From the meme-ing of life thread:
sarahs mum said:
In spite of my rather pedantic response in that thread, it did set me thinking.
What significant things have I changed my mind about, having been shown some new evidence?
At the moment, I can’t think of anything.
Not since age of about 18 anyway.
Climate change.
I believed it initially, then didn’t, and now I do after looking at a lot of evidence.
you’ve changed your mind on what kinds of epistemological position are significant
Spiny Norman said:
Climate change.I believed it initially, then didn’t, and now I do after looking at a lot of evidence.
Spiny Norman said:
Climate change.I believed it initially, then didn’t, and now I do after looking at a lot of evidence.
OK, there is that.
I was dismissive of a book that suggested that the energy from human activities would have a significant effect on the climate.
Then a woman friend pointed out it wasn’t about the energy emitted, it was about GHG emissions.
But that was back in 1976.
SCIENCE said:
you’ve changed your mind on what kinds of epistemological position are significant
OK, but a bit philosophical that one :)
The Rev Dodgson said:
Spiny Norman said:
Climate change.I believed it initially, then didn’t, and now I do after looking at a lot of evidence.
OK, there is that.
I was dismissive of a book that suggested that the energy from human activities would have a significant effect on the climate.
Then a woman friend pointed out it wasn’t about the energy emitted, it was about GHG emissions.
But that was back in 1976.
Quite a while go then, well done!
I was in grade 6 back then.
Spiny Norman said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Spiny Norman said:
Climate change.I believed it initially, then didn’t, and now I do after looking at a lot of evidence.
OK, there is that.
I was dismissive of a book that suggested that the energy from human activities would have a significant effect on the climate.
Then a woman friend pointed out it wasn’t about the energy emitted, it was about GHG emissions.
But that was back in 1976.
Quite a while go then, well done!
I was in grade 6 back then.
I’d made my mind up about man’s effect on the environment aged 14. In 1976 our first child was born.
roughbarked said:
Spiny Norman said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK, there is that.
I was dismissive of a book that suggested that the energy from human activities would have a significant effect on the climate.
Then a woman friend pointed out it wasn’t about the energy emitted, it was about GHG emissions.
But that was back in 1976.
Quite a while go then, well done!
I was in grade 6 back then.
I’d made my mind up about man’s effect on the environment aged 14. In 1976 our first child was born.
So what have you changed your mind about?
I used to believe that for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows until a pure mathematician took me aside and pointed out that as rain drops approached infinity flowers didn’t.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Spiny Norman said:Quite a while go then, well done!
I was in grade 6 back then.
I’d made my mind up about man’s effect on the environment aged 14. In 1976 our first child was born.
So what have you changed your mind about?
Just about everything about man and his delusions.
Another one is politics.
I grew up in a Liberal-voting house so that’s what I believed for quite a lot of years.
LNP good, ALP bad.
But when the Queensland LNP started to do things that adversely affected me, that bizarre spell was broken and I could see just how bad they were. I’m still not a fan of the ALP but they are certainly a lesser evil.
And that’s from a lot of evidence that made me change my mind.
Climate change
That the reason you closed your eyes when you sneezed was so they didn’t pop out.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
you’ve changed your mind on what kinds of epistemological position are significant
OK, but a bit philosophical that one :)
well then how about you’re about to change your mind on how frequently you change your mind on significant matters when faced with new factual information
dv said:
Climate change
So when did you become a climate sceptic?
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
you’ve changed your mind on what kinds of epistemological position are significant
OK, but a bit philosophical that one :)
well then how about you’re about to change your mind on how frequently you change your mind on significant matters when faced with new factual information
We’ll see.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Climate change
So when did you become a climate sceptic?
Probably this winter.
anyway remember that non binding Turnbull cop out quiz thing, we probably changed our opinion on which response we would have given, but Turnbull only quizzed it since we changed our opinion
Just recently I became a big Trump supporter and believe his every word, convinced by his and his supported eloquent words and wisdom.
GO TRIUMP !!
I can think of one that to me is screamingly embarrassing, but you may not find it so. This is one of the first I can think of, there have been very many since then.
Back in 1971, I became enamoured of the “little big bang” theory of cosmology. This is the idea that the big bang didn’t expand uniformly, but instead shattered into white holes. Each white hole became a quasar and galaxies grew from the centre, from material spewed out by each white hole.
I held onto this theory all the way through to the year 2002, when the orbit of star S2 near Sagittarius A* was published. It is absolutely clear from the orbits of the stars around the centre of the Milky Way that there is no white hole at the centre of our Milky Way, but instead a black hole. This total;ly ruled out the “little big bang” theory of cosmology.
I had believed in a wrong theory for a full 31 years, nearly half of my life. It was only later that I discovered that I could have discarded the “little big bang” theory of cosmology much earlier, had I known about “the horizon problem”. “The horizon problem describes the fact that we see isotropy in the CMB temperature across the entire sky, despite the entire sky not being in causal contact to establish thermal equilibrium.” The little big bang cannot solve the horizon problem, only cosmic inflation (or variable speed of light) can do that, and cosmic inflation is incompatible with little big bang cosmology.
The horizon problem was first pointed out by Wolfgang Rindler in 1956, so I could have discarded “little big bang” cosmology even back when i first encountered it in 1971.
—-
If you want some other early and more relatable examples.
As a child I fully expected to see canals made by intelligent life on Mars. A belief that lasted until the first images from the Viking probe at Mars in 1976.
—-
I held onto the idea of radio contact with extra-terrestrial civilizations and the positive effects that that would have for society, for far longer than I should have. From a time of the Wow! signal in 1976 until I read a paper which came from the SETI@home project, in about the year 2003.
—-
As I say, a lot more since then.
Cymek said:
Just recently I became a big Trump supporter and believe his every word, convinced by his and his supported eloquent words and wisdom.
GO TRIUMP !!
you forgot to switch to that other account
Travelling through Russia & China in the early 80s & again in ’06 I saw great changes to their thoughts & actions.
So much so that I began to believe an era of superpower peace was happening.
Subsequent events have proven me wrong.
Tamb said:
Travelling through Russia & China in the early 80s & again in ’06 I saw great changes to their thoughts & actions.
So much so that I began to believe an era of superpower peace was happening.
Subsequent events have proven me wrong.
which wars did Russia and China start between 80 and 06 to prove it
SCIENCE said:
Tamb said:
Travelling through Russia & China in the early 80s & again in ’06 I saw great changes to their thoughts & actions.
So much so that I began to believe an era of superpower peace was happening.
Subsequent events have proven me wrong.
which wars did Russia and China start between 80 and 06 to prove it
An obvious one, OTTOMH:
I’d noticed that every woman I knew who’d been using the contraceptive and subsequently decided to have children had miscarried her first, and hypothesised a causal connection. I posted that on the ABC forum and someone (J.F.?) posted links to studies showing that not only was my theory wrong, the opposite effect was evident (i.e. that the pill seems to have a preventive effect.)
> A lot more since then
Some time in the 1990s I calculated that liquid water could never exist on the surface of Mars, or even near the surface, because the atmospheric pressure was so low that it would boil off immediately, even subsurface.
It wasn’t until about ten or even fifteen years later that I did a quick recalculation and found that in my first calculation I’d made a mathematical error. Massive egg on face. Yes, liquid water can exist on the surface of Mars for long enough to form all the flow features that have been seen there.
