dat dang u do

I am perhaps a very vocal proponent of pseudosciences as much as I am about other things in life that have to do with conspiracy theories and (pardon my French) bullshit anecdotes. You see I am a scientist at heart, and with that comes scrutiny and skepticism that goes with it. Some of my friends do believe in some of this bullshit and it harms me greatly.

Now I will say without a doubt there have been some unexplainable terrifying experiences  in my life, but I don’t automatically chalk it up to ghosts, UFO sightings, angels or demons, the boogeyman or anything else Stephen King usually writes about. Now I’m not saying I wouldn’t believe in any of these things if the proof was there I’m just saying if you cant show me anything…ANYTHING to the contrary, why should I believe you?

If ghosts are the most terrifying thing that has happened to you I suggest you get out more. The most terrifying thing that has ever happened to me was after being awake for almost 24 hours and having a semi cut me off and almost not reacting in time. When you come close to you’re own mortality I believe there is nothing more frightening.

Some people suggest UFO’s are real, that were being visited by aliens. Amazing, just amazing. Now people talk about how monumentous life is and if there were aliens I can see why they’d want to visit us, I’m not going to say that they would want peace or some crap like that because look at our society as a whole. No. Really do, please do. Step back and take in all the genocides no one but George Clooney cares about, people are bigoted, racist, and generally manipulative to a degree that truly disgusts me.

Would I want to visit that? To explore that any further? Why? When I can just look through the window and see people how they truly are anyways. But no, these aliens come down and shove “tracking devices” into people, probe people, kill our cows and mutilate them horribly. And above that wipe peoples minds about their experience? I don’t buy it. Why? Why go through all that effort? What could we possibly do? We cant even land on our own moon anymore.

That aside I do hope that there IS life out there, but knowing how old the light from the stars themselves are, wondering how many of those stars are dead now, how far they would need to have come to kill some of our cows and leave geometry patterns in our crops. Niiice.

But theres all of this evidence right? Pictures and shit? No. Pictures don’t count for anything anymore and heres why: Every single day more graphics design students cant find jobs because they’re flooding the market because I dunno, art is great or something. The tools are made easier to use every year to manipulate photos, I mean if you give some of these people enough time I’ve seen someone remake the Mona Lisa in paint. PAINT the program not actual paint. Photos don’t mean anything anymore.

Real proof IS necessary, well what constitutes real proof? Some kind of hard fact that can be studied by scientists to be verified. But you got these freaks on Discovery…Discovery don’t even get me started on it and the History channel now, I’ll save that for later, but these freaks go onto these shows and spout nonsense. And the child like part of me says “WOOOOW thats amazing.” because its discovery channel they wouldn’t have completely insane people on here right? “WRONG” and my scientific side slaps the crap out of it.

I mean you can say anything that you want, about how vaccines give kids autism, or the fluoride in water is brain washing us, maybe that we didn’t land on the moon. That is fine but when you start corrupting people to believe in lies thats not okay, thats not scientific. You are entitled to you’re opinions but you are not entitled to facts.

Whats something else I can talk about? How about ghosts aka the spirits of the departed. Same thing if not even easier to manipulate the data with, since no one actually knows how to track them or anything like that, they have this hocus pocus magic act with “sensors” and all this electronic crap to try to make it seem more plausible. Now I will admit that I get scared sometimes, often times in my youth, the dark is scary and you’re mind jumps to conclusions.

No. I hear some of you crying thats not true I know what I saw, you mean like people seeing Jesus (editors note: I’m doing my damnedest to keep religion and politics OUT of my blog. I know it wont work forever as I know I will be forced to drag it in sometime.) on a piece of toast, or a walmart receipt. The human mind is insanely good at finding patterns when really there aren’t any. Why do you think machines and computers have been having a damn hard time breaking into that field? It’s because your brain NEEDS to see these things, and when it’s dark and distorted what do you see?

I think an excellent test ( although cruel and terrifying) would be as a child grows up to never show him anything on ghosts, never let him hear ghost stories and junk like that, and bring him into these situations where people have seen ghosts or some crap and see what happens to someone untainted by societies influence on it. How do you think he would react?

