jump to navigation

Scientific Jargon September 12, 2007

Posted by Martin in : Essays, General Rants, New Age Crankery , 3comments

“(Insert scientific fact here) is just a theory. We shouldn’t trust it.” – random ignorant person

Seriously, I have heard this proposition a great many times, and every fantastic time I hear it, I just stop myself from puking due to the inexorable stench of ignorance that comes along with it.

Colloquially, people use the word “theory” to denote an intelligent guess, or something of the sort; apparently, they don’t know how to use “hypothesis” correctly. They then conclude that anything that is called a theory – perhaps gravity or evolution – can be put into utter disregard because after all, “it’s just a theory.”

Are they right?

It’s a rhetorical question. Of course not. Scientists use the word “theory” in a much different manner from what the layman does. If you come up to any educated scientist and say that you don’t believe in evolution because it’s just a theory, you’d probably be meted with a bewildered scientist. Personally, I’d slap you, but I digress.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a theory in the context of science is “a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” See, a theory is a very substantiated explanation of facts that can be repeatedly tested and is able to make predictions. It is not a hunch or an intelligent guess. It is as close to the truth as science can get. And strictly speaking, theories are not explicitly “proven.” In science, everything is tentative, being an inductive process; 100% certainty is impossible save for mathematics.

Incidentally, Atenean science can get a little skewed at times. We’ve been taught that there’s a hierarchy in scientific jargon. Traditionally, any concept roughly goes from hypothesis, theory, then law.

Is this right?

More rhetoric. Of course not. While it is true that a hypothesis does not have much weight on the truth of the nature of things, laws and theories do not compete in any sort of hierarchy, for these concepts are very different. Earlier, it has been stated that a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of phenomena. According to Webster’s Dictionary, a scientific law is “a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law.” Thus, a law is a phenomena, an obervation, a fact.

To illustrate, we have the fact or law of gravity – what goes up must come down – an observed fact.

We then have the theory of gravity – Newtonian mechanics first came, and it was further refined when Einstein’s relativity was discovered. These models are used in physics classes to make predictions with equations.

Another example.

We also have the fact of evolution – species divide or evolve over time – a well-documented fact.

We then have the theory of evolution – First came Darwin with his little theory, then came Lamarck with his more developed theory, and now we have Neo-Darwinism, the most refined explanation of evolution to date.

So please, when you see someone dismiss Evolution or any other theory offhand because “it’s just a theory,” either slap him/her or direct him/her to this site. We have enough ignorance brooding in the world as it is.

Thank you.

Ghosts March 24, 2007

Posted by Martin in : General Rants, New Age Crankery , 7comments

Wee, ghosts. Really, too many people believe in these “entities.” Essentially, definitions vary, but it is usually an apparition or wraith of a deceased person that is claimed to be encountered in the areas that are deemed to be significant to the deceased. In simple terms, it is a body without a body, which is a contradiction, therefore making it impossible and non-existent, but people are perhaps just too stubborn to entertain that thought.According to the Skeptical Inquirer (1), 32% of Americans believe in ghosts, and I find that to be simply too inane.

Let us take your Christian Faith and Doctrine as our premise. (Yes, that means we will assume them to be true! Rejoice!)

According to doctrine, there are three (3.0) places for a “soul” to continue onto after death.

1) Heaven. =)

2) Purgatory. =s

3) Hell. XD

Now, regardless of wherever you go, the place will have awesomely high, bitchin’ security. We can validly deduce this by the qualities of each place. Why will Heaven have awesomely high, bitchin’ security? Because Heaven is supposedly the party of parties, the paradise of paradises (?), the uber chillout lounge of chillout lounges. Therefore, we will have demons or perhaps people’s souls wanting to get into heaven, and obviously, not all of them can get in. Therefore, security, and it’s not necessarily physical. Also, no one inside would even want to get out, since it’s just so damn bitchin’ in heaven. The same practical concept then goes for Purgatory, because the next step from Purgatory is generally accepted to be Heaven.

So why, then, will Hell have awesomely high, bitchin’ security? Because Hell is supposedly the utter opposite of heaven. It is the crapper of crappers, the shit of shits, the flame of flames. Therefore, we will have nefarious people’s souls wanting to get the fuck out. Obviously, Satan, or whoever happens to own the place wouldn’t want that to happen, since without souls, he can’t do bondage, BDSM, and other sexually peculiar deeds. Therefore, security, and it’s not necessarily physical.

Whatever the case, when you are forced to go to one of these places, you really won’t be able to get out of wherever you’ll be thrown into.

See, according to your faith, you really can’t get stuck on Earth. You are required by God to move your ass, or else He’ll do something really mysterious.

————————————–

Anyway, we’re off to a more rational, and perhaps serious viewpoint; cut the informalities.A place is designated as “haunted” by the people when there is a frequent occurrence of paranormal phenomena within the vicinity. A lot of people claimed to have “seen” and “felt” the presence of ghosts, and the justifications for those experiences are very, very weak.

Frequently, people use the fallacious, or at best, the weak inductive argument of Affirming the Consequent. It is committed in the form of:

if X, then Y.
Y.
Ergo, X.

In simple terms, you literally affirm the consequent. Examples are as follows.

If it is snowing, then it is cold.
It is cold.
Therefore, it is snowing.

Clearly, it is fallacious, since conditions can make for cold weather without snowing.

If Bert has Dengue, then he would have a fever.
He has a fever.
Therefore, he has Dengue.

A fever can be caused by conditions other than the Dengue virus, apparently,

This is how people justify the existence of ghosts: If ghosts exist, then..

See, these are weak inductions, and these events can clearly have ordinary, natural causes. However, people just refuse to yield to this logic, allowing themselves to rely on personal experiences that “no one can disprove.”

Let’s take the traditional “Ghost story” of the average Filipino citizen.

“I was liek, going down teh stairs, and then liek, I smelled the perfume of my already-dead Grandmother! Liek woah!”

Seems believable, perhaps creepy, eh? Really, it’s not. Let’s reductio ad absurdum this little story. Want a translation? It means “reduce to absurdity.”

Let us take the viewpoint of the ghost. The ghost, being a nonphysical and perhaps an omniscient entity, atomizes a fragrant liquid just as you pass! A very valid question arises – Why? Usually, believers would think that the dead are trying to communicate. Well, for an immortal, ethereal being, that’s one stupid way to communicate a message. Like I said, it affirms the consequent. It’s a fallacy.

Now, let’s see. The ghost, despite being nonphysical, somehow has a bottle of perfume that she is able to operate, which means that she can push the nozzle of the perfume bottle. Therefore, the ghost is able to exert seemingly uncaused forces onto physical entities. Therefore, if she can push a nozzle, she can push the buttons on a keyboard, a ballpen, your nose, or even your mom. Hence, we can conclude that ghosts, in their use of their newfound powers, are really, really stupid. This means that if you actually stick to the conclusion that ghosts do exist through such an argument, it necessarily entails that your grandmother is an idiot. (I’m so sorry.) I’m quite sure you wouldn’t want that.

Ghost: “That was the best I could do? I have an entire plethora of ghost energies, being nonphysical and really powerful, and I fucking sprayed perfume instead of writing? I’m such an idiot! XD”

 

Also, what’s the ghost doing at other times? Wandering around, partying by itself? If it has infinite ghost energy, then its powers must not be limited to any perfume nozzle, and it can influence pretty much anything physical. Obviously, this does not happen.

If ghosts do exist, then the proportion between the number ghost encounters and the number of dead people is seriously lopsided. If ghosts do exist, then there must be 20+ billion ghosts vs 7-8 billion living people. Therefore, if ghosts exist, then there should be everyday experiences of the paranormal, owing to their sheer numbers. Obviously, this does not happen.

Try a few questions; they might expose the idiocy.

One last bark – I’ll point out a little special pleading. Some people claim that ghosts are tethered to the place of their deaths, or maybe the places that they loved. In any case, this presents a not-very-apparent contradiction. Let us set up a dichotomy.

This means to say that if you are part of the physical realm, then all natural laws apply to you (which is everything in existence); if you are not part of the physical realm, then you are necessarily inconceivable, since anything that humans can imagine is somehow relative to the physical realm.

Now, back to the ghosts are tethered bit. Keep in mind that the Earth is constantly moving in orbit around the sun, and that the entire solar system, along with the galaxy, is continuously travelling away from the center of the big bang. Therefore, this means that ghosts are bound to the earth, and since they reside in households, it is plausible to conclude that the force of gravity acts upon them. If it did not, then they would not be tied to a place, but to a location, with location meaning a certain point in the universe. This means that a ghost would be left behind if gravity did not keep them here. This necessarily means that inertia acts upon them, since this comes hand in hand with gravity. However, some imagine ghosts to be able to “levitate”, “fly”, or whatever. This is absurd, since this means that on this scale, they can ignore the law of gravity at times. This is a fallacy – Special Pleading. Why are some laws omitted when “witnesses” deem it fit to do so, while some laws remain applied? Why, then, do other physical laws not apply to them? It is simply absurd; ghosts do not fall into either of the above categories. The concept is meaningless.

 

And finally, back to the first point. All of this argumentation can be resolved by the exposure of a single contradiction. They are defined to be bodies without bodies. It is a logical contradiction; it is meaningless, and it denotes nothing sensible. As mentioned above, if ghosts truly exist, then we shall never know of them, since they are in no way definable relative to our realm. And since there is no sound evidence of them, it is prudent to conclude that they do not exist.

 

Srsly, try looking for real explanations the next time you “encounter” something; don’t conclude crap out of everything you see.

(1) Musella, David Park. “Gallup poll shows that Americans’ belief in the paranormal persists”. Skeptical Inquirer Sept. – Oct. 2005. Accessed 24 March 2007. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15400020

Thanks to Logically Critical for the inspiration.