—-
I’ve change my mind about pollution. This was a lesson for me to separate media hype from reality. I’ve had a hatred of media hype for a long time. Media hype (and the Club of Rome’s “The limits to growth”) said that industrial pollution would lead to the death of billions of people in the years 2030 to 2050. Protest marches against pollution sprang up in the late 1970s and 1980s.
In opposition to the media hype, my belief swung towards the opposite, that the Clean Air Act of 1970 and subsequent acts had already solved the problems of pollution by the mid 1970s. Particularly once the acts were extended to stop dumping of bilge water and oil waste by ships. By then, the deadly pea souper fog of 1952 was long past. Ditto the stink of the Thames. The Cuyahoga River fire of 1969 was also past.
The protest marches were all about complaining about something that had already been fixed, or so I thought. And I thought that further changes to industry to stop pollution would be impossibly expensive for little gain.
I was so wrong.
I only realised how wrong I’d been much later. I had confused “quantity of life” with “quality of life”. On seeing Sydney and Wollongong in about the year 2000, the differences were startling and amazing. It was only then that I realised how incredibly polluted the city I grew up in was, and how essential it was to clean it up. I literally didn’t recognise Wollongong. Back in 1982-3 the house roofs were all black with soot, and you couldn’t put clothes on the clothes line because half the time they would come in black. By about the year 2000 the hose roofs were all sparklingly clean in a plethora of colours, and you could actually fish in the harbours without worrying about the toxicity of the fish. All of which made me realise that cleaning up pollution was not just economically viable, but essential, for improving the quality of life.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Climate change
So when did you become a climate sceptic?
I was somewhat skeptical about it in the mid 1990s
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Climate change
So when did you become a climate sceptic?
I was somewhat skeptical about it in the mid 1990s
For shame!
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Climate change
So when did you become a climate sceptic?
I was somewhat skeptical about it in the mid 1990s
Where did you stand on peak oil?
Santa Claus.
The Easter Bunny.
Michael V said:
Santa Claus.The Easter Bunny.
god.
sibeen said:
Michael V said:
Santa Claus.The Easter Bunny.
god.
I don’t remember when I stopped believing in Santa and The Easter B.
I changed my mind on god when 15 or 16, and enthusiastic young religious instruction teacher invited us to consider all the good evidence for god, rather than just accepting what was in an old book.
I thought China would respect the principles of “One country, two systems” with regards Hong Kong given what its breach would mean for peaceful reunification with Taiwan. I didn’t imagine anyone as foolhardy as Xi would become leader.
sibeen said:
Michael V said:
Santa Claus.The Easter Bunny.
god.
Oh yes, that too.
Peak Warming Man said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:So when did you become a climate sceptic?
I was somewhat skeptical about it in the mid 1990s
Where did you stand on peak oil?
From day 1, decried it as bullshit.
I used to think Democracy was “the worst form of government, except for all the others”.
These days I tend to think that the best form of government depends on the circumstances, social environments and requirements of the time; and that these factors may preclude allowing any meaningful participation by the citizenry.
I used to think that liberty and the ability for self determination were of paramount importance.
These days my philosophical position is that the long-term survival of the species is paramount, and if securing this survival meant curtailing individual freedoms then I would be happy for that to happen.
I used to be Star Trek: The Next Generation – lofty ideals will be enough to secure survival, and if they are not then we will perish before betraying those ideals.
These days I’m more Star Trek: Deep Space Nine – lofty ideals are all very well and good, but if the threat is existential then it’s required of us to go feral.
Nothing
Ian said:
Nothing
Confusion will be my epitaph
Anyone who practices science will be changing their minds often as new evidence presents itself. If you have never changed your mind then you do not not ask questions to form opinions.
PermeateFree said:
Anyone who practices science will be changing their minds often as new evidence presents itself. If you have never changed your mind then you do not not ask questions to form opinions.
Disagree, anyone who practices good SCIENCE will already have good theoretic coverage of existing evidence such that new evidence will generally support keeping their minds, and minds can be changed through observation without the asking of questions.
SCIENCE said:
PermeateFree said:
Anyone who practices science will be changing their minds often as new evidence presents itself. If you have never changed your mind then you do not not ask questions to form opinions.
Disagree, anyone who practices good SCIENCE will already have good theoretic coverage of existing evidence such that new evidence will generally support keeping their minds, and minds can be changed through observation without the asking of questions.
Asking questions is what science is ALL about.
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:PermeateFree said:
Anyone who practices science will be changing their minds often as new evidence presents itself. If you have never changed your mind then you do not not ask questions to form opinions.
Disagree, anyone who practices good SCIENCE will already have good theoretic coverage of existing evidence such that new evidence will generally support keeping their minds, and minds can be changed through observation without the asking of questions.
Asking questions is what science is ALL about.
True
Cymek said:
Just recently I became a big Trump supporter and believe his every word, convinced by his and his supported eloquent words and wisdom.GO TRIUMP !!
Not sarcasm?
;)
I’ve actually changed my mind about Anthony Albanese.
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:
Michael V said:
Santa Claus.The Easter Bunny.
god.
I don’t remember when I stopped believing in Santa and The Easter B.
I changed my mind on god when 15 or 16, and enthusiastic young religious instruction teacher invited us to consider all the good evidence for god, rather than just accepting what was in an old book.
Santa went when I was five, the easter bunny followed soon after. Though I still accepted hand knitted socks from grandma and liked to find a choloate egg tthta somebody had dropped there too.
God was always mysterious but by age 10, I’d rather duck out of mass.
we didn’t do easter bunny or tooth fairy. can’t remember about santa but that probably went pretty early. we weren’t religious so god didn’t come into our lives.
Ian said:
Ian said:
Nothing
Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path If we make it we can all sit back and laugh. But I fear tomorrow I’ll be … crying.
PermeateFree said:
Anyone who practices science will be changing their minds often as new evidence presents itself. If you have never changed your mind then you do not not ask questions to form opinions.
Fair.
SCIENCE said:
PermeateFree said:
Anyone who practices science will be changing their minds often as new evidence presents itself. If you have never changed your mind then you do not not ask questions to form opinions.
Disagree, anyone who practices good SCIENCE will already have good theoretic coverage of existing evidence such that new evidence will generally support keeping their minds, and minds can be changed through observation without the asking of questions.
Also fair.
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:PermeateFree said:
Anyone who practices science will be changing their minds often as new evidence presents itself. If you have never changed your mind then you do not not ask questions to form opinions.
Disagree, anyone who practices good SCIENCE will already have good theoretic coverage of existing evidence such that new evidence will generally support keeping their minds, and minds can be changed through observation without the asking of questions.
Asking questions is what science is ALL about.
Indeed.
ChrispenEvan said:
we didn’t do easter bunny or tooth fairy. can’t remember about santa but that probably went pretty early. we weren’t religious so god didn’t come into our lives.
Lucky bugger. I often ponder on all the things I have wasted breathing and alertness time on and enforced religious belief is one of them.
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:Disagree, anyone who practices good SCIENCE will already have good theoretic coverage of existing evidence such that new evidence will generally support keeping their minds, and minds can be changed through observation without the asking of questions.
Asking questions is what science is ALL about.
Indeed.
What do you mean by that?!?
runs away
Witty Rejoinder said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:Asking questions is what science is ALL about.
Indeed.
What do you mean by that?!?
runs away
At least you left with your clothes on.