An example is as follows:

What do you see?

More than likely you see a man caressing a woman from behind. Do you see the dolphins? The whole image is made with dolphins in fact, children don’t see the loving couple and instead see the dolphins because they have no experiences as such. And I would be interested to see what the outcome of such a thing would be. You see what you’re brain want’s you to see and probably not whats right under you’re face. I expect someone to say “I saw the dolphins!” Yea? Screw you I don’t believe you, this is the internet pal I could say I’m the freaking President.

It’s all just conjecture and you’re mind playing games on you because your brain while marvelous and an engineering marvel is dumb as hell. It cuts corners all the time! Look it up, did you know you’re blind for roughly five minutes every day? While your brain is advanced it is still linked to what we were millions of years ago, and still thinks it needs to survive.

I understand the allure of these things, I do honestly. But if no reputable scientist has picked it up any of these things yet there might be a reason for that, and don’t say that no reputable scientist would want to, because if they were right imagine the fame and infamy! Scientists will always fight each other but until you can show something other than photos and junk data no one is going to take you seriously because you aren’t proceeding scientifically.

But honestly it’s your life and if you want to waste it in a old creepy house or standing out in a corn field be my guest. But don’t get mad at me if I don’t believe you or tell you its all in your mind. I expect to be hated on for this post but whatever. Please explain to me in scientific terms why either of these things are real.

Advertisements
  1. Not tryin’ ta hate, but based on the purpose of this post I think you might want to look up the definition of the word “proponent.”

    That said, the most interesting thing about pseudoscience to me is to look at ghosts and UFOs and ask “where do these traditions of knowledge come from?” I mean, you hit the nail on the head with the experiment on a child – if you raise a child up with no knowledge of ghosts, they will almost certainly not believe in ghosts – and if they end up believing in something like ghosts, they won’t call them ghosts and they almost certainly would be notably different than the descriptions of ghosts provided by society at large.

    Yet on the flip side of this, I really do believe that knowledge replicates in a way very near to the way it is described in memetics – that is, you can apply Darwinian-type evolutionary processes to the bodies of knowledge that make up the sum total of human wisdom. IF that’s the way knowledge works, then why do certain versions of ghosts and UFOs arise as the most popular, and propagate easily, even across cultures?

    For example, Western civilization in the form of the USA encounters the legend of el chupacabra – a BS cryptid if there ever was one – and suddenly you’ve got people outside of Latin American culture experiencing sightings of the chupacabra and claiming to have “true knowledge” of its existence. How did that happen? Why did that happen, when other monster stories were out there in latin american culture, surely, but only the goatsucker one spread to the USA?

    Or how do people start believing in UFOs, given that NOBODY believed in them in the modern sense before the 1800s? Where did that crazy idea come from? When I looked up into the sky and saw with my 5th-grader eyes that very strange golden disk hovering over my playground that one sunny day many years ago, I called it a UFO because I was told what to believe when I saw something like that.

    But no one told the first believers – they must have created the ideas themselves. And where did those ideas come from? I’m not trying to say pseudoscience is right – 99% of the time it’s not. But it points to interesting facts about human knowledge, facts that Science would do well to heed, lest it dismiss out of hand all things for which it currently has no basis in observation.

