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 57
    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 (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-19 04:21:07 PM
8 votes:
Also oblig:

24.media.tumblr.com
2013-11-19 04:31:39 PM
5 votes:

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 04:39:29 PM
3 votes:

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 04:23:05 PM
3 votes:

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 04:20:03 PM
3 votes:
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 08:58:36 PM
2 votes:

Discordulator: Woo causes real harm, be it physical, emotional, financial, and that harm is not contained to only the one who embraces it.  Therefore, why be anything other than blunt and honest?  Sugarcoating has not brought positive results in dealing with snake oil peddlers for over 100 years of dealings.  Why should it work now?


This.

I've explained to you before that people have strong feelings on this matter for a number of reasons. Some have watched their patients die prematurely because they chose "alternative medicine" over science-based treatment and therapy. Others, like myself, have had friends and loved ones die because of the same.

However, if you want to direct animosity and anger towards people for being blunt and often not very nice to woo-peddlers and their followers, that blame lies at the feet of those groups, and their rabid fandom. A fandom which would make the some of the most aggressive PETA followers seem tame. It's not that one day people on the support of science-based medicine and other disciplines suddenly decided to be an asshole to someone for no reason, it's the fact that they tried being nice, and were treated like absolute shiat, and countered with misinformation, a gish gallop of lies, and "Just asking questions" nonsense in return.

David Gorski, who posts under the name of Orac, is a cancer surgeon and researcher who drew the ire of Age of Autism for posting on his blog dissections of their claims about vaccines. For that, they began a concentrated and crowdsourced harassment of his employer. The charges they levied against him nearly ruined his career.
2013-11-19 08:18:47 PM
2 votes:

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 07:05:58 PM
2 votes:
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 04:53:34 PM
2 votes:

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 04:37:31 PM
2 votes:
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 04:20:34 PM
2 votes:
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 04:14:12 PM
2 votes:
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
2013-11-19 04:14:09 PM
2 votes:
Truth hurts.
2013-11-19 04:14:03 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-11-20 10:01:20 AM
1 votes:

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.


The reason that they must be responded to is because they and their believers become obstacles to real science.
2013-11-20 09:51:12 AM
1 votes:

PsiChick: 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.


The critical difference here being that Shechtman's discovery was TESTABLE, which allowed it to be PROVABLE. Chopra's "ideas" (and I'm being generous) meet neither of those criteria, and are therefore NOT scientific by definition.
2013-11-20 09:26:06 AM
1 votes:

jigger: 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.


To state that they do with no evidence whatsoever is merely speculation, NOT a theory, NOT EVEN a hypothesis, but simply a wild-@$$ed guess, and definitely NOT scientific.
2013-11-20 07:25:55 AM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Dude, there's still the Flat Earth Society out there (cross-pollinating with Timecube); there are Hollow-Earthers and people who want to believe it's turtles all the way down.

People are stupid. Just accept it, and your blood pressure will drop like 20 points.


I'm pretty sure the Flat Earth society is very elaborate satire, similar to the whatever-baptist church (Landover Baptist church? I can't remember which one it was.)

PsiChick: "he refers to Sheldrake as having trained at Cambridge University while leaving out that he held respected senior positions in biology there." That would be one example.


Even if he left that out,w hy would that matter? Biology is not quantum mechanics. I agree with the other poster, I'm not following how that's *harassment*. Someone holding a distinguished position at one point != Their theory has more creedence-I'm sure there's a lot of people that are/were high up in academia that think all sorts of things that are A) Wrong, B) Completely unrelated to their field, so why on earth should we mention it.

Does Deepak list all his detractor's qualification and 'high positions' they held when he argues with them? Do you expect him to?
2013-11-20 12:55:19 AM
1 votes:
PsiChick:
A) There is harm in people advocating unproven methods of treatment as alternatives to medicine. This is not that.

B) Discrediting? Fine. The harassment FTFA? Not so much.


A) There is harm in what Deepak Chopra states because people can, and will, use alternative medicine *instead of* rather than *in addition to* proven medicine.  Deepak states that AIDS can be treated with "Ayurveda's primordial sound".  So, this is that.  This is why people have problems with Deepak, and what he states as science without being science, and as truth without evidence.

When he says he is being attacked, yet continually attacks, he is being disingenuous.  When he responds to criticism of Oprah for favoring suzanne somers and jenny mccarthy by stating that science based medicine has many problems and that oprah is just asking questions...  he is edging towards the line, implying without stating that the alternatives are better.

And when people leave science based medicine we start seeing the return of whooping cough, measles, and the fatalities they bring.

The criticism of Deepak is precisely what you say it is not " There is harm in people advocating unproven methods of treatment as alternatives to medicine. This is not that. "No, this is that.  He is being criticized for this.

B) What harassment?  It looks more like he got called out and played victim.
2013-11-20 12:41:13 AM
1 votes:

PsiChick: "he refers to Sheldrake as having trained at Cambridge University while leaving out that he held respected senior positions in biology there." That would be one example.


That constitutes harassment? Hold on a second, I need to check some dictionaries...

Oxford tells me this: aggressive pressure or intimidation

Yeah, I'm still not following. Professor Coyne not pointing that out is neither aggressive, nor intimidating. One of the points that Professor Coyne is making is that it doesn't matter what a person's credentials are if the ideas they are promoting are not supported by evidence or reason. Science does not yield to any authority but evidence. And he correctly points out that when folks like Chopra and Sheldrake are called out on their nonsense ideas, they almost always refer to their credentials to support the ideas rather than any evidential support, as there is none.