Lots of things. Religion, politics, global warming, economics. I was once a Christian who believed the right wing version of economics and capitalism. I was also a denialist about climate change because it would mean the global economy would have to change and with it all our nice things. I guess I didn’t want for certain things to be true.
party_pants said:
Lots of things. Religion, politics, global warming, economics. I was once a Christian who believed the right wing version of economics and capitalism. I was also a denialist about climate change because it would mean the global economy would have to change and with it all our nice things. I guess I didn’t want for certain things to be true.
I was always a round peg that had too much to think about outside the square.
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:
Lots of things. Religion, politics, global warming, economics. I was once a Christian who believed the right wing version of economics and capitalism. I was also a denialist about climate change because it would mean the global economy would have to change and with it all our nice things. I guess I didn’t want for certain things to be true.
I was always a round peg that had too much to think about outside the square.
When the English brought convicts here, they certainly didn’t want this new environment. They attempted to make it look like the place they came from.
party_pants said:
Lots of things. Religion, politics, global warming, economics. I was once a Christian who believed the right wing version of economics and capitalism. I was also a denialist about climate change because it would mean the global economy would have to change and with it all our nice things. I guess I didn’t want for certain things to be true.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:Disagree, anyone who practices good SCIENCE will already have good theoretic coverage of existing evidence such that new evidence will generally support keeping their minds, and minds can be changed through observation without the asking of questions.
Asking questions is what science is ALL about.
True
rhetorical questions¿ you mean
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:
Lots of things. Religion, politics, global warming, economics. I was once a Christian who believed the right wing version of economics and capitalism. I was also a denialist about climate change because it would mean the global economy would have to change and with it all our nice things. I guess I didn’t want for certain things to be true.
I was always a round peg that had too much to think about outside the square.
When the English brought convicts here, they certainly didn’t want this new environment. They attempted to make it look like the place they came from.
In a way, though I never had the finncial opportunities others had. Because my mother was a self taught teacher /nanny and had to convert to Catholic in oreder to marry my dad, she had books that were not allowed in the school curriculum of the Catholic system or indeed in the state system.. Books that told me more about facts that I would otherwise have been excluded from.
SCIENCE said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:Asking questions is what science is ALL about.
True
rhetorical questions¿ you mean
Isn’t it all rhetoric?
SCIENCE said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:Asking questions is what science is ALL about.
True
rhetorical questions¿ you mean
No, everything can be questioned and the answers with the most supporting evidence is the one most likely to be correct. However that does not necessarily mean it is, only any evidence that can prove it wrong has not to your knowledge been presented yet. Very few if any theory is 100% correct and cannot be revised with the advancement of knowledge.
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:
Cymek said:True
rhetorical questions¿ you mean
No, everything can be questioned and the answers with the most supporting evidence is the one most likely to be correct. However that does not necessarily mean it is, only any evidence that can prove it wrong has not to your knowledge been presented yet. Very few if any theory is 100% correct and cannot be revised with the advancement of knowledge.
This.
Ian said:
Nothing
Plis explain when this nothing began?
dv said:
Peak Warming Man said:
dv said:I was somewhat skeptical about it in the mid 1990s
Where did you stand on peak oil?
From day 1, decried it as bullshit.
Might be worth a Peak Oil nostalgia thread.
dv said:
dv said:
Peak Warming Man said:Where did you stand on peak oil?
From day 1, decried it as bullshit.
Might be worth a Peak Oil nostalgia thread.
Like who cares?
dv said:
dv said:
Peak Warming Man said:Where did you stand on peak oil?
From day 1, decried it as bullshit.
Might be worth a Peak Oil nostalgia thread.
I wonder how Peak Oli Man feels nowdays.
sibeen said:
dv said:
dv said:From day 1, decried it as bullshit.
Might be worth a Peak Oil nostalgia thread.
I wonder how Peak Oli Man feels nowdays.
Typo or pun?
dv said:
sibeen said:
dv said:Might be worth a Peak Oil nostalgia thread.
I wonder how Peak Oli Man feels nowdays.
Typo or pun?
Hehehe, just noticed it. Typo :)
sibeen said:
dv said:
sibeen said:I wonder how Peak Oli Man feels nowdays.
Typo or pun?
Hehehe, just noticed it. Typo :)
Do you have a link to one of the original SSSF threads?
sibeen said:
sibeen said:
dv said:Typo or pun?
Hehehe, just noticed it. Typo :)
Do you have a link to one of the original SSSF threads?
One crazy Saturday we had peak peak oil threads. Oh what a time!
> Where did you stand on peak oil?
Good one!
I initially believed the Club of Rome’s statements about the existence of non-renewable resources and peak oil. I read “The limits to Growth” circa 1976.
I kept track, year after year, and after about fifteen years realised that world resources of lead, mercury and tin were never going to be depleted.
Then as recycling advanced, after about another ten years realised that world resources of gold, aluminium, iron were never going to be depleted.
And so on for the rest of the resources, except for oil. It became clear that oil was the world’s only non-renewable resource.
In the year 2000, Australian peak oil occurred, we could no longer mine enough oil to support this country’s demand for petrol. Mexican and Saudi oil were still going strong, unexpectedly. By the same time, oil fields other than Mexico, Saudi and Russia were starting to produce less, and a larger share of world petroleum came from gas fields.
Here’s the peak oil chart for Australia.
Then came two technological innovations, quite recently. One is the manufacture of “synthetic crude” from tar sands. There are huge deposits of tar sands but for a long time it wasn’t economic to mine them. I even got asked at one conference if I could help them come up with an economic method for mining tar sands.
The second is that an economic way was discovered of mining shale oil, which is a very light oil. The combination of tar sands from Canada and shale oil from the USA resulted in the USA hanging Venezuela out to dry.
So, I actually believed in peak oil all the way up to this year, but with shale oil + tar sand + electric vehicles it looks as if it has been postponed indefinitely, because there is a lot of shale oil and a lot of tar sand.
Witty Rejoinder said:
sibeen said:
sibeen said:Hehehe, just noticed it. Typo :)
Do you have a link to one of the original SSSF threads?
One crazy Saturday we had peak peak oil threads. Oh what a time!
I think those threads eventually petered out.
Peak Warming Man said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
sibeen said:Do you have a link to one of the original SSSF threads?
One crazy Saturday we had peak peak oil threads. Oh what a time!
I think those threads eventually petered out.
LOL
mollwollfumble said:
> Where did you stand on peak oil?Good one!
I initially believed the Club of Rome’s statements about the existence of non-renewable resources and peak oil. I read “The limits to Growth” circa 1976.
I kept track, year after year, and after about fifteen years realised that world resources of lead, mercury and tin were never going to be depleted.
Then as recycling advanced, after about another ten years realised that world resources of gold, aluminium, iron were never going to be depleted.
And so on for the rest of the resources, except for oil. It became clear that oil was the world’s only non-renewable resource.In the year 2000, Australian peak oil occurred, we could no longer mine enough oil to support this country’s demand for petrol. Mexican and Saudi oil were still going strong, unexpectedly. By the same time, oil fields other than Mexico, Saudi and Russia were starting to produce less, and a larger share of world petroleum came from gas fields.
Here’s the peak oil chart for Australia.
Then came two technological innovations, quite recently. One is the manufacture of “synthetic crude” from tar sands. There are huge deposits of tar sands but for a long time it wasn’t economic to mine them. I even got asked at one conference if I could help them come up with an economic method for mining tar sands.