    • While yes I am a proponent to pseudoscience in general, it is perhaps these two that stick their noses out the most. Now needless I don’t hate them as much as say anti-vaccine, or the PETA movement (which isn’t science I know) or we didn’t land on the moon, cryptids, and other shit like that.
      The point more so I was trying to make is oral communication while you and I mock it, with our mouths (har har) has a very influential effect on children and even people.
      Now I do know of several UFO works of art, in which “UFO’s” are depicted in ancient works of art. Of course we don’t know they are UFO’s but merely jump to that fact because really what else could they be? I believe that there is alot of jumping to conclusions with both topics. Feel a cold draft in an old run down house? Ghosts. See an object in the sky you cant quite make out? UFO. And I believe the idea of certain things easily penetrating our social barrier is partly because (pardon the pun) its alien to us. Because it make so much more sense in our culture to just whisk things and lump them into the unknown because there isn’t a explanation for them.
      Look at UFO hunters who vehemently fight against rational explanations because they think that they know better even they they wander blindly in the dark as well. While I commend their composure for such things I believe that its is fundamentally wrong to ignore answers that DO make more sense. But I think its the social ramifications of the society that we live in. Now I’m not saying all of these are false, because I don’t ever, EVER lump anything into the yes or no category. Because honestly could I call myself a scientist if I did? I will bow and say yes that there are some things that even experts cant explain but honestly I don’t think ghosts are one of the, UFO’s maybe.
      Alot of what I believe we perceive into the unknown is as I said is that we can find a rational and pattern in anything. Would the child I explained be found to seek and more over feel the unknown without hearing the traditions passed down to him? Would he find a more rational way to explain it? It’s these questions I would like to see answered that intrigue me. Now I do believe if he walked up to someone afterwards and tried to explain his situation I’m sure he could be persuaded into these arguments, that he encountered a ghost or he saw a UFO.
      Also don’t get me wrong, I am not hating on people like you who believe that they saw such things, what I detest are these shows or should I say networks now (History and Discovery, like I said I’ll get to them in time.) who spout and spread and advocate this nonsense like it’s fact. I do believe one day we will have an answer for both of these things, because I have faith in science. But the fact ghosts hunters and UFO hunters cant even agree on whats what only further demonstrates that they themselves have no idea whats going on. Ghosts for example used to use both poltergeists and orbs to say “see ghosts are here” but now the best in the community are split on whether poltergeists actually exist and most don’t consider orbs to be anything at all anymore. But that doesn’t matter because the whole community cant agree on whats what. And it’s foolhardy to believe either will get anywhere with their so called “proof” they keep providing.
      I do find it interesting on how such a little thing like tradition can influence what we think something is in the long run. I do hope UFO’s exist and I hope aliens are out there, do I believe they come all this way to kill some cows though?
      I might make my next post about History and Discovery and how they both infuriate me to a level I wish wasn’t possible. But it’s my birthday and I would rather drink. Haha. I await you’re response my friend. I wish you were here to drink with me as per tradition stipulates but I’m afraid I am the one to break tradition. Have a drink maybe about 6 or so thats when I’ll be drinking around here. Hope things are well at home, and I hope the movie was good.

  2. Ok, I’m trying to cut back on this because people tell me it’s annoying, but to be a “proponent” of something means to be a supporter, a sympathizer – not an opponent.

    No worries, just had to get that off my chest.

    Don’t get me wrong – when I was a child I thought the UFO I saw had aliens in it and all that good stuff. But now, after much thought and growing up, I realize that while I literally saw a U.F.O. (Unidentified Flying Object), I have no idea at all what it was. All I can say was that I saw it and that it fits the description of many other UFO sightings out there (probably influenced by my knowledge of those other descriptions).

    The most plausible description of ghosts that I have ever heard is that they could be the result of a tachyon interaction with our baryon environment – which is a stretch since the existence of any tachyons whatsoever is very disputed. Another possible explanation could be that they are somehow part of another universe that is somehow interacting with ours, possibly through large-scale quantum entanglement.

    Granted, again that’s VERY disputed, and most physicists would probably say entanglement would never work that way (or other universes), but it just goes to show that what seems magical now could actually have scientific explanations in the future.

    I fear that I see science heading toward a future where only research into “approved” topics is acceptable. That would ultimately kill any kind of real scientific advancement, because all new sciences begin as laughable pseudosciences – psychology, genetics, chemistry, astronomy, and economics, just to name a few.

    Sure, pseudoscience is 99% BS. But the other 1%? That’s where crazy shit like FTL drives, cold fusion, brain-to-computer transfers, and other stuff we don’t even know we don’t know about could come from.

    • Haha I can find some things about being a grammar nazis to be off putting. But when I accidently used a word in the wrong context I should hope one would call me out on it….especially when I have like 4 gin and tonics in my system, after about an hour doesn’t usually help. As you can see by the layout of my reply, I don’t know how stuff works like hitting enter twice to make it look better.

