Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[Priaptor]

Here are some interesting data on climate for you:

 

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

 

HIRO

 

You are into this climate warming thing. I posted elsewhere the BIGGEST AND FASTEST way to reverse our deleterious effect on this planet is take down the dams. Patagonia sportswear actually sponsored a documentary.

 

Personally the probability that man will kill himself off through war or overpopulation or stupidity seems much higher than any climate change but that's just my opinion.

 

Come to Glacier National Park and watch all the Californians in their SUVs talking about how shameful it is that the glaciers are almost all gone just before they hop in their SUVs.

 

Still most immediate impact would be to take down the dams. It would be interesting watching California turn into a wasteland. I would also love to see the Great Falls come back as well as all those supposedly wonderful falls on the Columbia river.

[Hiro]

You just explained the difference between technology and science. A scientists knows that he just scratched the surface. A technologist can do great things with this knowledge.

 

A technologist couldn't do a damn thing, if the science behind it wasn't sound!

[JR4321]

Do you think that experts are immune to placebo effect?

 

Sorry, I don't follow. Please explain.

[elcorso]

 

Sometimes you have to believe your own senses.

 

BBC News - Weasel photographed riding on a woodpecker's back

 

 

That much symbolism!

 

Politicians learned of weasels to fly coast of the backs of the people (woodpecker), or was it vice versa?

 

With regard to believe in our own senses seem that is visually easier to believe that aurally, although the magicians always deceive us through visual effects ...!

 

Roch

[elcorso]

Do you think that experts are immune to placebo effect?

 

In the case of audio cables, etc., depends what predominates at that time in your feelings, if passion for music or passion for science...

 

I guess this could be one of the reasons (if not the main reason) of the difference between 'objectivists' and 'subjectivists'. In audio forums of course.

 

Roch

[alfe]

Sorry, I don't follow. Please explain.

 

How do you measure the soundstage, the air between the notes, the veil that disappear ....

[elcorso]

HIRO

 

----

Personally the probability that man will kill himself off through war or overpopulation or stupidity seems much higher than any climate change but that's just my opinion.

 

-----

 

Worse than that: Living a unbearable life in an inhospitable planet...!

 

Roch

[JR4321]

How do you measure the soundstage, the air between the notes, the veil that disappear ....

 

Exactly. This is an "expert"? Please...

[elcorso]

Exactly. This is an "expert"? Please...

 

Alfe is an expert.

 

You think that an expert isn't a good listener, and if him do not have a heart?

 

Roch

 

PS / Please remember that there are very important neurons residing in the heart. According neurons experts.

[JR4321]

Alfe is an expert.

 

You think that an expert isn't a good listener, and if him do not have a heart?

 

Roch

 

PS / Please remember that there are very important neurons residing in the heart. According neurons experts.

 

 

huh? Is that a question?

[Jud]

My litmus test is cables. At least one of your "experts" gives cabling recommendations, which makes everything they recommend suspect for me.

 

I see. So if a brain surgeon comes to a conclusion at variance with your non-expert preconceptions, it must be the brain surgeon who doesn't know what he's talking about?

 

Since you asked about names of experts, I presume you yourself are not expert in audio engineering. Your non-expert preconception is that cables cannot matter. Then, when someone who has expert knowledge in this field has cable recommendations, it must be the person with superior knowledge who is suspect, rather than causing you to question your non-expert preconceptions? How do you manage to learn if this doesn't cause you to question your preconceptions even a little?

 

I'm not saying the person who has superior knowledge and experience must of necessity be correct, but surely it's wise to concede the possibility, yes?

[JR4321]

I see. So if a brain surgeon comes to a conclusion at variance with your non-expert preconceptions, it must be the brain surgeon who doesn't know what he's talking about?

 

Since you asked about names of experts, I presume you yourself are not expert in audio engineering. Your non-expert preconception is that cables cannot matter. Then, when someone who has expert knowledge in this field has cable recommendations, it must be the person with superior knowledge who is suspect, rather than causing you to question your non-expert preconceptions? How do you manage to learn if this doesn't cause you to question your preconceptions even a little?

 

I'm not saying the person who has superior knowledge and experience must of necessity be correct, but surely it's wise to concede the possibility, yes?

 

Actually, I design and build cables for a living for use up to 100GHz and have for over 20yrs. So yes, I'm probably as close as you'd get to an expert on cables.

[Jud]

Actually, I design and build cables for a living for use up to 100GHz and have for over 20yrs. So yes, I'm probably as close as you'd get to an expert on cables.

 

Cool. So have you had design experience with cables that were being used in an environment where it was critical that electrical noise not be transmitted to the ground plane of a receiving circuit with femtosecond clocks and a chip whose performance relies on noise in the ground plane to be ~140db down from the signal?