The second is that an economic way was discovered of mining shale oil, which is a very light oil. The combination of tar sands from Canada and shale oil from the USA resulted in the USA hanging Venezuela out to dry.
So, I actually believed in peak oil all the way up to this year, but with shale oil + tar sand + electric vehicles it looks as if it has been postponed indefinitely, because there is a lot of shale oil and a lot of tar sand.
The way i remember it was that Tar sands were too expensive to work. And then lots of oil tankers didn’t dock. Prices for crude went up. And hey presto.
Michael V said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
One crazy Saturday we had peak peak oil threads. Oh what a time!
I think those threads eventually petered out.
LOL
Speaking of this ANCIENTS history shit, maybe the spin gravity dudes were correct after all¡
Over time, Earth has been slowing down by about 3 milliseconds per day, per century, thanks to the tug of the Moon. “That’s why the leap seconds are introduced to keep the atomic clocks and the astronomical clocks together.” But in 2020, the trend reversed as Earth clocked up 28 days that came in under 24 hours. Just why Earth has suddenly started to spin slightly faster is a mystery, says Matt King of the University of Tasmania.
Michael V said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
One crazy Saturday we had peak peak oil threads. Oh what a time!
I think those threads eventually petered out.
LOL
Speaking of this ANCIENTS history shit, maybe the spin gravity dudes were correct after all¡
Over time, Earth has been slowing down by about 3 milliseconds per day, per century, thanks to the tug of the Moon. “That’s why the leap seconds are introduced to keep the atomic clocks and the astronomical clocks together.” But in 2020, the trend reversed as Earth clocked up 28 days that came in under 24 hours. Just why Earth has suddenly started to spin slightly faster is a mystery, says Matt King of the University of Tasmania.
sorry we blame the time warp
Want some more.
Supersymmetry.
I was a big fan of supersymmetry from its inception, before 1980.
but abandoned it when the Large Hadron Collider failed to find it, circa 2012.
Religion.
I’ve had six religions in my life:
Agnostic, Atheist, Tao, Christian, Heretic, No religion.
Mythbusters
Mythbusters changed my mind on a number of topics. Running in the rain, thermite + ice = bomb, elephants afraid of mice, motorbike cycling over the surface of the water.
Climate change
The most unpopular opinion I still hold, one I haven’t changed my mind about, is that the IPCC made a mistake by a factor of five in one of their calculations.
My main change of mind about climate change, is that for a long time I believed that the IPCC was scrupulously honest up until the Kyoto protocol. The media hype was rubbish, but the IPCC were honest. Following Kyoto fully two thirds of the IPCC scientists quit, and the organisation went to hell.
But on reading, in 2021, the IPCC science report from just before Kyoto I’ve changed my mind. The IPCC were deliberately misleading the public by using false references and by presenting the truth in the most misleading way possible before Kyoto. This change in my viewpoint depressed me greatly.
I used to think that “teleportation” was feasible (transporting a person by de-assembling and re-assembling constituent atoms etc, “beam me up”).
I now realise that this hypothetical process would just kill the unfortunate individual and create a replica.
Bubblecar said:
I used to think that “teleportation” was feasible (transporting a person by de-assembling and re-assembling constituent atoms etc, “beam me up”).
I now realise that this hypothetical process would just kill the unfortunate individual and create a replica.
well all right we’ve had just about enough of Theseus ship
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:
rhetorical questions¿ you mean
No, everything can be questioned and the answers with the most supporting evidence is the one most likely to be correct. However that does not necessarily mean it is, only any evidence that can prove it wrong has not to your knowledge been presented yet. Very few if any theory is 100% correct and cannot be revised with the advancement of knowledge.
This.
nice, everyone likes a good SCIENCE imperialism, except that there is much more to be learned from open-ended observation SCIENCE mutual-commensalism than from blinkered questioning, so hey we’re not saying that nobody ask no questions, we’re saying it’s far from all about questions
SCIENCE said:
Bubblecar said:
I used to think that “teleportation” was feasible (transporting a person by de-assembling and re-assembling constituent atoms etc, “beam me up”).
I now realise that this hypothetical process would just kill the unfortunate individual and create a replica.
well all right we’ve had just about enough of Theseus ship
But I still believe that sufficient cognitive continuity could potentially be maintained by gradually replacing a human brain with other bits and pieces (organic or synthetic) that perform the same tasks, such that the individual is eventually completely rebuilt while continually experiencing the same “self”.
Bubblecar said:
SCIENCE said:Bubblecar said:
I used to think that “teleportation” was feasible (transporting a person by de-assembling and re-assembling constituent atoms etc, “beam me up”).
I now realise that this hypothetical process would just kill the unfortunate individual and create a replica.
well all right we’ve had just about enough of Theseus ship
But I still believe that sufficient cognitive continuity could potentially be maintained by gradually replacing a human brain with other bits and pieces (organic or synthetic) that perform the same tasks, such that the individual is eventually completely rebuilt while continually experiencing the same “self”.
…after all, the cells of our bodies are apparently completely replaced several times during a lifespan.
Bubblecar said:
I used to think that “teleportation” was feasible (transporting a person by de-assembling and re-assembling constituent atoms etc, “beam me up”).I now realise that this hypothetical process would just kill the unfortunate individual and create a replica.
It would revolutionise surgery, if you could determine which bits to replicate or not replicate.
Bubblecar said:
SCIENCE said:Bubblecar said:
I used to think that “teleportation” was feasible (transporting a person by de-assembling and re-assembling constituent atoms etc, “beam me up”).
I now realise that this hypothetical process would just kill the unfortunate individual and create a replica.
well all right we’ve had just about enough of Theseus ship
But I still believe that sufficient cognitive continuity could potentially be maintained by gradually replacing a human brain with other bits and pieces (organic or synthetic) that perform the same tasks, such that the individual is eventually completely rebuilt while continually experiencing the same “self”.
It’s impossible anyway, leaving aside the philosophical issues.
dv said:
Bubblecar said:
SCIENCE said:well all right we’ve had just about enough of Theseus ship
But I still believe that sufficient cognitive continuity could potentially be maintained by gradually replacing a human brain with other bits and pieces (organic or synthetic) that perform the same tasks, such that the individual is eventually completely rebuilt while continually experiencing the same “self”.
It’s impossible anyway, leaving aside the philosophical issues.
Yes, one of those Sci-fi devices that really belongs in Fantasy.
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
No, everything can be questioned and the answers with the most supporting evidence is the one most likely to be correct. However that does not necessarily mean it is, only any evidence that can prove it wrong has not to your knowledge been presented yet. Very few if any theory is 100% correct and cannot be revised with the advancement of knowledge.
This.
nice, everyone likes a good SCIENCE imperialism, except that there is much more to be learned from open-ended observation SCIENCE mutual-commensalism than from blinkered questioning, so hey we’re not saying that nobody ask no questions, we’re saying it’s far from all about questions
“Why” in science is a very large and important word.
Bubblecar said:
dv said:
Bubblecar said:But I still believe that sufficient cognitive continuity could potentially be maintained by gradually replacing a human brain with other bits and pieces (organic or synthetic) that perform the same tasks, such that the individual is eventually completely rebuilt while continually experiencing the same “self”.
It’s impossible anyway, leaving aside the philosophical issues.
Yes, one of those Sci-fi devices that really belongs in Fantasy.
…the teleportation, I mean. Replacing a human brain with other parts while preserving a continuity of self may be possible one day.
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
dv said:It’s impossible anyway, leaving aside the philosophical issues.
Yes, one of those Sci-fi devices that really belongs in Fantasy.
…the teleportation, I mean. Replacing a human brain with other parts while preserving a continuity of self may be possible one day.
And would the soul teleport without damage or at all?
The Rev Dodgson said:
What significant things have I changed my mind about, having been shown some new evidence?At the moment, I can’t think of anything.
Not since age of about 18 anyway.
From the age of about 12 to 15, I thought there might be something in the von Däniken “ancient alien visitation” stuff, before reading critical texts.
Peak Warming Man said:
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:Yes, one of those Sci-fi devices that really belongs in Fantasy.
…the teleportation, I mean. Replacing a human brain with other parts while preserving a continuity of self may be possible one day.
And would the soul teleport without damage or at all?
Given that it’s imaginary, I don’t think it cares.
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
What significant things have I changed my mind about, having been shown some new evidence?At the moment, I can’t think of anything.
Not since age of about 18 anyway.
From the age of about 12 to 15, I thought there might be something in the von Däniken “ancient alien visitation” stuff, before reading critical texts.
Similar here about von Däniken
I had these two books at some stage
Tau.Neutrino said:
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
What significant things have I changed my mind about, having been shown some new evidence?At the moment, I can’t think of anything.
Not since age of about 18 anyway.
From the age of about 12 to 15, I thought there might be something in the von Däniken “ancient alien visitation” stuff, before reading critical texts.
Similar here about von Däniken
I had these two books at some stage
He’s still alive, aged 87.
Peak Warming Man said:
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:Yes, one of those Sci-fi devices that really belongs in Fantasy.
…the teleportation, I mean. Replacing a human brain with other parts while preserving a continuity of self may be possible one day.
And would the soul teleport without damage or at all?
They would probably need a soul patch
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:
SCIENCE said:well all right we’ve had just about enough of Theseus ship
But I still believe that sufficient cognitive continuity could potentially be maintained by gradually replacing a human brain with other bits and pieces (organic or synthetic) that perform the same tasks, such that the individual is eventually completely rebuilt while continually experiencing the same “self”.
…after all, the cells of our bodies are apparently completely replaced several times during a lifespan.
But if you accept that, what is your problem with teleportation?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
What significant things have I changed my mind about, having been shown some new evidence?At the moment, I can’t think of anything.
Not since age of about 18 anyway.
From the age of about 12 to 15, I thought there might be something in the von Däniken “ancient alien visitation” stuff, before reading critical texts.
Similar here about von Däniken
I had these two books at some stage
I have read them too, when I was a teenager. In my early 20s I also started getting into the pyramid stuff, when that shaft was discovered. Some of the authors got weirder and weirder with each subsequent book they published. It was “the ancients” stuff, rather than aliens, but same sort of genre. I don’t believe in any of it, not sure I really did at the time, but they were interesting reading.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:But I still believe that sufficient cognitive continuity could potentially be maintained by gradually replacing a human brain with other bits and pieces (organic or synthetic) that perform the same tasks, such that the individual is eventually completely rebuilt while continually experiencing the same “self”.
…after all, the cells of our bodies are apparently completely replaced several times during a lifespan.
But if you accept that, what is your problem with teleportation?
continuity of service?
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
What significant things have I changed my mind about, having been shown some new evidence?At the moment, I can’t think of anything.
Not since age of about 18 anyway.
From the age of about 12 to 15, I thought there might be something in the von Däniken “ancient alien visitation” stuff, before reading critical texts.
Yep, me too. I’ve still got his “book” here in my collection.
It is interesting how much the internet has advanced us as a civilisation, by being able to look stuff up. Of course there are the downsides, like just googling what you want to believe and ignoring everything else.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:…after all, the cells of our bodies are apparently completely replaced several times during a lifespan.
But if you accept that, what is your problem with teleportation?
continuity of service?
Presumably the information required to recreate the body and mind is continuous.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
Bubblecar said:But I still believe that sufficient cognitive continuity could potentially be maintained by gradually replacing a human brain with other bits and pieces (organic or synthetic) that perform the same tasks, such that the individual is eventually completely rebuilt while continually experiencing the same “self”.
…after all, the cells of our bodies are apparently completely replaced several times during a lifespan.
But if you accept that, what is your problem with teleportation?
The difference is that gradual cell replacement over the course of many years is a maintenance process, pretty much the opposite of “teleportation”, which involves the complete destruction of the organism and the assembly of a replica conforming to a detailed plan, i.e., a model.
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:…after all, the cells of our bodies are apparently completely replaced several times during a lifespan.
But if you accept that, what is your problem with teleportation?
The difference is that gradual cell replacement over the course of many years is a maintenance process, pretty much the opposite of “teleportation”, which involves the complete destruction of the organism and the assembly of a replica conforming to a detailed plan, i.e., a model.
So what you are saying is that it would be inadvisable for a concert pianist to get beamed?
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:…after all, the cells of our bodies are apparently completely replaced several times during a lifespan.
But if you accept that, what is your problem with teleportation?
The difference is that gradual cell replacement over the course of many years is a maintenance process, pretty much the opposite of “teleportation”, which involves the complete destruction of the organism and the assembly of a replica conforming to a detailed plan, i.e., a model.
Look at it this way: a 3D printer creates objects conforming to highly specified designs.
If you print one of these objects, then smash it to pieces with a hammer, then print another one to the exact same specification, is the new one the old one?
OF COURSE NOT
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
…after all, the cells of our bodies are apparently completely replaced several times during a lifespan.
But if you accept that, what is your problem with teleportation?
The difference is that gradual cell replacement over the course of many years is a maintenance process, pretty much the opposite of “teleportation”, which involves the complete destruction of the organism and the assembly of a replica conforming to a detailed plan, i.e., a model.
indeed we accept that a discontinuity may well cause … further discontinuity
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:roughbarked said:
This.
nice, everyone likes a good SCIENCE imperialism, except that there is much more to be learned from open-ended observation SCIENCE mutual-commensalism than from blinkered questioning, so hey we’re not saying that nobody ask no questions, we’re saying it’s far from all about questions
“Why” in science is a very large and important word.
Why is it so?
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:nice, everyone likes a good SCIENCE imperialism, except that there is much more to be learned from open-ended observation SCIENCE mutual-commensalism than from blinkered questioning, so hey we’re not saying that nobody ask no questions, we’re saying it’s far from all about questions
“Why” in science is a very large and important word.
Why is it so?
It is the fundamental question.
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:“Why” in science is a very large and important word.
Why is it so?
It is the fundamental question.
Dr Julius kept reminding us.
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
“Why” in science is a very large and important word.
Why is it so?
It is the fundamental question.
only in religion; the purpose of natural phenomena is in general only relevant if it is by the design of some high intelligence
SCIENCE said:
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
Why is it so?
It is the fundamental question.
only in religion; the purpose of natural phenomena is in general only relevant if it is by the design of some high intelligence
Too dumb to be funny. Think you might need a good nights sleep.
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:
PermeateFree said:
It is the fundamental question.
only in religion; the purpose of natural phenomena is in general only relevant if it is by the design of some high intelligence
Too dumb to be funny. Think you might need a good nights sleep.
you mean you don’t have any sensible refutation
SCIENCE said:
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:
only in religion; the purpose of natural phenomena is in general only relevant if it is by the design of some high intelligence
Too dumb to be funny. Think you might need a good nights sleep.
you mean you don’t have any sensible refutation
You stupid boy!
