:16 PM

Discordulator: It kind of doubles back to the fact that we live in a society. You can't make mean people go away, and the fact that people are assholes doesn't give you the right to be assholes in return.

People are learning the hard way that the 'we have science on our side, ignore the quacks' stance *costs lives*.

Consider Vaccination.  Science is sound.  Statistics are sound.  Quacks spread some lies and now we are seeing deaths as a result.

 IMO, especially right now, the pendulum is starting to swing back hard against pseudoscience masquerading as science.  Possibly in small part out of guilt for not slapping down the anti-vaxxers fast enough or hard enough.


Harassing people doesn't solve that problem, it just invalidates you as a researcher.
 
2013-11-19 08:38:22 PM

PsiChick: FormlessOne: PsiChick: 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.

Scientists are some of the most condescending, manipulative assholes I've ever met when it comes to a theory they don't like. Even my anthro teacher got in on that game once talking about a theorist he didn't think was reputable. It drives me up a wall. Professionalism is actually something I tend to expect from people with degrees.

It's hard to humor fools. It's a difficult thing to sit there and attempt to maintain a professional distance when some moron decides that Darwinism is "outmoded" or that photons are conscious, and, more to the point, decides that his unobservable, untestable drivel of a hypothesis is just as valid as the observed and tested theories already in place. Yes, scientists should be perhaps a bit more tactful & circumspect when dealing with fools, but, let's face it, when you have a fool with deep pockets and a large following, like Chopra, undermining real science, it's hard to remain professionally distant.

So say 'no, this is not supported by evidence' and move on. Harassing people is not okay.


Not advocating harassment, just defending a curt response. Harassment is never OK.
 
2013-11-19 08:41:45 PM

FormlessOne: PsiChick: FormlessOne: PsiChick: 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.

Scientists are some of the most condescending, manipulative assholes I've ever met when it comes to a theory they don't like. Even my anthro teacher got in on that game once talking about a theorist he didn't think was reputable. It drives me up a wall. Professionalism is actually something I tend to expect from people with degrees.

It's hard to humor fools. It's a difficult thing to sit there and attempt to maintain a professional distance when some moron decides that Darwinism is "outmoded" or that photons are conscious, and, more to the point, decides that his unobservable, untestable drivel of a hypothesis is just as valid as the observed and tested theories already in place. Yes, scientists should be perhaps a bit more tactful & circumspect when dealing with fools, but, let's face it, when you have a fool with deep pockets and a large following, like Chopra, undermining real science, it's hard to remain professionally distant.

So say 'no, this is not supported by evidence' and move on. Harassing people is not okay.

Not advocating harassment, just defending a curt response. Harassment is never OK.


I'm okay with curt responses. My problem is scientists who are assholes.
 
2013-11-19 08:43:08 PM

PsiChick: Harassing people doesn't solve that problem, it just invalidates you as a researcher.


You're focusing your harassment on the wrong side of things. The Age of Autism forum community,  for example, is infamous for death threats and attempts to ruin the personal and professional lives of people who are pro-vaccination and prominent. Reporter Tsine Tsounderos was attacked in print and online by "Chronic Lyme Disease" zealots after she wrote an expose series that exposed the slimy behavior and practices of the "doctors" and psuedoscience disciplines which preyed on them. These are people who will, for shiats and giggles, make dozens of alts and single-purpose facebook accounts simply to give the impression that numbers are on their side. NaturalNews.com is another site which is well known for doing this, publishing smear campaigns on people who criticism their statements and quackery.
 
2013-11-19 08:47:04 PM

PsiChick: My problem is scientists who are assholes.


You would.

hardinparamedic: You're focusing your harassment on the wrong side of things. The Age of Autism forum community,  for example, is infamous for death threats and attempts to ruin the personal and professional lives of people who are pro-vaccination and prominent. Reporter Tsine Tsounderos was attacked in print and online by "Chronic Lyme Disease" zealots after she wrote an expose series that exposed the slimy behavior and practices of the "doctors" and psuedoscience disciplines which preyed on them. These are people who will, for shiats and giggles, make dozens of alts and single-purpose facebook accounts simply to give the impression that numbers are on their side. NaturalNews.com is another site which is well known for doing this, publishing smear campaigns on people who criticism their statements and quackery.


This.

If one want to state that it's scientists that are harassing, they're full of shat.
 
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