[JR4321]

Cool. So have you had design experience with cables that were being used in an environment where it was critical that electrical noise not be transmitted to the ground plane of a receiving circuit with femtosecond clocks and a chip whose performance relies on noise in the ground plane to be ~140db down from the signal?

 

My apologies if I hurt your feelings. I'm not interested in a debate.

[Jud]

In the absense of supporting evidence, even the most abserd theory is no less plausible than any other. Again, i ask what criteria do you apply to determine the kooks from genius in matters of faith......which without supporting evidence is just what you have.

 

Anthony, I think you've skipped a step or two here.

 

Let's look at some folks who are inarguably scientists, the folks looking for the Higgs boson. Peter Higgs first proposed its existence in 1964. There was no actual evidence of its existence until 50 years later. For those 50 years, are you telling me there was no way to differentiate Peter Higgs from some random kook? Then the people who built a multi-billion dollar accelerator at CERN on the strength of what this "kook" said ought to be shot.

 

Of course there was a way to differentiate Higgs from some random kook. Even 50 years before the painstaking and incredibly expensive experiments necessary to find actual evidence could be done, his hypothesis was plausible in scientific and mathematical terms. It extended, but did not violate, the high energy physics and associated mathematics of its day.

 

The examples I have given, like torsion fields enabling communication at one billion times the speed of light supposedly existing since the 1930s (though of course "highly classified" by the Nazis and World War II victors), are quite obviously of the same ilk as cables bombarded by virtual particles via quantum tunneling and thus sounding ever so much better. This stuff is very easily shown not to have any plausible mechanism that accords with known physical laws. Now if you want to find for me stuff that, e.g., Keith O. Johnson has designed that can easily be shown to violate well known physical or mathematical principles, I will (genuinely) be quite ready to reevaluate my thinking that he's worth listening to about audio engineering.

[Jud]

My apologies if I hurt your feelings. I'm not interested in a debate.

 

I'm not either, though an honest debate would be far preferable to content-free sniping like "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings." Can you say something non-ridiculous and actually contribute to the discussion? I'm here to learn and will very happily and gratefully read anything substantive you want to provide.

[Paul R]

Venus.

 

Venus is an oddball anyway, and may be a fairly young planet that just hasn't cooled down yet. It isn't that different from the hell that Earth was shortly after it formed. And it gets a heck of a lot more heat from the sun than Earth does. And ti s riddled with volcanoes, is nearly tide locked, with a day longer than it's year, and had fiendish air pressure.

 

And yes, of course, it is blazing hot due to the runaway greenhouse effect, including truly massive amounts of sulphur dioxide, probably fro the volcanoes. It is hot enough to melt lead.

 

In a few million years, it might be a nice place to visit.

[petaluma]

HIRO

 

 

Personally the probability that man will kill himself off through war or overpopulation or stupidity seems much higher than any climate change but that's just my opinion.

 

 

Priaptor, hey you might argue that war can cause climate change, nuclear war triggering nuclear winter finishing off what is left of us. Overpopulation forces the increased consumption of fossil fuels and the consequences of excess CO2, Methane and other gasses further climate change and creating a feedback loop that until it kills off enough the population may accelerate out of control with no potential for bringing it back under control. Both of those options, war and overpopulation I would file under stupidity....

 

Go easy on us out here in California, the state and some of us are attempting to become part of the solution and not the problem......

 

Frankly we need to do a few things:

 

1. Immediately start construction of Nuclear plants and then start to decommission coal fired, then oil fired, then natural gas fired plants. Solar, Tidal, Wind, Geothermal at best can handle a fraction of the need. There always needs to be a baseline reliable amount on the grid.

 

2. Push CAFE requirements for autos and trucks thru the roof and ensure that all countries sign on to a smiliar plan

 

3. Push large amounts of capital into making alternative fuel sources more efficient than they are now. Solar cells etc...

 

4. Improve the transmission grid. Like food push for localized energy production that does not depend on moving power over huge distances which is inefficient and frankly is incredibly vulnerable to solar activity, terrestrial storm activity, terrorist activity etc...

 

5. Stop going to war at the drop of a hat and channel some of the funding and the brains that make our war machine function into steps 1 - 4. I know this one with the current state of world affairs is a long shot but what the hell......

[elcorso]

huh? Is that a question?

 

Yes, but the PS was an statement.

 

But you don't need to answer.

 

Roch

[JR4321]

I'm not either, though an honest debate would be far preferable to content-free sniping like "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings." Can you say something non-ridiculous and actually contribute to the discussion? I'm here to learn and will very happily and gratefully read anything substantive you want to provide.

I admit that i responded this way because your reply was clearly aimed at either a: proving your superior knowledge, or b: debunking my claim stated knowledge.