PermeateFree said:
SCIENCE said:
PermeateFree said:
Too dumb to be funny. Think you might need a good nights sleep.
you mean you don’t have any sensible refutation
You stupid boy!
so what we’re saying is that SCIENCE wins again, no questions asked
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Bubblecar said:From the age of about 12 to 15, I thought there might be something in the von Däniken “ancient alien visitation” stuff, before reading critical texts.
Similar here about von Däniken
I had these two books at some stage
I have read them too, when I was a teenager. In my early 20s I also started getting into the pyramid stuff, when that shaft was discovered. Some of the authors got weirder and weirder with each subsequent book they published. It was “the ancients” stuff, rather than aliens, but same sort of genre. I don’t believe in any of it, not sure I really did at the time, but they were interesting reading.
Oh dear oh dear. Yes. I believed “Chariots of the Gods” for a while. Especially that iron pillar that didn’t rust.
And during that period, age 10 to 15, I went to the trouble of underlining the passages in Ezekiel that referred to alien visitations.
Then in about 1974 I ran across the book “Operation Trojan Horse” about UFOs visiting the Earth, and believed that for a couple of years, tracking down reports from “Project Blue Book” and suchlike.
But Velikovsky “Worlds in collision”, never. You can still find a lot of exoplanet scientists who still believe in Velikovsky, who posit that planets danced out of their orbits within our solar system and other solar systems.
Another couple of spirit-related new-age books that I believed for a while during 1976-1980 were:
Lilly “the centre of the cyclone” and “the mind of the dolphin”, and
Casteneda “the teachings of Don Juan”
I dabbled with Swedenborg “Heaven and hell” for about a year but could never have been said to believe it.
One thing where I was ahead of the trend was that I changed very early from believing that dinosaurs were related to mammals to believing that dinosaurs were related to birds. The scientific community caught up with my beliefs about five years later.
Another thing where I was ahead of the trend was when I changed from believing that there would be another ice age to believing that we would see an era of global warming. Again, the scientific community caught up with my ideas a few years later.
But where I was wrong was that I thought that global sea level rise would be very much faster than it actually has been. Back in the mid 1980s I initially expected sea level rise by now would be 30 times as fast as it is actually happening.
Speaking of aliens ….
The recent admission of the US military that they have NFI what the various craft are that’re flying around on the videos they’ve released is something I find very interesting.
On one hand there’s the famous Mick West who does a pretty good and thorough debunking of a few of them, but on the other …. I don’t know.
I very much doubt that they really are aliens coming to have a look around due to the incredible distances involved. Without FTL drive it’s not viable to visit other star systems for something to do. FTL isn’t impossible, just extremely difficult.
So for now I’m in the ‘no it’s not aliens’ side, but I would be very happy to be wrong.
Spiny Norman said:
Speaking of aliens ….The recent admission of the US military that they have NFI what the various craft are that’re flying around on the videos they’ve released is something I find very interesting.
On one hand there’s the famous Mick West who does a pretty good and thorough debunking of a few of them, but on the other …. I don’t know.
I very much doubt that they really are aliens coming to have a look around due to the incredible distances involved. Without FTL drive it’s not viable to visit other star systems for something to do. FTL isn’t impossible, just extremely difficult.
So for now I’m in the ‘no it’s not aliens’ side, but I would be very happy to be wrong.
That would be the interesting explanation
You’d need a lot more concrete evidence than video footage though
It’s one conspiracy that could be true cover ups so you can try and get exclusive access to technology
Cymek said:
Spiny Norman said:
Speaking of aliens ….The recent admission of the US military that they have NFI what the various craft are that’re flying around on the videos they’ve released is something I find very interesting.
On one hand there’s the famous Mick West who does a pretty good and thorough debunking of a few of them, but on the other …. I don’t know.
I very much doubt that they really are aliens coming to have a look around due to the incredible distances involved. Without FTL drive it’s not viable to visit other star systems for something to do. FTL isn’t impossible, just extremely difficult.
So for now I’m in the ‘no it’s not aliens’ side, but I would be very happy to be wrong.
That would be the interesting explanation
You’d need a lot more concrete evidence than video footage though
It’s one conspiracy that could be true cover ups so you can try and get exclusive access to technology
My theory, if it is aliens, is that they’re slowly dropping in contacts like that so we get more used to it. Bit by bit they increase the number of events so it’s not a big surprise when they make the big final reveal.
Again, quite unlikely but I’d love to be wrong.
Spiny Norman said:
Cymek said:
Spiny Norman said:
Speaking of aliens ….The recent admission of the US military that they have NFI what the various craft are that’re flying around on the videos they’ve released is something I find very interesting.
On one hand there’s the famous Mick West who does a pretty good and thorough debunking of a few of them, but on the other …. I don’t know.
I very much doubt that they really are aliens coming to have a look around due to the incredible distances involved. Without FTL drive it’s not viable to visit other star systems for something to do. FTL isn’t impossible, just extremely difficult.
So for now I’m in the ‘no it’s not aliens’ side, but I would be very happy to be wrong.
That would be the interesting explanation
You’d need a lot more concrete evidence than video footage though
It’s one conspiracy that could be true cover ups so you can try and get exclusive access to technology
My theory, if it is aliens, is that they’re slowly dropping in contacts like that so we get more used to it. Bit by bit they increase the number of events so it’s not a big surprise when they make the big final reveal.
Again, quite unlikely but I’d love to be wrong.
Could be and our human culture is very imaginative when it comes to fiction and we have already thought up numerous aliens so real ones might be less confronting
I posted something before about what could we learn about physics if they were real but didn’t get our hands on them
The stopping and starting and changing direction instantly, acceleration vastly faster than our own, ability to transit from air to water without pause and so on.
Spiny Norman said:
Speaking of aliens ….The recent admission of the US military that they have NFI what the various craft are that’re flying around on the videos they’ve released is something I find very interesting.
On one hand there’s the famous Mick West who does a pretty good and thorough debunking of a few of them, but on the other …. I don’t know.
I very much doubt that they really are aliens coming to have a look around due to the incredible distances involved. Without FTL drive it’s not viable to visit other star systems for something to do. FTL isn’t impossible, just extremely difficult.
So for now I’m in the ‘no it’s not aliens’ side, but I would be very happy to be wrong.
Pan-dimentional beings playing tourists.
Cymek said:
Spiny Norman said:
Cymek said:That would be the interesting explanation
You’d need a lot more concrete evidence than video footage though
It’s one conspiracy that could be true cover ups so you can try and get exclusive access to technology
My theory, if it is aliens, is that they’re slowly dropping in contacts like that so we get more used to it. Bit by bit they increase the number of events so it’s not a big surprise when they make the big final reveal.
Again, quite unlikely but I’d love to be wrong.
Could be and our human culture is very imaginative when it comes to fiction and we have already thought up numerous aliens so real ones might be less confronting
I posted something before about what could we learn about physics if they were real but didn’t get our hands on them
The stopping and starting and changing direction instantly, acceleration vastly faster than our own, ability to transit from air to water without pause and so on.
Yep. Some kind of device to turn off inertia.
Spiny Norman said:
Cymek said:
Spiny Norman said:
Speaking of aliens ….The recent admission of the US military that they have NFI what the various craft are that’re flying around on the videos they’ve released is something I find very interesting.
On one hand there’s the famous Mick West who does a pretty good and thorough debunking of a few of them, but on the other …. I don’t know.
I very much doubt that they really are aliens coming to have a look around due to the incredible distances involved. Without FTL drive it’s not viable to visit other star systems for something to do. FTL isn’t impossible, just extremely difficult.
So for now I’m in the ‘no it’s not aliens’ side, but I would be very happy to be wrong.
That would be the interesting explanation
You’d need a lot more concrete evidence than video footage though
It’s one conspiracy that could be true cover ups so you can try and get exclusive access to technology
My theory, if it is aliens, is that they’re slowly dropping in contacts like that so we get more used to it. Bit by bit they increase the number of events so it’s not a big surprise when they make the big final reveal.
Again, quite unlikely but I’d love to be wrong.
That’s what David Bowie said.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Spiny Norman said:
Speaking of aliens ….The recent admission of the US military that they have NFI what the various craft are that’re flying around on the videos they’ve released is something I find very interesting.
On one hand there’s the famous Mick West who does a pretty good and thorough debunking of a few of them, but on the other …. I don’t know.
I very much doubt that they really are aliens coming to have a look around due to the incredible distances involved. Without FTL drive it’s not viable to visit other star systems for something to do. FTL isn’t impossible, just extremely difficult.
So for now I’m in the ‘no it’s not aliens’ side, but I would be very happy to be wrong.
Pan-dimentional beings playing tourists.
Ahem… pandimensional
Cymek said:
Spiny Norman said:
Speaking of aliens ….The recent admission of the US military that they have NFI what the various craft are that’re flying around on the videos they’ve released is something I find very interesting.
On one hand there’s the famous Mick West who does a pretty good and thorough debunking of a few of them, but on the other …. I don’t know.
I very much doubt that they really are aliens coming to have a look around due to the incredible distances involved. Without FTL drive it’s not viable to visit other star systems for something to do. FTL isn’t impossible, just extremely difficult.
So for now I’m in the ‘no it’s not aliens’ side, but I would be very happy to be wrong.
That would be the interesting explanation
You’d need a lot more concrete evidence than video footage though
It’s one conspiracy that could be true cover ups so you can try and get exclusive access to technology
A young girl we know was on a videocall with another lass in her bedroom in her flat. Lass1 spied a figure in the background move quickly past the open door in the background and asked Lass2 who that was: Lass2 said there was no one else in the flat and they freaked out about it, ultimately concluding it was a ghost.
When Lass1 told me about it, I suggested some non-ghost explanations. It could have been a burglar who popped in briefly, or perhaps her friend has a guest she just didnt want to tell Lass1 about.
As far as Lass1 wss concerned these were unnecessarily complocsted explanations and the more obvious one, which involves no assumptions, was that it was a ghost.
If you are highly skeptical about the existence of ghosts then other mundane explanations, even if they seem unlikely, are going to seem better fits than explanations involving ghosts. If you already assume ghosts exist then ghostly explanations are going to be the simplest ones.
Similarly, one’s prior view of the likelihood of aliens visiting earth with colour one’s interpretation of these UFO videos.
dv said:
Cymek said:
Spiny Norman said:
Speaking of aliens ….The recent admission of the US military that they have NFI what the various craft are that’re flying around on the videos they’ve released is something I find very interesting.
On one hand there’s the famous Mick West who does a pretty good and thorough debunking of a few of them, but on the other …. I don’t know.
I very much doubt that they really are aliens coming to have a look around due to the incredible distances involved. Without FTL drive it’s not viable to visit other star systems for something to do. FTL isn’t impossible, just extremely difficult.
So for now I’m in the ‘no it’s not aliens’ side, but I would be very happy to be wrong.
That would be the interesting explanation
You’d need a lot more concrete evidence than video footage though
It’s one conspiracy that could be true cover ups so you can try and get exclusive access to technology
A young girl we know was on a videocall with another lass in her bedroom in her flat. Lass1 spied a figure in the background move quickly past the open door in the background and asked Lass2 who that was: Lass2 said there was no one else in the flat and they freaked out about it, ultimately concluding it was a ghost.
When Lass1 told me about it, I suggested some non-ghost explanations. It could have been a burglar who popped in briefly, or perhaps her friend has a guest she just didnt want to tell Lass1 about.
As far as Lass1 wss concerned these were unnecessarily complocsted explanations and the more obvious one, which involves no assumptions, was that it was a ghost.
If you are highly skeptical about the existence of ghosts then other mundane explanations, even if they seem unlikely, are going to seem better fits than explanations involving ghosts. If you already assume ghosts exist then ghostly explanations are going to be the simplest ones.
Similarly, one’s prior view of the likelihood of aliens visiting earth with colour one’s interpretation of these UFO videos.
For sure and that’s why I am sceptical of the videos and one of the reasons why is because of the excellent Mick West debunking videos.
Like this one
I’ve always maintained that if you don’t see aliens in the pubs, then there’s no aliens here.
As aliens voyage across space, they are, essentially, sailors. And travelling across space is a very long voyage.
At the end of a long voyage sailors have one place at the top of the list: a pub.
Other things, like food, entertainment, even female company, may be on the list, but the pub is the first stop.
If you haven’t seen any aliens in the public bar looking like they won’t live more than another five minutes without that first beer, then they ain’t here.
captain_spalding said:
I’ve always maintained that if you don’t see aliens in the pubs, then there’s no aliens here.As aliens voyage across space, they are, essentially, sailors. And travelling across space is a very long voyage.
At the end of a long voyage sailors have one place at the top of the list: a pub.
Other things, like food, entertainment, even female company, may be on the list, but the pub is the first stop.
If you haven’t seen any aliens in the public bar looking like they won’t live more than another five minutes without that first beer, then they ain’t here.
LOL
Michael V said:
captain_spalding said:
I’ve always maintained that if you don’t see aliens in the pubs, then there’s no aliens here.As aliens voyage across space, they are, essentially, sailors. And travelling across space is a very long voyage.
At the end of a long voyage sailors have one place at the top of the list: a pub.
Other things, like food, entertainment, even female company, may be on the list, but the pub is the first stop.
If you haven’t seen any aliens in the public bar looking like they won’t live more than another five minutes without that first beer, then they ain’t here.
LOL
They do seem to muck around if they are here
Earth is an oddball
The solar system actually sits in a massive void 1000 light years across
AI doesn’t seem to dominate the futures of alien civilisations – aliens are almost always organic lifeforms according to most accounts – I’ve only ever heard of a literal handful of accounts involving robots / machine like entities
Sitting above the alien entities are “the gods”
I wouldn’t worry about UFOs , unless they are affecting your life in some significant way – ignore it.
captain_spalding said:
I’ve always maintained that if you don’t see aliens in the pubs, then there’s no aliens here.As aliens voyage across space, they are, essentially, sailors. And travelling across space is a very long voyage.
At the end of a long voyage sailors have one place at the top of the list: a pub.
Other things, like food, entertainment, even female company, may be on the list, but the pub is the first stop.
If you haven’t seen any aliens in the public bar looking like they won’t live more than another five minutes without that first beer, then they ain’t here.
meeeeeeeethane.