Ignoring appeals to authority is not harassment. Pointing out BS when someone is attempting to spew it from a position of authority is not harassment. Calling things what they are is not harassment.

This very much seems like a case of "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".
2013-11-20 12:34:22 AM
1 votes:

PsiChick: B) Discrediting? Fine. The harassment FTFA? Not so much.


While you may have a point in some circumstances, this is not one of those circumstances. But this is par for the course when it comes to you: Whenever an article tangentially related to the science vs mysticism debate shows up on Fark, you just have to inject your typical concern-troll "I'm all for science but I hate when science does this" prattle. It's getting tiresome, my dear. Once again, there are occasions where you might actually be right. Malpractice and fraudulent studies are a very real part of science, unfortunately. So are really big egos with reputations to protect.

But this thread is about Deepak Chopra. I know you're smart enough not to defend his inane prattle, so you should be in agreement when his special brand of scientific-sounding mysticism is pointed out for bamboozling nonsense that it really is.

Right?
2013-11-20 12:14:46 AM
1 votes:

PsiChick: The harassment FTFA?


Please point out the harassment in the article. From my perspective, Professor Coyne's response is calm, reasoned, and full of factual statements and logical conclusions based on those facts.

What about that constitutes harassment?
2013-11-19 11:12:08 PM
1 votes:

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.


I had to search that term, which lead me to the Wikipedia article on  HIV/AIDS denialism.  What the holy fark.  Is there ANY scientific fact or theory that doesn't have a group of nutcases calling themselves "skeptics" about?  Are there "gravity skeptics" out there?  People who "dissent" from Newton's Laws of Motions?  People who doubt freaking rainbows?

Oh.

Wait.  (NSFW)

media.tumblr.com
2013-11-19 09:54:17 PM
1 votes:

Proximuscentauri: I don't really care about the OPINIONS of the people in this article.

Want some established FACT on Psi Research?

Then learn something. You can start here  http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm


You mean a website that looks like it was designed in 1995 that links to an article admitting it is nothing more than the placebo effect?

 Many of those articles were explicitly published in a journal co-edited by the proprietor of that website. But really, what's more convincing than a non-peer reviewed journal run by an electrical engineer who infamouslyhas promoted several famous and well known hoaxes as proof the paranormal.

Your blog sucks.
2013-11-19 09:34:49 PM
1 votes:

mamoru: PsiChick: I'm not saying those people aren't bad. I'm saying neither side gets a pass.

Yet your ire is focused almost exclusively on one side and not the other, and oddly it is the side that tends to have evidence on its side that you criticize more. Why is that?


STOP HARASSING!!!!

It's the same shtick as creationists. You honestly, bluntly correct them, and they call it "attacking."
2013-11-19 09:20:37 PM
1 votes:

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.


No, they just tend to have lower thresholds for unprovable bullshiat.
2013-11-19 09:02:56 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: I'm not saying those people aren't bad. I'm saying neither side gets a pass.


Yet your ire is focused almost exclusively on one side and not the other, and oddly it is the side that tends to have evidence on its side that you criticize more. Why is that?
2013-11-19 08:58:34 PM
1 votes:

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


PsiChick is right, scientists and science advocates really should just ignore the woo-peddlers. If science has facts on its side, then there is no need to discredit the claims of the other side. Facts speak for themselves and we all know that everyone listens to the facts when they are presented. I mean, what's the harm in letting the woo-meisters spew nonsense, anyway, right?
2013-11-19 08:53:19 PM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: 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.


And then there's a Nobel Prize winner kicked out of his lab for discovering quasicrystals. I'm not saying those people aren't bad. I'm saying neither side gets a pass.
2013-11-19 08:43:08 PM
1 votes:

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 08:41:45 PM
1 votes:

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 08:22:16 PM
1 votes:

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 07:10:51 PM
1 votes:

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 06:30:57 PM
1 votes:

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 06:13:14 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:42 PM
1 votes:

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 06:06:29 PM
1 votes:

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 05:46:10 PM
1 votes:

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 05:14:50 PM
1 votes:
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 05:14:19 PM
1 votes:

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 05:12:38 PM
1 votes:

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 05:11:20 PM
1 votes:
Nerdy bullies?

www.smbc-comics.com
2013-11-19 05:06:37 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:22 PM
1 votes:

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 05:03:13 PM
1 votes:
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 04:59:54 PM
1 votes:

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 04:54:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:49:14 PM
1 votes:

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 04:41:51 PM
1 votes:

Rabid Badger Beaver Weasel: Truth hurts.


www.mtv.comwww.futurestyle.orgd3na4zxidw1hr4.cloudfront.netuserserve-ak.last.fm
O RLY?
2013-11-19 04:41:34 PM
1 votes:
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 04:32:57 PM
1 votes:
Credentials!  Lots of people have 'em.  Do they make you right?  Ask this guy--he had credentials:

2.bp.blogspot.com
2013-11-19 04:28:55 PM
1 votes:
I am mentally bullying telepaths right now.

Ha! ha!
Stop bullshiating yourself!
Stop bullshiating yourself!
Why are you bullshiating yourself!
2013-11-19 04:28:30 PM
1 votes:

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 04:28:05 PM
1 votes:

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 04:22:36 PM
1 votes:
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 04:18:06 PM
1 votes:

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 04:17:39 PM
1 votes:

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
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report