Star Signs v Dancers

[David Bailey]

Whoops, I missed this one in all the excitement...

You know that was a crocodile tear, only you really move me, truly, I'm welling up as I type

I can feel your tears from here.

Who devised the IQ test? (No really, i'm interested and you're bound to know!)

Dunno - but there's a good argument to say the IQ test is only really effective at testing how well you do in IQ tests

(BTW, I was referring to this study )

There's no 'u'.

Oh, go back to America...

Sir, you deserve a whipping for this!

Ahh, this is the thing in the upstairs thread, yes? You've given up trying to clear your massive rep-debt to me, so you're trying to win my favour in other ways?

Perhaps you should be considering it may exist until there is evidence that it does not.

Well if someone says "There was a Curse", then I ask "How do you know?", and you reply (effectively) "A man down the pub told me", I'm going to exercise my right to say (poetically) "B******s".

[ducasi]

Who devised the IQ test? (No really, i'm interested and you're bound to know!)

There are two common standardised IQ tests. They correlate closely to each other, but one gives a wider range of scores than the other. (So on one 150 is genius level, and in the other it's somewhere around 180 I think. Most newspaper reports of child geniuses use the wider scale for obvious reasons.)

The full study hasn't been published, but in my mind it says more about bias in IQ tests rather than real differences in intelligence between the sexes.

Here's a story on the BBC web site about it.

There's no 'u' {in glamourise}.

There is actually, but there's only one u in "glamorous". (Which could be read as a compliment.)

(Or maybe I'm speaking American??? Let me check my Shorter Oxford... Hmm... it's unclear, but the OED is very open to American spellings, actually preferring the -ize forms over -ise.)

[David Franklin]

Also, I don't believe they ever said they'd "disproved" homeopathy - they've simply conducted a study which suggests certain things. The Lancet was indeed quite gung-ho against homeopathy, but I've lost a lot of faith in the Lancet's authority over the past few years, it's got a bit too tabloid for my tastes.

I think one problem is exactly what is meant by homeopathy; from a lot of the comments on websites I've seen, the general public has a tendancy to equate homeopathy with the entire range of alternative medicines. I don't know what homeopaths advocate these days, but I'm fairly certain that "dilute a poison down to the stage where it's unlikely a single molecure remains in the solution, and the solution will have special powers" is bunk.

The truth is, conventional medicine has made incredible progress in many areas; vaccination has made a huge difference, so have antibiotics. Yet, in the main, all the public does is complain that things aren't perfect. It's an extreme case, but look at MMR - a purported risk of maybe 1 in a million (with no statistical evidence to back it up) had people in uproar.

Conversely, the public think alternative medicines are "natural" and therefore safe. Not so - at one time I used Kava Kava; it's since been taken off the shelves as it can cause liver damage[*]. Funnily enough, I didn't see anyone sueing those manufacturers for $30 billion dollars.

And two years ago my wife was in Singapore to judge papers on medication for a prize. Several studies were on so-called "traditional" medicines. The difference between the nominal ingredients and what was actually in there was scary - we're talking serious quantities of poisons, carcinogens etc...

So when there's so little evidence for homeopathic medicines working better than placebo, I can understand why the editors of the Lancet sometimes go a bit overboard...

[*]As memory serves - it was a while ago now.

[JoC]

There is actually, but there's only one u in "glamorous". (Which could be read as a compliment.)
(Or maybe I'm speaking American???

My dictionary say 'glamorize' or 'glamorise' is the correct spelling, and though my dictionary is a reasonable size (despite being compact) I'm willing to bow to someone with a bigger one.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Do you really have evidence against Ash's theories or do you just think her evidence isn't good enough?

Of course not. The essence of 'Ash's theories' (I'm using your shorthand rather than tarring Ash with every half-baked piece of mythological nonsense that she probably wouldn't want to sign up to) is that they go to great pains to avoid ever being in the position of being tested. You can't have any evidence against a theory where, like in astrology, any serious deficiencies in it's predictive power are simply dismissed 'because it's only a diagnostic tool'.

You'll rip me to shreds but I'm put in mind of so many theorists, scientists etc who were shot down in flames, only to be proved right years later.

No, you make a good point. As I said before, science is based mainly on evolution and sometimes revolution in what we believe to be 'correct' - or, equally, usefully predictive. If (using Astrology as a continuing example) a repeatable, demonstrable, objective effect on human behaviour from the position of the planets is discovered, then I will be in the forefront of those interested to discover what the mechanism for this effect is. But until anyone can show me there *is* such an effect, I have no hesitation in dismissing the idea as bunkum.

Like I said, it's only in science where you hear words to the effect of "your theory was right and mine is wrong." But the corollary of being open minded in this way is that we ask for some significant proof that what you claim as an effect is not simply random events selected to look impressive after the fact.

See - ESG waxes poetic, everyone sheds a tear. I try to, everyone sheds a tear of laughter

Oh, is *that* what you were trying to do!!?

[El Salsero Gringo]

...as I'd thought there was some validity in homeopathy.

Oh David! I am *sooooo* disappointed in you ....

[JoC]

Dunno - but there's a good argument to say the IQ test is only really effective at testing how well you do in IQ tests

Much like load of **** aptitude tests for jobs, fun though!

