Tarrot cards/tea leaves/fortune read [Archive]

back2basics

08-01-2004, 13:13

These sort of things have plaid a very big part in my life. When i was young i got in to UFO's, i liked the idea of them. Luckily i read the right books and ended up becoming a sceptic.

I have spent many hours reading up and researching these things over my life. I don't want to get in to a debate, i am just going to make statements. I have no time for people who 'believe'. People who do tarot cards and cold reading are another section of society that are DANGEROUS. There are many documented cases where people are hurt by the advice given. The techniques they use are pretty simple and are easily learnt. The fact is that these people may get 10 things wrong and one thing right and people come out thinking it's accurate. So they will say 'i am seeing the letter M, does that mean anything to you?' M is a very common initial in men, but even if the last name started with M the medium would have scored a hit. Then something like - ' i see a chest or a heart' most people dies from problems with lungs, heart etc. If they get negative feedback (a shake of their head, a tightening of the eyes) they can say '... no wait, its moving up to the head'.

Even when they get it totally wrong they will turn it round by saying something like 'Well if you cannot make the connection, go and ask family members'. The person will often go home and find some sort of obscure connection to re-enforce what they have been told.

Many people will obviously post a million of their experiences where this isn't the case and ask how they did it. The fact is the best mediums and tarot card readers have been tested and they are no more accurate that statistically they should be. We would expect them to get a certain amount of guesses right, they claim to be entirely accurate, which of course they are not.

It is dangerous, many people really want to believe there is an after life, it's a comfort thing. When somebody goes to a medium most of the time it's after a bereavement, searching for answers. These mediums will often try to justify what they do as some form of counselling. But they are not qualified and there are better cheaper was to get qualified counselling.

I URGE everybody to read www.randi.org or http://skepdic.com/. They explain how these things work and give case studies of the damaged caused.

back2basics

08-01-2004, 13:20

Here is a better explanation than mine on how cold reading works.

http://www.randi.org/library/coldreading/index.html

The currently-popular "psychics" like Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh, and John Edward, who are getting so much TV space on Montel Williams, Larry King, and other shows, employ a technique known as "cold reading." They tell the subjects nothing, but make guesses, put out suggestions, and ask questions. This is a very deceptive art, and the unwary observer may come away believing that unknown data was developed by some wondrous means. Not so.

Examples: "I get an older man here" is a question, a suggestion, and a guess by the "reader," who expects some reaction from the subject, and usually gets it. That reaction may just be a nod, the actual name of a person, or an identification (brother, husband, grandfather), but it is supplied BY THE SUBJECT, not by the reader. "They're saying, 'Bob,' or 'Robert.' Do you recognize this person?" is another question, suggestion, and guess. If there's a Bob or Robert, the subject will amplify the identification. But if there's no Bob or Robert immediately recognized, the reader passes right on, after commenting that Bob is there alright, but not recognized right now. If any Bob is remembered later, that is incorporated into the spiel. You should observe and listen to a video of a reading. In one such by Van Praagh, prepared by the "48 Hours" TV program, a reading that lasted 60 minutes, we found only TWO actual statements made, and 260 questions asked. Both actual statements--guesses--were wrong. Van Praagh was looking for the name of the woman's deceased husband, and he came up with it by asking, "Do you know anyone named, Jack?" The woman answered, "Yes! Jack, my husband!" But Van Praagh didn't identify "Jack" at all. He asked her if SHE would identify him. By that time, Van Praagh had already tried on her 26 other men's names--all wrong. But, the woman--the subject--forgot about those failures, because they were not important to her. "Jack" was important.

The readers have a way of leading the subject to believe that they knew something they didn't. Example:

Reader: "Did your husband linger on in the hospital, or did he pass quickly?"
Subject: "Oh, he died almost immediately!"

Reader: "Yes, because he's saying to me, `I didn't suffer. I was spared any pain.'"

It's strange that the reader (Van Praagh, in this example) had to ask that question.....

And remember, these readers often go out and interview the audience members when they're on line waiting to get into the studio or auditorium. That technique was employed by the very successful reader Doris Stokes. She would feed back any data she got as if she were refreshing her memory of what had been told her. "Are you the lady who has a passed-on sister, dearie?" would of course receive assent from the victim, and ahhhs from the audience. Also, a person who approaches the reader before the TV show or auditorium meeting and says she has a question about her deceased grandmother, can then later be selected out of the audience when they're on-camera or during the live encounter, and can then be asked, "Is your question about your grandmother?" and that appears--to everyone else--like a bang-on "hit." Or, and this is very subtle indeed, people in the studio or auditorium audience--usually seated up front for best visibility--are sometimes those who have already been to the "psychic" for a private reading, and have then been asked to show up later to occupy reserved seats at the public in-person gathering "to develop more information" using the "collective power of the assembled audience." The reader then repeats previously-gleaned data, and that appears miraculous both to the audience in the studio and at home, watching, or elsewhere in the auditorium audience.

We tested Sylvia Browne in 1989, on live TV, and she failed miserably. On that occasion, she was not allowed to speak to anyone in advance, or to be asked or told anything in advance. The audience was told to only answer "yes" or "no," when asked a DIRECT question, and Sylvia bombed out big-time. She blamed it all on bad vibrations.... Van Praagh and Edward have not responded to our offer to test them--for the million-dollar prize, even.

So, you see, it's your perception of what's actually being done, rather that the reality of the procedure, and your ignorance of other subtle clues and methods, that misleads you in your observations of these "psychics."

I'll give you one example of something I did when I was performing as a mentalist in Toronto, my home town, at the age of 18. (I hasten to add here that I would ALWAYS thoroughly disclaim any genuine powers, before and after my show.) They had a huge auditorium filled with reserved seats, just about every one of them occupied by eager subjects. It was some sort of a charity affair, and seats were expensive. After I got rolling with the various moving objects and blindfolded duplication-of-handwriting stunts (spoonbending was not yet a popular miracle!) I stopped abruptly and pointed to a lady in the third-row aisle seat. "I'm led to say to you that I get a middle name of 'Rose' for you, madame!" I cried. Her gasp verified that I was right." And that name is more than significant to you." She leaned forward. "I see a clock, a very old clock, and on the dial three pink roses?" She started to speak, and I silenced her by raising my hand. "But this is a strange clock. It can't tell the time!" By now, the poor woman was about to pass out in excitement. "Why is it useless? I see two arrows, or darts…They're metal, and they're broken…Ah! I see! These are the hands of that clock, and they've come off the clock face, and are lying together behind the glass cover of the clock dial! Is that right?" The woman was standing, mouth open, nodding vigorously. She was awe-struck, and the applause was vigorous indeed. How was it done? A lucky guess? No. Planning.

T.K. Lawson, my buddy, had been working with that charity. He was the one got me the gig (a contracted appearance). And he also went through several neighborhoods selling tickets to likely donors. He had sold tickets CC-20 and CC-22 to this lady, and she'd invited him into her living-room while she made out a check to pay for the tickets. He observed that the "rose" theme was everywhere, and an embroidered "sampler" was framed by the door, with the woman's full name on it. That clock was by the fireplace. T.K. noted these facts, and reported them to me. I must tell you that together we intercepted that dear lady as she left after the show, and explained to her how I'd been "psychic." She was highly entertained with the explanation, and grateful for our caring to tell her.

I somehow don't think that Browne, Edward, and Van Praagh would trouble to do such a thing. But, after all, they say they're REALLY "speaking with the dead."

I'm amazed at how much death affects people who undergo the process. It makes them really stupid and forgetful. Whenever I've asked any psychics--or spiritualists--to contact my paternal grandmother, it seems she doesn't remember such basics as the name of her husband, or the name of her church--both important elements in her life while she was "here." Now that she's "there," her rather prodigious intellect has left her quite completely.

Belle

08-01-2004, 13:36

Oh I didnt appreciate we were talking about mediums and the after-life

I was only talking about stuff like

You will meet a tall dark and handsome stranger who will be wearing white and will whisk you away etc

or

You might win the lottery this week

Venger and I werent pretending to commune with spirits or anything of that nature

back2basics

08-01-2004, 13:46

It's all part of the same thing Belle. It's part of a human belief system in things that are incredibly far fetched. Same as UFO, alien abductions, your weekly stars. There are several psychological (human condition) factors that make people believe (or want to believe) on mass. I mean to suggest that the stars have some form of control on our lives is a little silly to say the least, but they will be right for a certain amount of people born in May, they also use vagueness in the same way a cold reader would.

In many ways they are fundamentally the same thing.

I was talking with my wife last night, she said she sometimes has dreams where she is awake in bed but cannot move. Many people report this phenomena as a poltergeist, or ghost. Again it's linked, my wife (bless her) didn't go looking for bizarre reasons for why it happened, but a very large percentage of the world would. The very same people who believe in the other pseudo-sciences.

Also Tarot cards etc (as the thread title was about) presume some form of spirit/afterlife/predetermination of life.

Added : A a bit of fun there is no harm in any of it. It's when it taken too seriously that damage can be done.

Moon Maiden

08-01-2004, 14:01

Originally posted by back2basics

Also Tarot cards etc (as the thread title was about) presume some form of spirit/afterlife/predetermination of life.

Added : A a bit of fun there is no harm in any of it. It's when it taken too seriously that damage can be done.

I am very sorry but no they don't. I believe in many things that are far fetched and many things I do not.
I believe in no afterlife, I believe in no spirit and I certainly do not believe in predetermination of life - otherwise why would I waste so much time and energy using magik to change it?

I appreciate what you say about mediums, personally I have not met one person yet who can do what they claim and just pander to beliefs grief and suffering and hope.
I feel uncomfortable doing readings as I know many of the people who come to me are looking for answers that they can find within themselves - unfortunately not everyone feels they are able.

Personally I read what is on the cards as my 'intuituition' tells me. My guides are the suits of the cards and not the book. I do not believe you can read for a person over the phone or such like, and I try my very best not to look at the person I am reading for - when reading, because it is so easy to be led by their facial expresssions.

Since re-inforcing that rule harder (not looking) according to my cleints my readings seemed to have improved.

Who knows.

Moon

back2basics

08-01-2004, 14:18

Moon i am not suggesting everybody in the world is exactly the same, and thinks in exactly the same way. I know people who believe in Ghosts but laugh at the stars printed in the papers.

Some people will believe in one thing or another, but the physiological factors at play are very similar. We have done brains scans to see which are of the brain is at play when belief and trust are concerned. You see it IS all about blindly believing, it's peoples naive beliefs that allow these things to continue in today's modern world. As you know these things have been bantered around for tens of thousands of years, without a scrap of scientific proof (and they have been tested). But people have been brought up to believe in things that they cannot see, and can never have proof of (i.e. God) and they extend that belief to other things they cannot explain.

As far as your readings and spells i don't believe in that either (sorry!). And *if* you could prove your powers i strongly suggest you contact JREF (www.randi.org) to claim the $1 million dollar prize. All you need to do is complete a scientific 'double blind test', it's very simple and it doesn't even expect you to be 100% right, and you would be very rich.

Remember science has given us MANY things we take for granted. It has taken us to space, cured disease and improved our lives. I say this because somebody (as always) will use the old, we thought the world was flat at one stage kind of reply. Science has delivered, dowsing, magic, mediums etc have not given the world on mass anything. But when the subject comes to the supernatural beliefs people suddenly say things like 'well why do we only use 10% of our brain, what is the other 90% for?' in justification for being able to read minds... well we don't only use 10% of our brains. These beliefs are based on bad information, used to justify things. Only anecdotal evidence by people who 'believe'. We can trust science, we should believe in it's methods and conclusions. Its that turning off of logic that is consistent. Consistent with conspiracy theorist who think we never landed on the moon, consistent with people who believe there are energies that can be tapped in to and dowsers who say they can find water or Gold.

I think i have upset enough people on Sheffield forum for one week, sorry!

Moon Maiden

08-01-2004, 14:28

You haven't upset me at all. I was just pointing out that you comments do not apply to everyone - as you have reittereated in your post.

I would be very happy to prove to Randi the existence of magik, I am not so confident in my reading abilities. If Randi wants his legs broken then fine :)

With regards to science. First of all there is nothing at all to say that science isn't magik. Magik to a degree is fueled by belief, and many people belief that if you flick on a light switch at one side of the room, then a light will go on at the other, done by an unseen force that is explained by science. They told us it will do that and so it does. They told us that the bulbs don't last forever and they don't. (few cases where that doesn't apply please see Fortean Times)
Science has already given us reason for magik and such things to exist - it is called Quantum.

Anyways I guess we will have to agree to dsagree on that one because it is taking away from the point to the thread.

Moon

nomme

08-01-2004, 14:31

I think your wrong about dowsing. I don't have time to research it at the moment but I'm fairly sure oil and mining companies do employ dowsers as well as geologists in order to find mineral deposits. I have also played around with dowsing with unexplained success. That science cannot explain the phenomenom does not negate the fact that it exists nor can be that it may be utilised.

Nomme

back2basics

08-01-2004, 14:39

Nomme dowsing is a fake, all scientific research has turned out results WORSE than just common luck. Some police forces have used mediums to track down murders (with little or no success) doesn't make it real. The police officer (or oil company exec.) who brought in these people were probably believers, there are plenty. There have been a few successes, but no more than to suggest luck.

It's almost insane to think a man with a stick can find water! But they have been tested and found to be false.

Moon then keep us informed how your test goes with James Randi and good luck with the 1 million dollars. Would you buy me a pint when you win for letting you know about it? I have to say many people (including witches) have tried and failed.

Quantum Physics does not prove anything about magic, sorry. But it is amazing in it's own right, while some people believe in the flights of fancy, they are missing the truly amazing world of Physics. It's a beautiful think.

Mosherchik

08-01-2004, 14:40

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
So do the majority of people believe that your future is set or that it is possible to change it?

Moon

I refuse to believe in destiny...that would mean there would be no point in living...either people are destined to be rich, succesful and powerful or destined to live on the streets in poverty? I hope not!

Life is what you make it!

Having said that me and some friends did tarot readings on new years eve, but from what I can understand its not predicting the future as such but more giving (very obscure) advice on problems and questions in your life...
Mainly we were asking silly questions like "will my car start tomorrow?" but on the more serious ones there were a few coincidences...but as far as Im concerned with the whole future prediction thing...its all guess work, ambiguity and vagueness and if you want to see a magic answer in what fortune tellers have to say then you will see one!

xx

back2basics

08-01-2004, 14:48

For Nomme http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/index.html. Dowsers have tried for the 1 million prize and lost. James just uses a simple double blind test. It's not complicated and doesn't require much of the person to be tested. The person who wants to be tested sets their own rules. So they say what they think they can prove and a double blind test is conceived to test the claim. Nobody has even come close to winning.

DaBouncer

08-01-2004, 14:49

Originally posted by back2basics
Nomme dowsing is a fake
Prove it!

Moon Maiden

08-01-2004, 14:51

You appear to know the fringes of the subjects B2B which is understandable I guess.

Dowsing has been used by police officers themselves. There are a number of documented cases that occured during WWII in order to help find the bodies under the rubble.

None of this of course will make it real or fake, it gives light to a possibility. Which is what I said about Quantum, which give us the possibility of magiks existence. Tell me have you read about Chaos theory?

Moon

back2basics

08-01-2004, 15:03

Moon there are literally millions of scientific tests (not anecdotal) that prove downswing to be false. So do you believe 100 or literally millions of test all over the world?

Yeah i am very well versed with both Chaos theory and String Theory. Neither of them have anything to do with magic, but are fantastic theories in their own right. Also chaos theory is not even quantum physics strictly. They do overlap a little (as do all sciences) but it's not actually Quantum physics. But i would be glad to here why you think it opens the possibility of magic.

But i must say magic does exist, i can myself make the card you pick raise from a pack without even touching the pack. But anybody could do it, and there is nothing supernatural about it.

Moon Maiden

08-01-2004, 15:16

Like I said you are simply on the fringes of the subject - when I said chaos theory I meant chaos magik.
As for the card - you do better than I because that isn't the magik I talk about and is why I spell it differently to differentiate.

Yes I would believe the 100's of tests - but also in that I cannot completely discount the things I have seen and experienced myself. Also the stories I quote for dowsing are actual police records as opposed to 'my mate said his grandad did this in WWII'. Which although are not conducted in the scienfitic lab, are certainly not to be written off completely.

Science would not exist if it was not for the superstitions of times past and the desire by mankind to explain them. Today's magik is tomorrows science and again I don't speak of paul daniels or that damned man Kevin Carlyron either.

With regard to quantum - my knowledge of this is slight and I have friends who are better versed in this than I. But I said nothing about the physics but of the theory.

One thing I believe is taken from the theory is that of parralel universes. This gives an wonderful explaination for magik - that you take an event from a parralel universe that is more desireable than the current and swop them round. Of course it does throw into the spotlight on how you would go about such a task. However is parralel universes are possible then to move them about or merge them for a moment would certainly be possible.

The parralel comes into play also for mediums - that they tap into a person who has not yet passed over who is still living on a paralel universe. This person is able to tell the medium everything about the 'spirit' they believe they have contacted, except a few incidents that are not right.

Personally I do not set out in my day to day to remove other peoples beliefs because I think they are damaging or harmful. I have very strong opinions on a number of belief structures, however I also appreciate that these beliefs are what get people through the day on some occasions. I also accept that man will reuqire the belief in something regardless, be that god, magik or science.

Moon Maiden

Dug

08-01-2004, 15:32

Are you trying to tell me that Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are not real? Come on they must be, otherwise how do all the presents get delivered? :confused:

Moon Maiden

08-01-2004, 15:37

Randi does it - with his collection of professors in white coats ;)

Moon Maiden

Dug

08-01-2004, 15:41

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
Randi does it - with his collection of professors in white coats ;)

Moon Maiden

Gutted

What about the Tooth Fairy?

alert_bri

08-01-2004, 15:43

very interesting thread...

back2basics - are you a trained physicist or just a fan? just interested to know. Do you read much Arthur C Clarke?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear like magic to the uninitiated"

Arthur C Clarke

IMHO science is on a hopeless but noble mission to explain the workings of the universe... and that pretty much anything you can imagine will one day be invented (provided the human race can survive itself long enough!) - do you remember the absurdity of the communicator captain kirk used? and a few years later we have the flip up mobile phone!

Just because a scientist hasn't invented a theory to explain dowsing and tarot reading and any other magik Moon Maiden experiences doesn't mean they won't eventually.

Hasn't just about every scientific theory been 'refined' or 'adjusted' as more scientific data is collected to debunk the original theory? I'm still annoyed that most of what we were taught in Physics at school was out of date when we learned it!

Isn't science the new religion - with it's own fans and 'believers'?

I'm completely open on this subject... really interested in your thoughts?

Moon Maiden

08-01-2004, 15:50

Originally posted by Dug
Gutted

What about the Tooth Fairy?

The tooth fairy is a result of old wives tales and superstious nonsense. Of course real fairies wouldn't wait while the tooth fell out of your head they would rip it out themselves.

moon

nomme

08-01-2004, 16:11

Originally posted by back2basics
For Nomme http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/index.html. Dowsers have tried for the 1 million prize and lost. James just uses a simple double blind test. It's not complicated and doesn't require much of the person to be tested. The person who wants to be tested sets their own rules. So they say what they think they can prove and a double blind test is conceived to test the claim. Nobody has even come close to winning.

Interesting. I have great respect for Randi and his work. I came across this on that site
http://www.randi.org/jr/011003.html

...and what intrigues me is all the names of those academics that he has challanged about this. Unfortunately the article it links to seems to have gone and I can't find any followup to it. Still iinteresting that so many other 'scientists' have 'dupped'.

This is quite an intersting take on it too...
http://www.cmsu.edu/englphil/pleiades/Dowsing.html

Nomme

Moon Maiden

08-01-2004, 16:17

Can someone tell me how a bumble bee manges to fly please??? Can Randi give his award to a bumble bee?

Moon

back2basics

09-01-2004, 11:59

moon i don't know then i mean it seems to me like the religious nuts and various supernatural followers are taking theories form science and using to their own means. Yeah parallel universes are very interesting, the maths seems to suggest they exist. But it's interesting when you look at Quantum Physics and take a look at particle states. The best research so far suggest that particles do not take a sold form until it is viewed, but (and this is a very, very basic explanation of a very complex subject) they kind of exist in every position the could possible exists in. So for instance a glass could be on one table or the other, quantum physics says it exists in both places, but only becomes real (to us primitive humans) once it is viewed. Kind of like magic, but not.
I think that tied pretty well with alert_bri's Arthur C Clarke quote. Imagine being one of the first people to see fire! Some people would think it's a spirit because they can explain it no other way, some people would look at it objectively and try to work out what it really is. A sceptic or scientist does not make conclusions without testing, that is what being a sceptic is about. And of course science is not a exact art, from a philosophical point of view science can never be 100% correct, can never measure something with 100% accuracy because there is always a smaller unit of measurement. So what we do is work out the probability or levels of certainty, and then we must trust science. If we did not work this way and we required 100% certainty, we would not have many of the gifts science has given us (and turned out to be true). I have Physics qualifications and it's a hobby of mine to keep up to date with the latest research being carried out, i do not do it as a job, if thats what you meant.
alert i disagree that understanding the Universe is hopeless. We have mathematical models that have predicted Black holes before we could see them, or even believe the bizarre counter intuitive theory. But they were correct. These models are very accurate, we only (know about) one weak link, which is dark matter, which we are close to understanding. Once that has done the models have stood the test of time for many decades now. We know the age of the universe, how much matter is in the Universe, how much it is expanding and this has been crossed check for many years, in many different fields of science. It is infact Quantum science and our understanding of the Universe that tells us that god does not exists and there are no ghosts and UFO's cannot be visiting us.

Also this Bee thing moon maiden mentioned, again it's like the 'we only use 10% of our brains' lie. It's just not true. When somebody said, we do not understand how bee's can fly, they should not be able to, people picked up on that and used it for their own means. Of course they didn't understand what was really being said, and also we know how bee's fly now.

back2basics

09-01-2004, 12:07

Nomme yeah Randi is a great guy. One of his crusades is to stop the police and governments using pseudo-science. You will always get some nut police officer in a southern state of America bringing in a medium to find a body or something. But he takes it further, polygraph tests are also pseudo-science. They don't work, they can be easily fooled, but they are admissible as evidence in many courts.

They are duped because they have tested dowsing in the field. Often the dowser is just using his eyes and a geographical knowledge built up through the years. But when we test downswing in the lab it NEVER works. It's an easy test, give him three boxes, only one has water (gold or whatever) and if he can beat probability there may be something in it. They all claim 100% success, in real life they are only as accurate as somebody guessing would be.

The ONLY pseudo-science that stands up (a little) to scientific inspection (bizarrely) is acupuncture. There appears to be something in it. But even in the NHS complimentary medicines are available that have been disproved by science many times (homeopathy for instance). Thats MUST be stopped, it a total waste of tax money and nothing more than the placebo effect. We should just give them a chalk tablet to people who want alternative medicines and tell them it's a tablet with a spell on it that will cure them, and save tax money.

Hodge

09-01-2004, 12:20

Originally posted by back2basics
. But it's interesting when you look at Quantum Physics and take a look at particle states. The best research so far suggest that particles do not take a sold form until it is viewed, but (and this is a very, very basic explanation of a very complex subject) they kind of exist in every position the could possible exists in. So for instance a glass could be on one table or the other, quantum physics says it exists in both places, but only becomes real (to us primitive humans) once it is viewed. Kind of like magic, but not.

I always thought that Quantum Mechanics theorised that you don't know the state of a particle until it is measured (but you can predict its state), as opposed to a particle not taking solid form until viewed (which to me, suggests that particles are some how conscious, and like to play games). Erwin Schroedinger devised an experiment (never actually executed!), involving a cat, a sealed box, poisonous gas, and radioactive matter with a suitably short half-life to show this. (The cat is placed in a sealed box with a vial of poisonous gas. When the radioactive matter decays, it triggers the release of the gas to kill the cat. However, not knowing precisely when the matter will decay leads to not knowing whether the cat is alive or dead until you open the box and look. Until you "measure" the state of the cat, it has a dual state - both alive and dead).

Something like that, anyway - it's been a while since I read about Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Electrodynamics is equally bizarre.

back2basics

09-01-2004, 12:29

Yes and no. My example was a bad one (in fact any with a real, full object in), here is a better example, really we are talking about states of particles, the cat would be dead in your example.

Here is a more scientific explanation -

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Physics/QuantumPhysics/PhysicsConcepts/PhysicsConcepts.htm

A consequence of this wave-particle duality is that all matter has a wave aspect, and cannot be said to have a definite localized position at all times. Moreover, by virtue of their nonlocal wave properties, pairs of spatially separated particles sometimes exhibit nonlocal correlations in their attributes. Another consequence of the wave-particle duality is a corresponding duality between the unobserved and the observed. This duality raises puzzling questions regarding the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics: how is it that the wave suddenly changes into a particle, and how is this sudden transformation related to observation?

Themes > Science > Physics > Quantum Physics > Quantum Physics Concepts

The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite. Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word `understanding'.

The fundamental laws of quantum physics were discovered independently in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg and in 1926 by Erwin Schrödinger in response to puzzling experimental evidence that contradicted the fundamental concepts of classical physics. For example, electrons (which were previously thought to be particles) were found to exhibit properties of waves. Conversely, light (which was previously thought to be waves) was found to exhibit properties of particles. This confusion of classical distinctions between particles and waves was resolved by Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity, according to which the wave and particle concepts are understood to be mutually exclusive but both necessary for a complete description of quantum phenomena.
A consequence of this wave-particle duality is that all matter has a wave aspect, and cannot be said to have a definite localized position at all times. Moreover, by virtue of their nonlocal wave properties, pairs of spatially separated particles sometimes exhibit nonlocal correlations in their attributes. Another consequence of the wave-particle duality is a corresponding duality between the unobserved and the observed. This duality raises puzzling questions regarding the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics: how is it that the wave suddenly changes into a particle, and how is this sudden transformation related to observation?

A deeper understanding of these subtle issues requires some basic understanding of the way quantum physics describes phenomena. According to quantum physics, the state of an unobserved quantum of matter or light (such as an electron or photon) is represented by a solution to Schrödinger's wave equation. This solution is a quantum wave function y(x) whose intensity |y(x)|2 at any particular position x represents the probability of observing the quantum at that position. When the quantum is observed, however, it is seen to have a definite actual position, and the wave function no longer properly describes the quantum. Thus, when the quantum is unobserved, it is a nonlocal wave of probable positions; and when the quantum is observed, it is a particle having a definite localized position. As a result, both the particle and wave concepts are required to completely characterize a quantum: the particle concept is required to describe its particle-like behavior when observed, while the wave concept is require to describe its wave-like behavior when unobserved. The particle and wave concepts are called "complementary" descriptions because they are both needed to characterize the observed and unobserved aspects of any quantum, as illustrated in the following table.

Hodge

09-01-2004, 12:37

Originally posted by back2basics
...the cat would be dead in your example.

Would it? It's Erwin Schroedinger's example though, not mine :P

back2basics

09-01-2004, 12:56

What he is trying to explain is in simple layman's terms that we do not know the cats state (dead of alive) until it is viewed (observed). It was an attempt to explain the CONCEPTUAL problems faced in Quantum Mechanics, not an actual experiment. The theory only correlates to particles. We can only theorise that particles when measured (or observed) hold state, as when we try to examine the particle it is being observed and therefore takes it's state. Thats why it's called the paradox. Thats how i remember it anyway, i certainly could be wrong.

Just found this - http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-3.html

Hodge

09-01-2004, 12:59

Originally posted by back2basics
What he is trying to explain is in simple layman's terms that we do not know the cats state (dead of alive) until it is viewed (observed). It was an attempt to explain the CONCEPTUAL problems faced in Quantum Mechanics, not an actual experiment. The theory only correlates to particles.

...

Yeah, I know mate - sorry, just trying to wind you up a little - feeling a bit cheeky since it's friday afternoon :)

back2basics

09-01-2004, 13:07

My applogies your correct! He was suggesting that as an experiment..

back2basics

09-01-2004, 13:11

Ha you gave in too early! He certain was suggesting it as a real experiment, but that was 70 years ago!

Moon Maiden

09-01-2004, 13:38

Enjoying yourself B2B?? I love people who appear to say everything but say absolutely nothing.

I'm not bothered if you do not believe in Magik (occult forms outside the supernatural/paranormal/age of aquarious diatribe, because you are still way off the mark as far as understanding this area is concerned.)
You stick to your guns mate, because if it isn't in a book, or is outside your extensive scope of experience it is null/void and fake regardless. Or at least that is the appearance you are giving.

Moon Maiden :banana:

alert_bri

09-01-2004, 13:55

I think scientists are cute when they're arguing their theory is 'right' :D

back2basics seems to have as much belief in science as the most devout religious zealout would have about their own faith.

I just think that science isn't an exact science... which interestingly b2b says too so we're in agreement ;)

And of course science is not a exact art, from a philosophical point of view science can never be 100% correct, can never measure something with 100% accuracy because there is always a smaller unit of measurement. So what we do is work out the probability or levels of certainty, and then we must trust science.

I also agree that in most cases science gives us the safest means to achieve anything predictably - but I do not rule out the existence or validity of things I can't explain - which b2b seems to be doing?

back2basics

09-01-2004, 14:00

LOL, my mind is open. Thats what being a sceptic and a scientist is about. You will never understand and it's not my job to educate you both.

This from a witch and a con man :)

alert_bri

09-01-2004, 14:38

let's try to keep it civil this time b2b OK?

no need to get frightened about people knowing things you don't - your world won't collapse around your ears if you're ignorant of some facts will it?

or were you just being abusive for fun? I can't tell in print :confused:

Moon Maiden

09-01-2004, 14:46

A sceptic is a healthy thing to be. Shame you appear to be stuck in your steteo typing that you are unable to recognise one.

I do not want blinkered education particularly the education given by religion thank you b2b, you keep it to yourself.

Moon Maiden

back2basics

09-01-2004, 14:55

Sorry guys i have no more time for you. I have been civil and said nothing that is not true (apart from the Cat example). moon advertises herself as a witch (so there is nothing wrong with that) and you my freind are a con man.

I don't want an argument, so i will end here.

Belle

09-01-2004, 15:02

Of course if it was a glass box you would be able to see in without removing the lid

That would bugger up the whole thing wouldnt it

Not that any of this is remotely related to palm-reading

I could tell you a few funny stories about palm-readings I have received over the years, if you would like...

Moon Maiden

09-01-2004, 15:03

Originally posted by back2basics
Sorry guys i have no more time for you.

Oh how noble. I 'advertise' myself as nothing, it makes me sound like a flippin prostitute. You see me as you wish.

Thanks for finally taking a hint love.

Moon

back2basics

09-01-2004, 15:09

Oh moon i didn't mean the advertising bit to come off bad. Sorry you took offence. I have just read post by you saying you are a practicing witch, nothing more than that.

But you did try to make out several incorrect statements, like bees shouldn't be able to fly. Then you said are you familiar with Chaos theory, which i am, and you then tried to backtrack and say the 'Majik' version. Not even getting in to the fact you say you cast spells, that work.

That is all people make up you own minds. As for Brian read the 'working from home' thread i the Sheffield forum and make up your own mind.

Hodge

09-01-2004, 15:13

Originally posted by Belle
Of course if it was a glass box you would be able to see in without removing the lid

That would bugger up the whole thing wouldnt it

LOL, true, but I think Schroedinger intended the box to be opaque :P

nomme

09-01-2004, 15:24

Originally posted by Hodge
LOL, true, but I think Schroedinger intended the box to be opaque :P

.. and sound proof. Otherwise you would hear it meowing.

Nomme

alert_bri

09-01-2004, 15:30

I make no defence of the Working From Home thread - 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other I'd say - I was stupid letting my ego get out of control & arguing without first seeking to understand the other side. Doh!

b2b you are welcome to your world.

The map is not the territory... ;)

Jamie

09-01-2004, 15:42

Ohhh ... wot an intersting thread !!

Oh the folly of trying to convince a person that reality is any way other than how they believe it to be .....

Gillie

09-01-2004, 20:44

I have been to a 'clairvoyant three times right here in Sheffield. She is really good and has always predicited accurately if you want her number let me know.

Moon Maiden

09-01-2004, 20:56

Originally posted by back2basics
Oh moon i didn't mean the advertising bit to come off bad. Sorry you took offence. I have just read post by you saying you are a practicing witch, nothing more than that.

But you did try to make out several incorrect statements, like bees shouldn't be able to fly. Then you said are you familiar with Chaos theory, which i am, and you then tried to backtrack and say the 'Majik' version. Not even getting in to the fact you say you cast spells, that work.

That is all people make up you own minds. As for Brian read the 'working from home' thread i the Sheffield forum and make up your own mind.

Apology accepted on the prozzy thing.

As far as I am aware - scientists have proved that a bumble bee is unable to fly. It is against the laws of science. If I am wrong - please give me something I can get my teeth into to correct this mis-information.

I did not try to back track with anything b2b - have a look around the net for Chaos magik - you may be supprised. I made the comment because the chaos magik ties in alot with quantum - simply because of it's nature.
Incidentaly - chaos magik came about as all good magik does. In a pub in leeds. It's them spirits ya know.

So you don't believe in magik - that is fine. I can accept that. What I cannot get over is your persistent desire to dis mine and thousands of other peoples experiences because you have read about lots of tests and completely dis-regard all possibilities.
That is not scientific and it lacks a wonderful virtue of common sense.

Moon Maiden

halevan

10-01-2004, 18:32

Just another confidence trick on gullable people, a ruse to deprive us of our money, the fools fall for it every time!

Phanerothyme

11-01-2004, 02:43

quite Halevan.

The tarot is a useful tool for introspection and self analysis as it throws up common and ambiguous archetypes (in the Major Arcana at least, the Minor Arcana is just really 4 suits of cards) for consideration and interpretation.

Sort of like random psychoanalysis.

Bumblees do fly, and no scientist has ever proved they don't, because they self evidently do. Bumblebees wings generate leading edge vortices that allow them to keep their wings oscillating with the minimum energy expenditure, but they are very dependent on fine weather to fly well. Fine weather not only increases the bees temperature, but the high pressure means the air is more viscous and hence the leading edge vortex effect is more pronounced.

back2basics - I am in complete agreement with your comments thus far. I think people fear losing their great mysteries enormously.

To my mind the best way to learn about something, like an unexplained phenomena, is to perform an experiment.

The experiment is mankinds fundamental tool of discovery. It has yielded every single thing we have. It has even yielded better methods of experimentation!

Anyone, faced with uncertainty over the truth of a certain proposition, can devise and conduct a simple experiment that would pass peer scrutiny.

Like the dust on Moon Maiden's lens that could have been a glimpse of a ethereal guardian. We will all see what we want to see. No-one needs to prove their reality to anyone else, and since reality itself is a function of your mind, all realities can coexist simultaneously. Some realities, however, take up a lot more time to maintain than others.

No wonder agreeing any code of ethics is like trying to herd cats, when we are all actually living in quite separate realities.

And Bell's nonlocality theorem has been proven, repeatedly. This is science doing what it does best - just coming up with something that outstrips the paranormal. Triggering simultaneous action over infinite distances with no time lag at all.

The technological uses for this are already starting to be felt with the gradual emergence of quantum machines could represent a revolution in technology, much as the microprocessor has revolutionised the world in the last 20 years.

Now that to me is magic.

For an understanding of everything paranormal, and how it affects us as human beings if we do not understand it, have a look at cargo cults. That tells me everything i need to know about belief in religion and the human mind.

For a deeper understanding of what "god" and "spirits" actually are, take a look at "The origins of consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind."

And read Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson. If you think you have an open mind, this book will prove you wrong. I think i have an open mind, and it still proves me wrong everytime I open it. He is the anti-guru.

Thats enough late night rambling for now (Ed.)

Jamie

11-01-2004, 12:11

Dearest Phanerothyme,

But there is magic and mystery inside us and all around us ... and science and logic and mans critical mind will never grasp this ...

I think of mans 'critical / logical mind' ... as looking at the universe though a telescope ... and thinking that what you see is what is there ... not stopping to consider the medium of the telescope and it's place in the universe.

I think modern science very much assumes the telescope to be a seperate entity to the thing it observes ... now there's a thought!

Of course ... I can't possibly prove any of this magic and mystery stuff to you *smiles* ... and it's not something you can approach via the intellect.

More of a 'feeling' thing ...

Phanerothyme

11-01-2004, 16:05

Originally posted by Jamie
Dearest Phanerothyme,

But there is magic and mystery inside us and all around us ... and science and logic and mans critical mind will never grasp this ...

I think of mans 'critical / logical mind' ... as looking at the universe though a telescope ... and thinking that what you see is what is there ... not stopping to consider the medium of the telescope and it's place in the universe.

I think modern science very much assumes the telescope to be a seperate entity to the thing it observes ... now there's a thought!

Of course ... I can't possibly prove any of this magic and mystery stuff to you *smiles* ... and it's not something you can approach via the intellect.

More of a 'feeling' thing ...

Dear Jamie,

you say science and the critical mind will never grasp the magic and mystery - but what is magic and mystery if not something that science and the critical mind has yet to understand and grasp.

what is it, inherently that prevents science and the critical mind grasping the fullest picture of reality possible.

There is a very neat experiment you can do which shows you the difference between faith in science, and faith in hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo, invisible friends in the sky and all that razzmatazz, and it is this:

Find the highest ceiling you can, and from it suspend a large, very heavy lead plumb weight level with your head; something in the region of 50kgs should do it. Use an appropriate length of strong piano wire and a free swinging pivot at the top to minimise friction.

This is actually a scientific intrument that can be used to measure he rotation of the earth, called Foucault's Pendulum.

Now walk up to the weight until the tip of your nose touches it. Grasp the weight and keep it touching your nose; take three steps backwards and let go. Don't move your head.

The weight will swing away from you.

Now what does your magical or mysterious or scientifically inexplicable belief system tell you about what will happen next?

My scientific belief system tells me that if I move my head one inch forward, I am going to get a flat nose as they weight swings back to almost precisely the same position as when I released it.

No amount of magic, prayer, telekinesis, mind over matter, tantric breathing, zen trances or contemplating mandalas is going to let me move my head forward eight inches forwards without splashing my headopen like a ripe melon.

I can do this experiment once, a thousand times, ten thousand times, and never come to injury.

Mysteries and magic are emphatically not inexplicable to science in any way. It's just that the scientific explanations for the cosmos can seem devoid of mystery or magic to the uninitiated.

I am not arguing that science is somehow the cold objective eye of reason - it is not, although it aspires to that. And it is because of that aspiration that it is so successful in revealing knowledge about the occult (literal meaning).

If science couldn't explain things, and one of the umpteen flavours of mystical belief could, then our world would be functioning according to those principles, not the scientific principles that we gaily take for granted every day of our life.

The more we understand the universe, the weirder it gets. It gets, in my opinion, a whole lot weirder than even the weirdest fringe cosmological philosophies, and we never have a complete picture.

But it is an IMAX picture of reality, rather than the camera obscura view from mystically rooted belief systems that are simply a hangover of the development of conciousness out of an animal mind.

Scientific method is a reality tunnel like every other belief system. But tellingly, it is the only method that actually delivers results (not always good) on a measurable scale.

If if there is something to the notion of 'gods' and 'spirits' why would you leave the investigation and assimilation of knowledge about such potentially world shattering concepts to any kind of belief system that ascribes responsibility to 'mystical agents' without even questioning what these 'mystical agents are'.

The moment someone builds a magically driven powerstation that requires only a single sherbet lemon to operate, or banishes war from the face of the earth through the power of meditation, or someone successfully curses all paedophiles so their bits drop off, or crime is eradicated by the power of prayer, then I will sit up and pay a bit more attention.

Until then, it is all entertaining mumbo jumbo that says more about the nature of our minds than the universe.

And when someone does do something remarkable, repeatedly and provably, science will be well on its way to creating workable models of this behaviour. And then we will all be using it to travel through dimensions, stop time, curse and cure people, change our shape, perform impossible yogic feats etc.

But don't hold your breath. Unless you are able to do so for a very long time (which some people can do, but as you will notice, they do not tend to do a lot of running around when they are holding their breath, that would be in defiance of scientific knowledge.

And the other incomparable advantage of science is that the whole point is to prove it wrong the entire time. Everyone likes to prove someone wrong, and science thrives on this.

It means that ideas are tested to destruction before being absorbed into the canon of scientific knowledge. And once absorbed, their position is far from safe as some PhD student discovers cold fusion in his shed can turn the whole thing on its head.

Nothing else works like this, nothing responds to the evidence like science.

back2basics

12-01-2004, 11:07

"What I cannot get over is your persistent desire to dis mine and thousands of other peoples experiences because you have read about lots of tests and completely dis-regard all possibilities."
You see throughout this thread you have made claims about me that are just not true, where as i have made statements that are (for sake of argument) that are accepted as fact by the majority of GREAT minds in the world. I don't 'dis mine' thousands of peoples experiences at all. What i do is look at the cases where these peoples claims have been tested and found to be explainable by natural phenomena. Also moon i seem to remember you implying you cast a spell on some people in a Hospital that were treating a member of your familiy, am i correct?
Phanerothyme i bloody love you in a totally heterosexual way ;) Moon i refer you to his answer about the bees it's what i was going to say. Also a great example of what science actually is, that is what i was coming back to do.. but once again you explain it most eloquently :)
I has a friend in School, he claimed to have seen a ghost of his dead grandmother. He case was written up in a book (i forget the name and publisher). For the book he was taken for a polygraph (lie detector test) and passed it, so his story was put in the book. He later admitted to everybody he was lying, and it was basically a cry for help. This is one of the reasons people make these bizarre claims, obviously financial profit is another.
I was reading an article today on horoscopes. Apparently these people who write them, earn more that serious column writers. Because they sell papers. When you do polls, very few people actually take horoscopes seriously, it's just some form of escape, wishful thinking. But i find it very sad that the world we live in values charlatans more than fact.

But i don't want a world without magic or mysticism. I think a world without them would be a very boring and clinical place. Thats why i like learning tricks, and i would never tell my kids Santa doesn't exists. It doe play a part in the world, but it should NEVER overlap in to reality as it is now.

Jamie

12-01-2004, 13:39

Dear Phanerothyme,

When I say "science" ... I am indeed refering to the critical mind of man that holds one thing to be seperate from another (including itself).

There is no logical or reasoned answer as to why logic and reason will never grasp that which is behond logic and reason.

There is much much more to being human than logic and reason.

I am NOT advocating any belief system here or indeed 'gods' 'spirits' and 'mystical agents' (not to say that these do not exist).

I use the words 'magic and mystery' for that which cannot be known via our critical minds.

Belief in anything you don't have personal experience of is plain self deception.

However .....

I do have direct first hand experience of stuff that is way behond the scope of my logical and critical mind to explain.

I have experienced these phenomena more directly and more vividly than I experience my critical mind at work.

I cannot and would not want to 'prove' anything to you or anyone else.

People should find out for themself and never take anyone else's word for it.

Science is flawed .....

Science attempts to map out and explain reality without considering itself in the equation.

It is an abstraction from reality ... a map ... and not the thing that it attempts to describe.

The relationship between map and actual terrain is not so clear cut as one may at first assume (all kinds of feedback scenarios exist).

Where is the dividing line between map and terrain ... is there one!?

Final words .....

Use the force Phanerothyme !!

back2basics

12-01-2004, 14:08

Jamie what you are describing by this whole map/abstraction from reality stuff is not at all science. What you are describing is science being subjective, a science that attempts to describe or prove something from from a subjects point of view. The subject being the scientist trying to take measurements.

What you are saying people should do is trust nobody, and find out for themselves. That is a subjective methodology, prone to your own misconceptions and ideologies. Which is why this line is so wrong ; "Belief in anything you don't have personal experience of is plain self deception". You must never beleive something just because you have had first hand experiance in it.

Science does not work like that at all. You are of course correct to say that in some things we are limited by the scope of our minds. But that has NEVER stopped science. I gave a good example but because you seem to like Subjective methodologies you seem to have skipped over it, as it does not fit the conclusions you want.

We could never have conceived Black holes, it's as counter intuitive as somebody saying ESP is real. They were and still are beyond logic and reason. But because Objective methodologies were used we not only decided that they exist before we could actually observe them, but we can cross check it using completely unrelated methods. It so happens now we have observed them. If we had JUST observed them, no scientist would say with even 90% certainty that they do exist. We would have to use other tests, to confirm it.. even though our own eyes have observed them.

Science goes so far down the objective route that it knows that even what our eyes tell us exist should not be trusted. As our minds may be filling in the gaps. These methodologies are literally hundreds of years old, nothing new.

"Science attempts to map out and explain reality without considering itself in the equation" it's not without considering it's self, it's without considering the basic assumption humans have made, that constitute science. This is a philosophical view point, one that is taken in to account, but of course one than can never really be answered definitively (like all philosophical questions).
We know science works because it works. We know we are going down the right path because the PREDICTIONS (not observations, calculations or measurements) have been right in the physical world. Now of course you can use the old Philosophical view that EVERYTHING we view is the creation of our own minds, but lets leave that for the Matrix and not real life ;)

alert_bri

12-01-2004, 14:59

Excellent post b2b - got a lot out of that...

Now of course you can use the old Philosophical view that EVERYTHING we view is the creation of our own minds, but lets leave that for the Matrix and not real life.

Isn't that an important point though? Have you ever had a lucid dream b2b? If you had, didn't you wonder at the incredible detail your mind could generate and you have the total and absolute belief that your surroundings were 'real'

I think I can see where you're coming from - I'm just not going to put all my eggs in the scientific basket - so to speak - isn't scientific theory just made up stuff to fit the observations scientists have? and aren't those theories always being refined and adjusted as new evidence is gathered and indeed new theories made up?

p.s. did you see the prog with James Randi last night and the guy who could paint pictures of future events? what did you think?

:thumbsup:

back2basics

12-01-2004, 15:12

The human mind can dream up all sorts of things, that seem real. Which i why it should not be trusted.

But we have to trust it to a certain extent, we have to trust that our minds isn't making everything up. Lets take DNA as another example. We thought for many years that certain illnesses etc were genetic. We had some proof because family members would die of the same thing. So one day we discover DNA, and the we try to reverse engineer DNA to work out what each strand means. Once that was done we can test our conclusions by testing more and more subjects who have died, have red hair or what ever. It all adds up.

So the ONLY argument is that we are making it all up. That the only reason DNA testing works is because our minds created the methodologies and results to fit what we believed. Well if thats true, then the people who are dying of illnesses they hold the DNA marker for are not really dying. We are imagining it, we cannot be imagining the markers (or their correlation to the disease) because we have seen so many people die that now it statistically impossible. So if these people are not dying we must question our very existence, when you start doing that it's what is called Nihilism, and you may as well just not do anything. Don't kill yourself because you cannot, your not even alive. Why even post, your not really posting, i am not responding etc.

Jamie

12-01-2004, 16:10

Dear B2B,

Science is activity of the human intellect (something that people *do*) ... how can it be anything other than subjective ?

Siân

12-01-2004, 17:26

I'm never sure why it is that when things don't go 'right' in tarot readings / religion or any other paradigm it disproves the whole belief system. If that's the case then science should have been dismissed years ago as a way of looking at things - cos I don't think I saw one science experiment in school go the way it was supposed to.

Of course the science teacher could always explain why it didn't work and what SHOULD have happened but hey the teacher wasn't making excuses (like the clairvoyant or tarot reader) cos it's science so it must be the only true way of looking at the world ;)

Personally I see science as being limited - it explains how but not why. I love the word "why ?"

PS - I don't know if I've understood you Moon but I took what you were saying about the bumble bee to be a reference to something I was told once :

according to the current laws / theories of aerodynamics bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly.

Not having studied the subject I have no idea if this is true - the friend who said it has a PhD in aeronautical engineering. Mind you he added :

but there are also lots of theories flying around about how how they do

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

back2basics

12-01-2004, 18:06

Jamie I just gave two examples how we know they are objective (another good example of the success of this objectivity would be evolution, but don’t even get me started on that). However they are the basic concepts, the methodologies are a little more complex and relate to the issue you are trying to prove or disprove. The part you need to concern yourself with is the part about the assumption that certain concepts we must put our trust in. Assumption I hear you say! That’s where this falls down, well it doesn’t those assumptions are the deep philosophical part I tried to explain, that would take a very long time to explain in full, but the basics are in my posts. But if we don’t put our trust in them, that we are alive and that the things we see are real (even if the way we VIEW them is not) then we have real problems. Google search Nihilism. Your trying to use Schoolyard Philosophy, you know sod it, I will have a philosophical discussion with you if you want. Develop your argument further, you have already said the same thing twice, and I will respond.

Look it’s simple we do not rely on just observation or measurement which are subjective. We rely on cross checking, rules, VERIFICATION and methodologies like double blind testing. The methodology is different for every test, but objectivity is always assured. It is a basic principal of science and has been that way for many hundreds of years, ever since philosophers first raised the same question. It’s one of the first things you are taught, it is in the very definition of science. Your information is many hundreds of years old.

Really the bees flying is crazy! Why do people keep bringing this back up! We have a very good understanding how bees fly, there are things we do not know or understand about the process (like how a bee’s muscles generate so much force). But just because we haven’t unravelled all the mysteries or intricacies DOES NOT MAKE IT MAGIC. Saying aerodynamicists don’t understand again is missing some very major points (but is also incorrect). First they do understand the aerodynamic principals, they have put bees in wind tunnels and studied the complex vortexes, these contribute to the upward lift more than, let’s say the birds wing actions. But that’s just part of the issue, the other is that their muscles are much more powerful than a humans would be, or for that matter most other animals. On top of that the action of the wing that causes the vortexes (using a vestigial pair of wings), that give it lift are new. By understanding the effect of the tiny movements will allow science to make better flying machines. Put in another way conventional aerodymic analysis methods simply don't apply to insect wings. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY SCIENCE.

Honestly people, this is really basic science, did anybody actually take a science in School? This is GCSE stuff (this actually is on the curriculum these days), it really isn’t that hard. Mysteries do not prove science is bad, they are THE REASON for science. Instead some people will have us believe UFOs are abducting us, people can cast spells or magnets will cure you of illnesses. Take your choice, but if you want to live a prosperous life, and not have people laugh at you, then you better start educating yourselves. I suggest everybody who thinks the bee story is true, find themselves an urban myth site and BOOKMARK IT. It the dumbest argument I have ever seen on one of these boards. But it does go to show how the misconceptions spread and how people use bad science to justify their own weird theories.

Here –

Look down the bottom of the page….

http://www.ftexploring.com/askdrg/askdrgalapagos.html

One typical urban myth explanation of the "Bees Can't Fly" story:"Once upon a time some scientists and engineers or college professors (different versions have different names and specialties) were at a dinner party. The subject of bee flight came up and the aerodynamic engineer that just happened to be present decided to do a quick calculation on bee aerodymics. He used a conventional stiff airfoil-shaped wing, with steady state, or partially steady state, air flow analysis techniques, and lo and behold, the calculations did not work for the bee. Someone jokingly said, "I guess that proves bees can't fly", and they all had a good laugh. But, of course, they all knew it just proved that bee flight is too complicated to analyse with conventional airplane aerodynamic methods." Unfortunately the story spread in its many inaccurate forms and, to borrow from Jonathan Swift, it appealed to peoples' "nut notes". It caught on - bad luck for science, good luck for inspirational speakers and science nay-sayers.
Well, I doubt if that story is true. It may be that something like that really happened, or has happened in various forms more than once.
However, I do not believe that any knowledgeable scientist or aerodynamics engineer ever seriously and straight faced claimed they have proven insects can't fly, or that insects violate the laws of physics. It's just plain silly.

“Plain silly”, I have to say I agree.

Phanerothyme

12-01-2004, 18:31

Originally posted by Siân

PS - I don't know if I've understood you Moon but I took what you were saying about the bumble bee to be a reference to something I was told once :

"according to the current laws / theories of aerodynamics bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly.

Not having studied the subject I have no idea if this is true - the friend who said it has a PhD in aeronautical engineering. Mind you he added :

but there are also lots of theories flying around about how how they do

Can I just put to bed this myth that according to current laws/theories of aerodynamics bumblebees shouldn;t be able to fly.

It is a myth. If you doubt me you might like to take it up with the boffins at Cornell University (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/March00/APS_Wang.hrs.html)
"The rumor probably started in the 1930s with students of the noted aerodynamicist Ludwig Prandtl at Gottingen," she said. "That was a time when we were just beginning to think we understood aerodynamic principles, as applied to fixed-wing aircraft, but scientists recognized their limitations in applying the principles to the birds and insects and other creatures in the natural world.

Fifty years ago, the science of aeodynamics may have had trouble working it out simply because of a lack of computational power.

But this merely shows the strengths of science, it is a self correcting system whose accuracy tends to improve constantly.

Science is a belief system that starts out from the proposition that it is wrong, whereas most others start out from the opposite standpoint, that they are right.

Bumblebees fly with assistance from well understood concepts of computational fluid dynamics. The reason it wasn't well understood until recently is that no-one had actually investigated it.

Insect flight is a hot topic amongst flight engineers as modern aero companies are now looking to try and build micro ornithopters (planes that flap their wings).

I would like to hear the magical or mystical explanation for how bumblebees fly. Presumably it is much more accurate and explanatory than the scientific explanation

=edit=
corrections to above.

Siân

12-01-2004, 18:45

Bumblebees fly using with assistance from well understood concepts of computation fluid dynamics. The reason it wasn't well understood until recently is that no-one had actually investigated it.

I will be sure to berate said friend next time I speak to him for spreading false information to the uneducated ;)

Jamie

12-01-2004, 20:46

I never even mentioned bumble bees ...

Dear B2B,

I have already said the same thing twice? Is there a law? How many times am I allowed to say a thing?

KNOWING IS SUBJECTIVE

All *knowing* is ignorance ... a fabrication ... and this truth is not something that can be 'grasped' by the intellect (this is where you are having problems sir).

I really am not convinced that you have any understanding of what I am trying to convey to you ....

I am not saying that science has no place or use ... it's bloody fantastic mate ... if I am hit by a bus ... I don't want hocus pocus accupuncture etc ... I want to be at the hallamshire !!.

When your spark of awarness begins to see the truth that KNOWING IS SUBJECTIVE ... I may be interested in discussing things further with you.

But quite frankly sir ... as things stand right now ... I would prefer to have a philisophical discussion with a dead hamster.

ps. Accupuncture is not hocus pocus.

Hodge

13-01-2004, 10:10

nomme

13-01-2004, 11:03

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I would like to hear the magical or mystical explanation for how bumblebees fly. Presumably it is much more accurate and explanatory than the scientific explanation

Originally posted by Hodge
They live on a strict diet of shrooms.

Nonsense - you're thinking of badgers.

Everyone knows that the yellow powder you see on bumble bees is anti-gravity powder. This causes the bees to float. They then merely use there wings like paddles in a canoe to steer through the air.

Nomme

Hodge

13-01-2004, 11:07

Originally posted by nomme
Nonsense - you're thinking of badgers.

Everyone knows that the yellow powder you see on bumble bees is anti-gravity powder. This causes the bees to float. They then merely use there wings like paddles in a canoe to steer through the air.

Nomme

That's the one. An easy mistake to make though - badgers and bees both have stripes, of sorts.

back2basics

13-01-2004, 11:17

Jamie i am sorry but your just another alert_bri, your making this up as you go along. You are so wrong and your comments make so little sense it's untrue. I think a dead hamster is your best bet, mean while i will go flog a dead horse.

It crazy you seem to be suggesting that people who say they know are ignorant, but some how YOU can grasp this concept. I am calling you out i don't believe you have read a philosophical book in your life, i believe this is YOUR philosophy and if so ("sir") your are the most arrogant and deluded person in this thread.

Jamie post a single philosophers work who talks about what you are talking about. I have never heard anything like this, and if your going to say something like 'no philosopher could know' then it does seem you have some sort of superiority complex.

I eagerly await your response. Alas i am pretty sure you just make it up as you go along.

Jamie

13-01-2004, 11:40

I am not the arrogant and deluded one here ...

I would also advice you sir ... there is no need to take things quite so personally ... don't get so excited on my account *smiles*.

back2basics

13-01-2004, 11:59

Jamie i am not getting excited or upset. This isn't personal (although if we look back you made the first personal comment, which contradicts the whole rest of your posts, the folly comment). But i seem to be on a roll outing the people who make things up, why stop now? This is perfectly in line with the rest of the thread/debate, debunking fakers.

Don't accuse me of being arrogant without telling me where i have gone wrong, where there is a fact that cannot be verified. Because truth does not equal arrogance, it never does, only to the people who feel undermined by truth and that my friend is ignorance. You also said i didn't understand what you were saying, well i also beg to differ. Arrogance is when YOU put forward the theory (that you made up) that intellects who say they know and fooling themselves. You basically said you can understand this, but others cannot.

Please post a link to a site that explains your theory in more detail if you didn't make it up. Once again we have somebody using vagueness and using the line 'you just cannot/don't understand' (maybe your explanation is weak, have you considered that?), and then not able/willing to back up their claims.

nomme

13-01-2004, 12:10

( I think Jamie is trying to argue something along these lines (apologies if I'm wrong)). Anyway interesting article and food for thought.....

From : http://www-anw.cs.umass.edu/~rich/IncIdeas/SubjectiveKnowledge.html

Subjective Knowledge
Rich Sutton
4/6/2001

I would like to revive an old idea about the mind. This is the idea that the mind arises from, and is principally about, our sensori-motor interaction with the world. It is the idea that all our sense of the world, of space, objects, and other people, arises from our experience squeezed through the narrow channel of our sensation and action. This is a radical view, but in many ways an appealing one. It is radical because it says that experience is the only thing that we directly know, that all our sense of the material world is constructed to better explain our subjective experience. It is not just that the mental is made primary and held above the physical, but that the subjective is raised over the objective.

Subjectivity is the most distinctive aspect of this view of the mind, and inherent in it. If all of our understanding of the world arises from our experience, then it is inherently personal and specific to us.

As scientists and observers we are accustomed to prasing the objective and denigrating the subjective, so reversing this customary assessment requires some defense.

The approach that I am advocating might be termed the subjective viewpoint. In it, all knowledge and understanding arises out of an individual's experience, and in that sense is inherently in terms that are private, personal, and subjective. An individual might know, for example, that a certain action tends to be followed by a certain sensation, or that one sensation invariably follows another. But these are its sensations and its actions. There is no necessary relationship between them and the sensations and actions of another individual. To hypothesize such a link might be useful, but always secondary to the subjective experience itself.