I while ago I travelled through coen and stayed there with another tech
There are two shops in town
For whatever reason I decided to visit the shop furthest from me
On entering the shop I found a female at the till talking to two aboriginals and ended up looking into the fridge. I suddenly realised I could hear a female crying , there are two noises in this world that you should always take note of a crying female and higher priority – a female scream.
The aboriginals were stood uninterested listening to the girl at the cry explaining her situation, an abusive workplace no way to get out ( coen is in the middle of nowhere). They drifted off and I told her I had a work vehicle with another tech and she could travel out of coen back to civilisation TOMORROW. turned out she had a friend stuck in the same situation.
The following morning she and her friend dragged their suitcases down the street and I loaded them into ute. As we drove out of town towards Cairns it turned out they were both backpackers from America, they had been duped into taking work in coen , had been treated like shit, weren’t being paid and didn’t have the resources to get out of coen. Coen as it turns out has a drug problem and a murder problem, some chick went missing recently and they had discovered that it’s an open secret about who killed her – they named the person. I told her when she got back to cairns she should lodge a formal complaint with the gov / centrelink so more backpackers wouldn’t end up in her situation and probably contact the police directly about the murder. I’ve got no idea if she ever did.
For weeks I’d persuaded my boss I NEEDED to drive out on the weipa, couldn’t explain it, harsh on the arse because large sections are unsealed. Once I had arranged the pick up for the following morning I returned to my colleague and was delighted after I told him what was happening – “now I know why I’m here” , no more mystery / inconvenience as to wtf I’m even doing here ( it can be infuriating)
dv said:
Cymek said:
Spiny Norman said:
Speaking of aliens ….
The recent admission of the US military that they have NFI what the various craft are that’re flying around on the videos they’ve released is something I find very interesting.
On one hand there’s the famous Mick West who does a pretty good and thorough debunking of a few of them, but on the other …. I don’t know.
I very much doubt that they really are aliens coming to have a look around due to the incredible distances involved. Without FTL drive it’s not viable to visit other star systems for something to do. FTL isn’t impossible, just extremely difficult.
So for now I’m in the ‘no it’s not aliens’ side, but I would be very happy to be wrong.
That would be the interesting explanation
You’d need a lot more concrete evidence than video footage though
It’s one conspiracy that could be true cover ups so you can try and get exclusive access to technology
A young girl we know was on a videocall with another lass in her bedroom in her flat. Lass1 spied a figure in the background move quickly past the open door in the background and asked Lass2 who that was: Lass2 said there was no one else in the flat and they freaked out about it, ultimately concluding it was a ghost.
When Lass1 told me about it, I suggested some non-ghost explanations. It could have been a burglar who popped in briefly, or perhaps her friend has a guest she just didnt want to tell Lass1 about.
As far as Lass1 wss concerned these were unnecessarily complocsted explanations and the more obvious one, which involves no assumptions, was that it was a ghost.
If you are highly skeptical about the existence of ghosts then other mundane explanations, even if they seem unlikely, are going to seem better fits than explanations involving ghosts. If you already assume ghosts exist then ghostly explanations are going to be the simplest ones.
Similarly, one’s prior view of the likelihood of aliens visiting earth with colour one’s interpretation of these UFO videos.
ah “ghost” when another word beginning with g and having only 3 letters is an even bigger mass delusion
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
Cymek said:
That would be the interesting explanation
You’d need a lot more concrete evidence than video footage though
It’s one conspiracy that could be true cover ups so you can try and get exclusive access to technology
A young girl we know was on a videocall with another lass in her bedroom in her flat. Lass1 spied a figure in the background move quickly past the open door in the background and asked Lass2 who that was: Lass2 said there was no one else in the flat and they freaked out about it, ultimately concluding it was a ghost.
When Lass1 told me about it, I suggested some non-ghost explanations. It could have been a burglar who popped in briefly, or perhaps her friend has a guest she just didnt want to tell Lass1 about.
As far as Lass1 wss concerned these were unnecessarily complocsted explanations and the more obvious one, which involves no assumptions, was that it was a ghost.
If you are highly skeptical about the existence of ghosts then other mundane explanations, even if they seem unlikely, are going to seem better fits than explanations involving ghosts. If you already assume ghosts exist then ghostly explanations are going to be the simplest ones.
Similarly, one’s prior view of the likelihood of aliens visiting earth with colour one’s interpretation of these UFO videos.
ah “ghost” when another word beginning with g and having only 3 letters is an even bigger mass delusion
…
Gum?
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
A young girl we know was on a videocall with another lass in her bedroom in her flat. Lass1 spied a figure in the background move quickly past the open door in the background and asked Lass2 who that was: Lass2 said there was no one else in the flat and they freaked out about it, ultimately concluding it was a ghost.
When Lass1 told me about it, I suggested some non-ghost explanations. It could have been a burglar who popped in briefly, or perhaps her friend has a guest she just didnt want to tell Lass1 about.
As far as Lass1 wss concerned these were unnecessarily complocsted explanations and the more obvious one, which involves no assumptions, was that it was a ghost.
If you are highly skeptical about the existence of ghosts then other mundane explanations, even if they seem unlikely, are going to seem better fits than explanations involving ghosts. If you already assume ghosts exist then ghostly explanations are going to be the simplest ones.
Similarly, one’s prior view of the likelihood of aliens visiting earth with colour one’s interpretation of these UFO videos.
ah “ghost” when another word beginning with g and having only 3 letters is an even bigger mass delusion
…
Gum?
gnu
but seriously as we well know, to many people “because god” is literally the simplest explanation in their framework
captain_spalding said:
I’ve always maintained that if you don’t see aliens in the pubs, then there’s no aliens here.As aliens voyage across space, they are, essentially, sailors. And travelling across space is a very long voyage.
At the end of a long voyage sailors have one place at the top of the list: a pub.
Other things, like food, entertainment, even female company, may be on the list, but the pub is the first stop.
If you haven’t seen any aliens in the public bar looking like they won’t live more than another five minutes without that first beer, then they ain’t here.
I recall reading a World War 2 anecdote about work crews in the Pacific being praised for their speedy unloading of freight from supply ships, until it was explained to them that the beer was always stored at the bottom.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it …
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Have another one.
Back in the 1980s I looked at rgb values for ethnic skin tones from photos on the web.
My main conclusion is that there is no ethnic difference between skin tones, a black person in the light has the exact same skin colour as a white person in shadow. And no difference between Asian and European skin tones.
But I spent more than a decade thinking that “fake tan” was a genuine natural skin colour.
that the earth is flat
Arts said:
that the earth is flat
Did you ever think that?
I have changed my mind about self-diagnosis of my mental state.
I used to think that I was sub-clinically neurotic, and social phobic. I no longer think that.
Not as interesting but a motoring example from me.
I used to think that Front Wheel Drive cars could never match a Rear Wheel Drive car under any conditions. But after spending a fair few hours in them in endurance races around the world I grew to like them. Most so with one race in Malaysia when it started to bucket down for a few hours in the 12 Hour race. I found that the FWD car I was in was far easier to control around slippery corners than the RWD’s I was used to. The definitive proof was that there were Lotus Elise’s in the race and in the dry they were about 10 – 15 seconds a lap faster than us, but in the wet we were at least 10 seconds a lap faster than them. I found that I could easily drive around the outside of them in any corner with ease and that was pretty darn cool. Our car was a plain Toyota Corolla 1.6 litre, very much not a performance car though we’d made a bunch of tweaks and it ended up fast for the class it was in.