      I would say your description of UFO’s to be right in my ballpark but ghosts, my context for them is still that you’re brain needs to rationalize when something is afoot. It’s like how scientists know now that cetain subhearing frequencies(I cant even begin to remember the actual word for this, it’s a frequency of sound below what were able to hear.) can cause you’re body to enter the flight or fight response and can give you just that generally creepy feeling that you’re being watched. Things that you yourself cannot perceive but your body the amazing vessel from millions of years of evolution (and forgets we don’t have to fight cave bears) sometimes forgets or just does without conscious thought.

      I’m not afraid of “approved” topics at all, and my reason is that there will always be scientists willing to try to get their name famous quickly. Sometimes granted, this can be bad or this can be a good thing. There is the scientific survey group out at “skinwalker ranch” where they’re in the process of almost a decades worth of study. I actually do look forward to reading their findings if in fact they are a real scientific group, and go through all of the methods that are required of it. And yes while all forms of science were once laughed at for being retarded, I think in todays world if you really want to get money for your research team I think you’ll find someone to give it to you, not an organization per say.

      But when all that you’re bringing to the table are pictures (which as I said are getting easier and easier and harder to detect if they are false) god damn something else, ghost you have white noise talking and junk, and EKG (lawl I don’t know what they’re actually called) meters and stuff. But the people using it don’t even know why they “work” but rather they use them for the ability to change due to differing variables ie a draft from outside.

      And in the case of all of those were slowly working on them all right now. Physicists think they know HOW we can go faster than light, cold fusion? eeehhh the fusion reactor in CA is due for it’s first tests later this year, and brain to computer transfers I think we’ve talked about before. I don’t truly consider these to be pseudosciences because these things have been proven (or in the FTL drives case physicists need more info on what dark matter/energy actually does) or at least given time WILL be proven. And I think all astronomers would love for aliens to be real, who among them wouldn’t, even I would. But you cant say conclusively that a picture is the end all anymore, look at nessie who the definitive photo of the monster turned out to be a fake. The real interesting parts of UFO lore to me at least come from the pilots who see them, to me that is the best evidence.

      The problem with pseudosciences and approved topics is also that I do believe actual stone in the wall sciences should get funding before a science or something of questionable nature, the only thing I could see being in the way of that was if there were evidence to the contrary. Which is to say if they could actually bring forward some kind of empirical evidence for these things. But they cant because all they are going off of are photos and things which are easily manipulated. Now when I says pseudosciences I also mean things like these two topics and a plethora of other things like fluoride in the water and junk like that. And not upcoming technologies or technologies 50 years away, which could very well be considered magic to us lesser beings.

      Ghosts? I still stand by that I believe it’s your brain attempting to rationalize things that aren’t there based on folk lore you’ve heard about since you were a child. But this too I would love to be shown to be true, and there are several reasons for this, which I wont get into on here. But the fact is you have people going around saying this is proof or that is proof when really it’s not. And I concede that actually studying ghosts would be hard because you never know where “they” will be. But honestly at this point I pretty much just chalk ghosts up to being “your brain is pretty dumb and thinks its much much older than it needs to be.” And I think is something that will be argued about for a long time to come.

  3. Ok, I can see where you’re coming from now. I definitely agree when you say ” I do believe actual stone in the wall sciences should get funding before a science or something of questionable nature”

    You just can’t give money to any crazy person, so money is definitely usually better spent on good science rather than iffy science.

    I’m just mostly worried that things will go back to how they used to be, where scientists could literally lose all their credibility for investigating something a little strange.

    I say, if you want to investigate something like cryptozoology, astral projection, telepathy, souls, or any of this other x-files shit, you can – but if you want people to take you seriously you have to do science on this stuff the RIGHT WAY, and don’t be pissy when science disproves 99-100% of it. Once a scientist is in that mindset, they are a really useful person because they can help disprove harmful theories, or actually make a breakthrough, or even create a whole new field of study.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: