What is the Root of all evil ?

[kwlyon]

I was not around for the majority of the discussion.

DAR
Check out this, first post (I think) from GrayB.

I can see how this might come across as kinda kook like. I really gotta tell ya though, this is the kinda stuff I hear ALL THE TIME! If I have to listen to my wife's brother's "radiative cooling device" idea one more time and explain why it doesn't make since, I am going to melt my toothbrush bristels with a lighter and shank myself in the face until I am D-E-D dead! I guess when you study physics for a living people come out of the woodwork to seek your approval of their eccentric ideas. For me, this falls into the category of spectacularly incorrect however I think he deserves credit for THINKING. I'm not really sure what the hell he is getting at with the vortex idea...I think he is referring to the potential curve of a massive object (well the two dimensional model of it) that has so permeated the popular culture. Here is a link. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sci ... ential.gif

This is not a vortex...nothing is flowing into it. This is a vortex: http://eero.info/misc/divide_by_zero.jpg

As for you Grey, keep on thinking...and when you get the chance, talk to a physicist. We enjoy explaining things to non-scientist. It keeps us on our toes and test our ability to communicate effectively.

kevin

[Savonarola]

I think he deserves credit for THINKING.

As a teacher, I can't agree.

I had a student as me about a test question on Friday. He told me that he answered d on one question because he thought that it was a trick question and that I really wanted students to answer d. What I really wanted (and what was explained in the directions) was for students to pick the best answer, which wasn't d. Should I give him credit for thinking when he didn't perform any critical thinking? Hell no, I say.
It's the same thing here. graybear has concocted an idea regarding atomic energy and vortices: thinking. But this idea has zero correlation to reality. He thinks that we can get unlimited energy for nothing. There is no experimentation that supports his idea. His example of a vortex fails to meet his own definition of a vortex. There has been little if any critical thinking. He spent 25 years on this idea without educating himself about the subject. You can really give him credit for this?

[kwlyon]

I think he deserves credit for THINKING.

As a teacher, I can't agree.

I had a student as me about a test question on Friday. He told me that he answered d on one question because he thought that it was a trick question and that I really wanted students to answer d. What I really wanted (and what was explained in the directions) was for students to pick the best answer, which wasn't d. Should I give him credit for thinking when he didn't perform any critical thinking? Hell no, I say.

Absolutely you should give him credit for thinking. You should NOT give him the grade for the problem...he arrived at the incorrect conclusion as his reasoning is flawed. This is part of learning. Being wrong is often a good thing. You should not reward someone for being wrong, but you do give them credit for putting forth an effort.

It's the same thing here. graybear has concocted an idea regarding atomic energy and vortices: thinking. But this idea has zero correlation to reality. He thinks that we can get unlimited energy for nothing. There is no experimentation that supports his idea. His example of a vortex fails to meet his own definition of a vortex. There has been little if any critical thinking. He spent 25 years on this idea without educating himself about the subject. You can really give him credit for this?

Yes, I give him credit for this. I have spent several years thinking and developing ideas outside my field as well. They are probably not as FAR off the mark but then there is something to be said for being trained to seek out information. From time to time...they are probably "spectacularly incorrect". Well, I have certainly found myself to be rather incorrect in these matters more times than once for certain. I would hope that, in developing these ideas, we discuss them so as to lay them open to criticism. That is how we learn most effectively. For example, Grey if post a spectacularly incorrect idea regarding mechanics on this sight, and I attempt to address his misunderstandings, he gains a bit of understanding (hopefully) and I gain the opportunity to hone my skills at explaining my field to the public (also hopefully)...everybody wins. Spectators might also learn something.

I think it should be said however, that on this forum, I am not Kevin the physicist...really I am just Kevin....or I might even be Pete the NAMBLA executive....one can never be sure. I claim to be a student of physics however I can't tell you how many "quantum physicist", whatever the fuck that is, I have meet on the internet. As there is no real way to establish one's credibility, you must take everything you discuss on the internet with a certain measure of potassium chloride. Grey may have been "arguing" about these things under the presumption that he was speaking with individuals who were on the same level of understanding as he, however I wouldn't want to speak for him.

Kevin

[Savonarola]

You should not reward someone for being wrong, but you do give them credit for putting forth an effort.

I expect effort as default from my students. It's one thing for my students to answer one of my spoken questions in class with a good guess; it's quite another for one to answer such a question with nonsense. What graybear has done here is much closer to the latter. graybear has been working on his idea for longer than my students have been alive; why should I hold him to a lower standard?

I have spent several years thinking and developing ideas outside my field as well. They are probably not as FAR off the mark but then there is something to be said for being trained to seek out information.

I completely agree. There's nothing wrong with venturing away from a certain area of specialty, but one must be able to compare and contrast one's ideas with existing information, a step which graybear spectacularly failed to do.
I've made postulations that were incorrect, too. But when someone much more knowledgeable than I am about that subject laid out why my postulation wasn't sound, I didn't cry foul about his/her not thinking outside the box, or whine about how I should just be trusted instead of questioned. That's not how progress takes place. That's not how learning takes place.

Grey may have been "arguing" about these things under the presumption that he was speaking with individuals who were on the same level of understanding as he,

Why should this matter? This would make sense if he were dumbing his ideas down for an audience, but it became immediately clear that he wasn't dealing with people who have an average understanding of the workings of the universe. Given a chance to flesh out his ideas about vortices and gravity and truth, he still failed miserably to present even a merely internally coherent argument.

[kwlyon]

graybear has been working on his idea for longer than my students have been alive; why should I hold him to a lower standard?

Would you be holding him to a lower standard? The concepts he is attempting to grasp are likely a bit more sophisticated. That being said, I certainly do agree that he dug himself a bit of a hole as he criticized you for not "thinking outside the box" yet in all this time has failed to seek out the advice of a professional in the field. However the average joes on the street are not as aware of the fact that there are physicist among them. It would not surprise me at all if Grey simply has never THOUGHT of walking into UofA and chatting with a graduate student. You see...I am one...and I have never had anyone just drop in to ask a question or seek a tutor that was not a student. People will schedule an appointment with an MD to seek out medical advice, however they simply do not take advantage of universities or graduate students. And believe me...our time can be purchased rather inexpensively! I will work for beer. Some of my friends will cost you a bit more...and they only take payment in the form of cash, grass, or tiggo-bitties. None the less, people seem wholly unaware that this resource exist.

I completely agree. There's nothing wrong with venturing away from a certain area of specialty, but one must be able to compare and contrast one's ideas with existing information, a step which graybear spectacularly failed to do.

Grey has not been taught how to reason. He has not been educated with regards to the nature of scientific inquiry. He is, in this respect, a product of our society. I am not really certain how to address this issue however it is something I am putting a lot of thought into.

Grey may have been "arguing" about these things under the presumption that he was speaking with individuals who were on the same level of understanding as he, Why should this matter?

With regards to this point, I fear, you show your ignorance. You see, in our little isolated world of academia, every idea is open to scrutiny. Even a "personal opinion" is not safe from critique. When we assert things to be true, we EXPECT our ideas to be criticized. You simply do not make a bold claim unless you are prepared to back it up with some reasonable measure of evidence. When we are just shooting around ideas or speaking outside our area of expertise, we are VERY quick to qualify our statements. This qualification does not exclude our ideas from scrutiny but rather invites it as our intent was not to argue a point but rather to seek input from our peers who are perhaps more knowledgeable in a particular area. This simply is not the way average Joe rolls. Perhaps it should be...but it is not. You can blame Joe or Grey for this all you want but I'm not sure it is productive. I think a more productive discussion would seek to examine why classes which specifically address subjects such as critical thinking, ethical rhetoric, logical fallacies, and the nature of scientific inquiry are not taught in K-12. We are not serious about education. We want our kids to know about the world but we don't want them to understand it...we want them to be stupid....so we teach them to regurgitate facts on command and few basic math and literacy skills then consider the job done. When they turn 18 they may register to vote...regardless of their level of awareness of the world around them.

This would make sense if he were dumbing his ideas down for an audience, but it became immediately clear that he wasn't dealing with people who have an average understanding of the workings of the universe. Given a chance to flesh out his ideas about vortices and gravity and truth, he still failed miserably to present even a merely internally coherent argument.

Yea, but you are assuming this became immediately clear to him. You are also assuming he was not looking for a good old fashion internet flame war. The point I am trying to make with all of this is simple. I think you guys are simultaneously being too hard on Grey and to soft on the general public. Grey is not exceptional...he is the average. The only thing I have seen thus far that separates Grey from the norm is a propensity to be outspoken with regards to his ideas which, frankly, I find to be a positive attribute. Yes these ideas tend to border on the "spectacularly incorrect" however this is the NORM. Because Average Joe does not understand academic rhetoric, nor does he follow the "rules of engagement", it is hard to make headway in a discussion. However, if we are to have any hope of doing so, we must learn how to engage the general public...even the ones that do not worship at the alter of Roddenberry.

kevin

[Savonarola]

The concepts he is attempting to grasp are likely a bit more sophisticated. .... yet in all this time has failed to seek out the advice of a professional in the field.

This is the pertinent point. But it's actually worse than your description: It's not that the average person probably doesn't think of contacting a university student or professor. In this case, graybear didn't even do sufficient amounts of reading on these topics. For example, he described the big bang as an explosion and Einstein's elevator thought experiment as an inertial reference frame, either of which would have been dispelled had he bothered to check into these topics using mainstream scientific literature. And don't get me started on the "gravity vortex." This was an utter failure to do his own legwork and it resulted in his insistence that people who are clearly familiar with the material (based on responses) that they should be ashamed for not ignoring the education that he didn't bother to seek (i.e. "thinking outside the box").

Grey has not been taught how to reason. He has not been educated with regards to the nature of scientific inquiry. He is, in this respect, a product of our society. I am not really certain how to address this issue however it is something I am putting a lot of thought into.

As you continue putting a lot of thought into this topic, consider that people use their reasoning skills every day. graybear surely is one of those people who'll ask an MD for medical advice or an auto mechanic for a repair job, even if he considers a doctor a few rungs up on the social ladder or an auto mechanic a few rungs down. But hey, maybe he's anti-social and doesn't want to meet with these people. If only there was some network of digital connections over which lots of quality information from a wide variety of places -- an "inter-net," if you will -- were available to the average person. Man, that'd be great. If only, huh?

When we are just shooting around ideas or speaking outside our area of expertise, we are VERY quick to qualify our statements. This qualification does not exclude our ideas from scrutiny but rather invites it as our intent was not to argue a point but rather to seek input from our peers who are perhaps more knowledgeable in a particular area. This simply is not the way average Joe rolls.

I agree. Average people are stupid. They have the tools to be not-stupid but choose not to use them. For example, graybear simply could have been clear and explained that he had an idea on which he wanted feedback from trained persons. Instead, graybear said that the answer to the question of whether we could extract unlimited atomic energy from vortices is "absolutely yes." He's absolutely wrong, and -- unlike graybear -- I can back up my position. That's what matters.

I think a more productive discussion would seek to examine why classes which specifically address subjects such as critical thinking, ethical rhetoric, logical fallacies, and the nature of scientific inquiry are not taught in K-12.

I agree wholeheartedly.
As a teacher, I have some educated guesses regarding why this is.

• It's hard to teach.
• It's "hard" to learn because it's not regurgitation.
• It's hard to measure.
• It's not a major component of any particular testing (except for the "Science Reasoning" part of the ACT, which isn't actually much "reasoning").

I'm confident that I'm one of the best at my school at actually promoting critical thinking, and that's just sad because I'm new and such promotion is still so very lacking.

We are not serious about education.

By "we," I assume you mean the country in general. And that's true. But there are enough educators who do care. Students don't. At all. Not even a bit. They groan when I talk them through reasoning.

Yea, but you are assuming this became immediately clear to him.

You're right; I was assuming that someone who claimed to have spent 25 years developing a pseudo-theory would actually understand his own pseudo-theory.

I think you guys are simultaneously being too hard on Grey and to soft on the general public. Grey is not exceptional...he is the average.

As you point out, greybear is the general public. How about I treat any random person who comes up with me with nonsensical crackpot ideas the same way? News flash: I do! I've played Mr. Nicey-Nice before, and it's no more productive. When a lousy pitcher serves up a fat one right down the middle, you don't tap it into short left and soothe his ego as you scoot to first base; you sock it over the fence (and stand and watch a bit) so that the pitcher knows full well that the pitch was pathetic.

[Dardedar]

The only thing I have seen thus far that separates Grey from the norm is a propensity to be outspoken with regards to his ideas which, frankly, I find to be a positive attribute.

DAR
And being outspoken in providing informed, substantive, knowledgeable rebuttal to those ideas when they are "spectacularly wrong," is also very much a positive attribute, a virtue and in freethinker circles I think, an imperative.

Paine put it this way:

“It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error. But nature has not given to everyone a talent for the purpose; and among those to whom such a talent is given there is often a want of disposition or of courage to do it.” --Thomas Paine, preface to Age of Reason, part 3

I appreciate you giving a good shot at an apologetic for why Gray managed to studiously avoid even the most minimal peer review for his earth shaking ideas for two plus decades. It wasn't by accident you can be sure. And it's not likely he would understand the criticism anyway since it is on a subject quite specialized and requiring more than a basic understanding of physics (see the wisdom of Dr. Harter's response of first seeing of the person has done a little background work in the field they are pretending to talk about. Notice Gray completely ignored the questions).

Being one who has seen a fair number of free energy proponents, this behavior, among the truly devoted is standard operating procedure. In fact, insert whatever faith based, unsupportable, absurd, inchoate belief you like. It doesn't matter, the behavior is much the same. The tendency is for people to believe things, not because they are true, but rather because they give them emotional comfort. Gray finds it very comfortable to think he is, secretly, a genius in physics who can see things the learned cannot and is only waiting to be recognized for his gift to humanity.

I see nothing wrong in doing the good deed of pointing out that he is not.

The genius of American Idol is how it shows the very same phenomenon, to everyone's amusement, with all of the completely inept, and clueless "singers" that try out. If there was a Gong Show for physics discoveries, Gray would get the gong within seconds (as he did here).

Science is hard, slow, prodding work. Imagining things is easy. Gray much prefers, in this regard, make believe, to reality. This is very common. For those who are interested in being members of the reality based community, this condition is not something to celebrate, it's something roast. If only for the principle, since it's not likely that Gray is going to change his opinion anyway, he not doubt has much emotional investment in his hokum.

D.

[kwlyon]

Sav, you're an asshole. I'm glad you are among our educators. I will sleep much better at night knowing you are helping to impart critical thought and reason to our upcoming generation. There may be hope for us yet.

[kwlyon]

And being outspoken in providing informed, substantive, knowledgeable rebuttal to those ideas when they are "spectacularly wrong," is also very much a positive attribute, a virtue and in freethinker circles I think, an imperative.

I agree completely. Thank you guys for the excellent discussion. I really have enjoyed it however I am getting kinda bored now and frankly am running out of creative arguments. I think you will all concede that I took up a position that is incredibly difficult to defend...I hope I managed to keep it somewhat interesting...but I am just plain out of gas on this one.

Kevin

[Dardedar]

I took up a position that is incredibly difficult to defend...

DAR
Yes, you did.

[kwlyon]

Science is hard, slow, prodding work. Imagining things is easy. Gray much prefers, in this regard, make believe, to reality. This is very common. For those who are interested in being members of the reality based community, this condition is not something to celebrate, it's something roast. If only for the principle, since it's not likely that Gray is going to change his opinion anyway, he not doubt has much emotional investment in his hokum.

D.

Ralph Rene....Ralph Rene....he was a member of Mensa....so he must be a genius. Rene always accused me, and pretty much anyone else that would listen, of being diluted by their "EBS" or emotional belief system. Creationist accuse those who stand up to their deceit and unethical rhetoric of engaging in the same. The level of transference the human mind is capable of is quite staggering. I think you, and Rene for that matter, have hit the nail on the head with regards to why they behave in this fashion. I think Sav is very correct with regards to our obligation to call them out on their misinformation. To some degree I was playing the devil's advocate here...or perhaps the ...damn...I don't know who the good guy is...but whoever he is I was playing his advocate... None the less I stand by my arguments regarding how we of the scientific community must respond to these people. Getting involved in a "flame war" or engaging in a debate is counter productive...as is calling them kooks for that matter though I am uber guilty of the latter. What I have found to be most productive is simply:

1) To assert your authority...authority does not constitute an arguing point, however if you are an authority in a field then it is only fair that you let them know to whom they are speaking.
2) Inform them that they are very much incorrect with regards to whatever the issue at hand may be
3) Try to inform them to the best of your ability and address their misconceptions. They may be intentionally obtuse, and thus there is no hope of actually educating them, however this is not primarily for their benefit...it is for everyone else...and it is just good practice.
4) NEVER RESORT TO NAME CALLING. It must always be made clear that we are being honest, rational, and informative. It must be clear that our intent is to educate, not to feed our own ego's and show everyone how smart we are. There is one possible exception...if they get caught lying...the conversation ends. It is a good idea to call them out on it.

As a scientist, there really is no reason to ever "debate" a non scientist and flaming them only makes them appear to be the victim to an objective observer. I know all this sounds a tad arrogant...and perhaps it is. It should be noted that I am a mediocre physicist at best...however just as a doctor will not argue the technical points of the utility of radiation treatment with the cable guy, I will not descend to their level to argue about physics. If I do not know how a certain aspect of physics works, its a damn good bet that they don't either. I will let them know this if necessary however our discussions will be inherently one way with regards to information flow. I have yet to learn any physics from my barber....well...directly anyways. You bring up Dr. Harter...well...that's a different story. As I have stated I am a MEDIOCRE physicist. When Dr. Harter and I speak, the tables are turned. Once again the information flow is certainly one way however I find myself doing most, if not all, of the learning. I like to think I have imparted maybe a quanta or two of useful information on him...I also like to think that my dick is ten inches long. I doubt I will ever quite reach the level of a Dr. Harter however this is really not a fair comparison as I am quite certain he is host to a Goa'uld symbiote .

[Savonarola]

Sav, you're an asshole.

No, an asshole is out only for himself/herself and doesn't care if people learn to think critically. I want people to be smart, but I think that making them feel bad can be an effective learning experience. That makes me a jerk. My students get warned that I'm a jerk on day one when I tell them that I (a) am a jerk and (b) will be asking tough questions for which they'd rather not have to formulate a response.

[kwlyon]

No, an asshole is out only for himself/herself and doesn't care if people learn to think critically. I want people to be smart, but I think that making them feel bad can be an effective learning experience. That makes me a jerk.

Call it what you will...it's an asset.

[Savonarola]

...it's an asset.

Something about you and "ass"...

[kwlyon]

...it's an asset.

Something about you and "ass"...

Hehe....you're mom's face....

[Betsy]

I move to add "BORING" to the list of adjectives to describe this thread. BLAH BLAH BLAH. Can we EVER find someone who will respond with a decent argument rather than just clinging to their "beliefs" with a bunch of gibberish and happy faces?

[kwlyon]

I move to add "BORING" to the list of adjectives to describe this thread. BLAH BLAH BLAH. Can we EVER find someone who will respond with a decent argument....

I'm sorry...I tried my best.

[Betsy]

I was actually talking about Graybeard, who seems nice enough but doesn't add anything intellectually to his own thread.

[kwlyon]

I was actually talking about Graybeard, who seems nice enough but doesn't add anything intellectually to his own thread.

Oh, I think Grey has left the building....

[Erica]

I know everyone has left this subject long ago, but no one ever discussed something I think is quite relevant. Scientific theory and scientific law is something that is only considered correct if the science it is based upon is correct. It is also subject to further experimentation, and the creation of new or the branching off of new theories. These theories are considered only a way to explain phenomena based upon critical observations, and given the same set of conditions the experiment could bear a completely different result without disproving the theory. That is why science is ever evolving and home to a set of minds that forever question, debate, and quest after reason. Religion resides in timeless truths for it lives in human conscience not reason. So we have Galileo praised by science, and put to death by Catholics. In love we need timelessness, in contrast science and reality needs reason. We cannot make choices about life based upon a belief that the world is flat, and a god is coming to have the earth swallow us for masturbating. It is way easier to do that sort of thing with your wife.