 

I will say that your question about a 140dB isolation between signal/gnd shows your misunderstanding about cables. Signal/gnd isolation for a coax would be related to the distance between the center conductor and shield, which is dictated by the coax impedance (say 75ohms), and the dielectric constant, which is a function of the materials and design. It's funny that some of the higher end audio cables on the market actually use a low dielectric constant, which means the shield is CLOSER to the center conductor, making the DWV lower. So if the signal/gnd isolation is your top concern, then these higher end cables would actually be WORSE. Really, though ,the signal/gnd isolation should be a concern of the electronics design, not the cable. The variable the cable brings is impedance tolerance.

 

Anyway...no harm intended. Again, just looking for info on audio stuff.

[Paul R]

Deleted

[Snowmonkey]

Frankly we need to do a few things:

 

1. Immediately start construction of Nuclear plants and then start to decommission coal fired, then oil fired, then natural gas fired plants. Solar, Tidal, Wind, Geothermal at best can handle a fraction of the need. There always needs to be a baseline reliable amount on the grid.

 

2. Push CAFE requirements for autos and trucks thru the roof and ensure that all countries sign on to a smiliar plan

 

3. Push large amounts of capital into making alternative fuel sources more efficient than they are now. Solar cells etc...

 

4. Improve the transmission grid. Like food push for localized energy production that does not depend on moving power over huge distances which is inefficient and frankly is incredibly vulnerable to solar activity, terrestrial storm activity, terrorist activity etc...

 

5. Stop going to war at the drop of a hat and channel some of the funding and the brains that make our war machine function into steps 1 - 4. I know this one with the current state of world affairs is a long shot but what the hell......

 

6. Stop eating so much freakin' meat!

[Jud]

Priaptor, hey you might argue that war can cause climate change, nuclear war triggering nuclear winter finishing off what is left of us. Overpopulation forces the increased consumption of fossil fuels and the consequences of excess CO2, Methane and other gasses further climate change and creating a feedback loop that until it kills off enough the population may accelerate out of control with no potential for bringing it back under control. Both of those options, war and overpopulation I would file under stupidity....

 

Go easy on us out here in California, the state and some of us are attempting to become part of the solution and not the problem......

 

Frankly we need to do a few things:

 

1. Immediately start construction of Nuclear plants and then start to decommission coal fired, then oil fired, then natural gas fired plants. Solar, Tidal, Wind, Geothermal at best can handle a fraction of the need. There always needs to be a baseline reliable amount on the grid.

 

2. Push CAFE requirements for autos and trucks thru the roof and ensure that all countries sign on to a smiliar plan

 

3. Push large amounts of capital into making alternative fuel sources more efficient than they are now. Solar cells etc...

 

4. Improve the transmission grid. Like food push for localized energy production that does not depend on moving power over huge distances which is inefficient and frankly is incredibly vulnerable to solar activity, terrestrial storm activity, terrorist activity etc...

 

5. Stop going to war at the drop of a hat and channel some of the funding and the brains that make our war machine function into steps 1 - 4. I know this one with the current state of world affairs is a long shot but what the hell......

 

You left out the easiest, cheapest, and most economically beneficial strategy of all - simple, affordable, individual conservation measures like improving the insulation in our homes. This is far more viable than the enormous capital and regulatory requirements associated with nuclear plant construction. In terms of security, an electrical grid dependent on fewer huge generating and main distribution points is also far more vulnerable to either intentional wrongdoing or just plain cockups than simply ratcheting down energy requirements through conservation. Conservation through measures like insulation and other residential and business retrofits also offers potential local employment for hundreds of thousands of contractors.

[petaluma]

6. Stop eating so much freakin' meat!

 

Now your just being unreasonable! But your right......Man I hate soy burgers....I thought they had made advances in growing muscle tissue in a lab. Maybe there is hope.

[petaluma]

You left out the easiest, cheapest, and most economically beneficial strategy of all - simple, affordable, individual conservation measures like improving the insulation in our homes. This is far more viable than the enormous capital and regulatory requirements associated with nuclear plant construction. In terms of security, an electrical grid dependent on fewer huge generating and main distribution points is also far more vulnerable to either intentional wrongdoing or just plain cockups than simply ratcheting down energy requirements through conservation. Conservation through measures like insulation and other residential and business retrofits also offers potential local employment for hundreds of thousands of contractors.

 

Jud your absolutely right, but I'm not sure that could be achieved at the individual level. My wife and I try but we have enough discretionary income to do so. Not sure everybody does. Ok lets move this to # 1 on the list and see how far we can get. But SnowMonkey's suggestion of giving up meat is just asking too much of an individual

 

Edit: lets use some of item # 5 money to fund the new item # 1. That sounds like a plan...

 

Edit 2: Ok and use some of the former item # 1 money.....Not all of it though.