The subjective view of knowledge and understanding might be constrasted with the objective, realist view. In this view there are such things as matter, physical objects, space and time, other people, etc. Things happen, and causally interact, largely independent of observers. Occasionally we experience something subjectively, but later determine that it did not really, objectively happen. For example, we felt the room get hot, but the thermometer registered no change. In this view there is a reality independent of our experience. This would be easy to deny if there were only one agent in the world. In that case it is clear that that agent is merely inventing things to explain its experience. The objective view gains much of its force because it can be shared by different people. In science, this is almost the definition of the subjective/objective distinction: that which is private to one person is subjective whereas that which can be observed by many, and replicated by others, is objective.

I hasten to say that the subjective view does not deny the existence of the physical world. The conventional physical world is still the best hypothesis for explaining our subjective data. It is just that that world is held as secondary to the data that it is used to explain. And a little more: it is that the physical world hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, an explanation. There are not two kinds of things, the mental and the physical. There are just mental things: the data of subjective experience and hypotheses constructed to explain it.

The appeal of the subjective view is that it is grounded. Subjective experience can be viewed as data in need of explanation. There is a sense in which only the subjective is clear and unambiguous. "Whatever it means, I definitely felt warm in that room." No one can argue with our subjective experience, only with its explanation and relationship to other experiences that we have or might have. The closer the subjective is inspected, the firmer and less interpreted it appears, the more is becomes like data, whereas the objective often becomes vaguer and more complex. Consider the old saw about the person who saw red whenever everybody else saw green, and vice versa, but didn't realize it because he used the words "red" and "green" the wrong way around as well. This nonsense points out that different people's subjective experiences are not comparable. The experience that I call seeing red and the experience you call seeing red are related only in a very complicated way including, for example, effects of lighting, reflectance, viewpoint, and colored glasses. We have learned to use the same word to capture an important aspect of our separate experience, but ultimately the objective must bow to the subjective.

The appeal of the objective view is that it is common across people. Something is objectively true is it predicts the outcome of experiments that you and I both can do and get the same answer. But how is this sensible? How can we get the same answer when you see with your eyes and I with mine? For that matter, how can we do the "same" experiment? All these are problematic and require extensive theories about what is the same and what is different. In particular, they require calibration of our senses with each other. It is not just a question of us using the same words for the same things -- the red/green example shows the folly of that kind of thinking -- it is that there is no satisfactory notion of same things, across individuals, at the level of experience. Subjective experience as the ultimate data is clear, but not the idea that it can be objectively compared across persons. That idea can be made to work, approximately, but should be seen as following from the primacy of subjective experience.

At this point, you are probably wondering why I am belaboring this philosphical point. The reason is that the issue comes up, again and again, that it is difficult to avoid the pitfalls associated with the objective view without explicitly identifying them. This fate has befallen AI researchers many times in the past. So let us close with as clear a statement as we can of the implications of the subjective view for approaches to AI. What must be avoided, and what sought, in developing a subjective view of knowledge and mind?

All knowledge must be expressed in terms that are ultimately subjective, that are expressed in terms of the data of experience, of sensation and action. Thus we seek ways of clearly expressing all kinds of human knowledge in subjective terms. This is a program usually associated with the term "associationism" and often denigrated. Perhaps it is impossible, but it should be tried, and it is difficult to disprove, like a null hypothesis. In addition to expressing knowledge subjectively, we should also look to ways of learning and working with subjective knowledge. How can we reason with subjective knowledge to obtain more knowledge? How can it be tested, verified, and learned? How can goals be expressed in subjective terms?

Jamie

13-01-2004, 12:18

Why are you constantly mis-understanding what I am trying to convey to you and mis-quoting me ?

For example:

... You basically said you can understand this, but others cannot ...

When did I ever say that I am the only one who can understand anything ... and that others cannot?

Please point this out to me where I said that?

skepticbunny

12-03-2004, 23:09

HI

not got long enough for a detailed post, just wanted to say thanks to b2b, for explaining so well what I am often trying to explain to people with blind faith/ irrational beliefs.

Everyone, please remember, science can be repeated with known probability, "magic" cant.

I too would urge everyone reading this thread to check out randi.org, and the aske website!

b2b, are you a member of aske? and would you consider yourself a bright?

Destiny

14-03-2004, 13:50

Well said Moon on your reply to B2B on page 3. I totally agree. Magic to us isn't a magicians trick. B2B,have never tried our line of work?(being a Witch or medium) if not, it is unfair to knock it or any sort of mediums just by hearsay and reading.If you have, then it obviously wasn't meant for you!. It is difficult to prove things, and yes there are many con people out there,but you shouldn't judge ALL mediums/Witches etc on the minority of cons.
It is each to thier own.We do not judge people for the way they chose to live, nor do we try and convince people that you must become a Witch. We are each our own individuals, and everyone has a right to their own opinion, whether pple agree or not. I'm very happy with my life.There are many things that i disagree with, so instead of making an issue out of it, i live my life to the fullest and ask for blessings for the people that are so negative with their lives. I do not hate nor judge..but sometimes i do get bored with septics...............but, it is better to make someone laugh and not cry.
Brightest of Blessings to you all
Destiny x

Funky Dave

14-03-2004, 21:16

The problem I have with tarot cards/magic/prayer/religion etc is as follows:

1) You can't prove that any of it is true, because in any properly scientifc experiment it won't work.

2) If it won't work under controlled conditions, why would it work in your everyday life? Even if there is some form of supernatural power up there, it's going about its business in a random, non-scientific way, which makes it less useful than something like science that can be harnessed and utilised.

I can appreciate why people believe in this stuff - nobody wants to think of themselves as a talking monkey who's final purpose in existence is to fertilise the grounds of the local crematorium(!) But that's quite probably the way it is. Opium of the masses....

Unless......

The universe may work on scientific principles (it has to have order after all), but that isn't to say that there isn't a higher intelligence that created it for a particular purpose. We might be incidental to that purpose, but who knows. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio...

fnkysknky

15-03-2004, 13:25

Apart from the point that I don't believer in psychic powers and the like why would anyone want to know their future? It's like someone telling you the end to a film that you're half way through watching - pointless!

oxbeast

16-03-2004, 12:19

Some of the things claimed by witchcraft, paganism, etc are just palpabaly untrue, though I am aware of there being a lot of varieties and flavours of belief.
I got in a debate recently about Stonehenge, and the proposed modifications to the roads around it. A guy said that changing the roads (by digging a big tunnel) would disrupt the harmonic magnetic field of the stones. He went on to ssay that the stones had a powerful magnetic field, and could amplify soundwaves and funnel them across the landscape. Anyone in posession of a pair of ears and a compass could tell that these claims are completely false, though couched in quasi-scientific terms. By all means have beliefs, and faiths, but to claim something as true when it is so obviously disprovable is just foolish.
There is more going on in the physical world than can presently be explained by science, but Arthur C Clarke said that a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. Certainly some of the technology around today would be thought of as magical even quite recently.

Moon Maiden

16-03-2004, 12:54

I walk a fine line where all this is concerned - no really. I am a skeptic by nature and whilst I do practise witchcraft I am unlikely to believe just anything that is put before me.

To be put in the same catagory as New Agers and mindless hippies is offensive but I can put that one down to ignorance albeit a poor excuse.

I have an enquiring mind and I will prod, poke and rip to pieces all things. Some people can accept something beyond their realm of knowledge and experience and some can't and get on with other things.

Moon

msmouse

29-12-2004, 06:03

I personally believe that tarot reading, palmistry, use of ouija boards, etc, are dark arts and should NOT be practised by anyone.

I used a ouija board a couple of times in 1984, the result of which I believe I helped to ‘conjure’ up a very unpleasant entity who has been dogging me up until recently, when (pray God) it has been ‘cast out’ to whence it belongs.

I have also had a number of tarot readings, as well as a casting of the runes. Although these readings were performed by friends/relatives that I trust implicitly, I subsequently suffered a dose of ‘brain fever’ (Victorian euphemism for total nervous breakdown) following each reading.

Up until Sunday I actually had a set of tarot cards and an accompanying book in the house that used to belong to my sister. I felt a strong compulsion to burn these items, which me and my partner did (I don’t normally approve of book burning but considered this an exception). We started with ‘the devil’ and ended with ‘judgement’, with ‘death’ and ‘the fool’ also going in separately. When ‘judgement’ curled up in the flames, we felt a strong sense of having done the right thing, and I would urge anyone else with a set of tarot cards to consider burning/binning them.

I actually (gently) asked my friend who did a reading for me recently to dispose of the set that she used, but she thinks that she still ‘needs’ them. I reckon that there will be others of you out there who will feel the same. All I can say is to consider the reasons for doing your readings, and to be sure in your heart that these reasons are ‘right’ before proceeding. (However, I’d still prefer it if you were to dispose of any ‘arcanic’ tools that you possess…).

lol

mouse