(BTW, I was referring to this study )

far too many words for a lady, moi

Oh, go back to America...

Ahem, i was vindicating you first instance! For this one, see your own friendly English dictionary...

Ahh, this is the thing in the upstairs thread, yes? You've given up trying to clear your massive rep-debt to me, so you're trying to win my favour in other ways?

Now we get to the crux of the matter though I can't go upstairs owing to being innocent and sweet...so it'll have to stay downstairs, which may be inappropriate, i'm not sure.

Well if someone says "There was a Curse", then I ask "How do you know?", and you reply (effectively) "A man down the pub told me", I'm going to exercise my right to say (poetically) "B******s".

But if someone says, well actually the majority of thingmy's that were meant to succumb to the b******s curse did... you gonna fight them to the death that it doesn't exist?

[ducasi]

My dictionary say 'glamorize' or 'glamorise' is the correct spelling, and though my dictionary is a reasonable size (despite being compact) I'm willing to bow to someone with a bigger one.

I've got a sillily big one (ooh er!) but all it's done is confuse me.

It likes "glamorize", but also allows "glamorise", "glamourize" and "glamourise".

It says that "glamor" is a US spelling of "glamour", but only likes "glamorous".

Though it also tells me that "glamour" is of Scottish origin, so we can spell it any way we jolly well like!

But if we can understand what's been meant without great difficulty, then what does it matter?

... or in fewer words ... "shrug".

[JoC]

You can't have any evidence against a theory where, like in astrology, any serious deficiencies in it's predictive power are simply dismissed 'because it's only a diagnostic tool'.

I suppose you can suggest ruling it out as anything of worth though... I do this regularly at work, 'yeah you did that diagnostic test but it's a load of b******s, go do something proper you bunch of bananas!'

until anyone can show me there *is* such an effect, I have no hesitation in dismissing the idea as bunkum.

Flame-thrower! I guess it's just not for you...but I really baulk at the whole 'dismissal' thing. Sounds a bit 'closed'.

But the corollary of being open minded in this way is that we ask for some significant proof that what you claim as an effect is not simply random events selected to look impressive after the fact.

Whatever you hypothesise and provide 'proof' of, someone will generate proof against, it doesn't mean the debunker is right. you can debunk a debunker. We don't know everything and can't explain everything yet, and can't provide proof of many things yet, but surely that doesn't mean they should be dismissed???

Oh, is *that* what you were trying to do!!?

Actually no, it was a real tear, but don't tell DJ.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Whatever you hypothesise and provide 'proof' of, someone will generate proof against

No, that's a misunderstanding you have about the nature of scientific proof. This is not mathematics where a proof stands (or should stand) on its own feet. In science one asks what matches best to the way the universe behaves? Which theory will best allow us to predict the outcome of events not yet occured? You can't prove that Newton's celestial mechanics is correct - because even tomorrow gravity might suddenly stop through some unexplained cause. But you can't doubt that prediction of the motion of the planets through the 'laws' and theories that Newton first described is useful in plotting tide tables, eclipses, times of sunrise, cometary appearances and so on. In other words, Newtonian mechanics is true in so far as it predicts certain events. Along comes Einstein with a new take on relative motions, and lo - a new theory that can predict more accurately some phenomena that reliance on Newtonian relativity fails - the precession of the orbit of Mercury for instance.

The misunderstanding about the nature of scientific laws and theories is that the theory is only a description of how the universe behaves. The universe knows nor cares anything for Newton, Einstein or any of the others. 'All' they did was spot simple patterns behind complex behaviour. And a theory's only 'proof' lies in an accurate description of complex behaviour past and present arrived at by reference to those simple yet exact ideas.

To use the Indian curse as an example: that's only going to impress me if you tell me *now* (or better, at the time you lay the curse) that the next 10 presidents elected in zero years will die in office, and show me (again, in advance) how that's monstrously unlikely to occur by chance. Othwise I'm just going to accuse you of trawling through centuries of historical data (British Prime Ministers with an R in their middle names? French Foreign Ministers? or what about every forty-nine thousandth person in the London S-Z telephone directory?) until you come up with something that sounds impressive enough to take the really gullible.

[Mary]

Errrrm. Ash is a 'he' not a 'she'.

Just thought I'd mention it...................................not that it makes any difference at all............................

M

[ducasi]

The universe knows nor cares anything for Newton, Einstein or any of the others.

Yep, and the universe will continue whether anyone knows why or not. It does like to occasionally surprise us though.

... that's only going to impress me if you tell me *now* (or better, at the time you lay the curse) that the next 10 presidents elected in zero years will die in office, and show me (again, in advance) how that's monstrously unlikely to occur by chance. ...

The morning I woke up early with the feeling that something really big had happened and I needed to turn on my TV to a news channel a.s.a.p was in advance of knowing that Diana had died. The feeling I had that morning I've never felt before or since, so I doubt it was just a coincidence. The feeling I had when I then saw the news is indescribable.

If science has any theories as to how this happened, I'd like to hear them. Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude that there are phenomena in this universe that can affect our lives, and which science hasn't begun to even recognise, never mind explain.

[El Salsero Gringo]

The morning I woke up early with the feeling that something really big had happened and I needed to turn on my TV to a news channel a.s.a.p was in advance of knowing that Diana had died. The feeling I had that morning I've never felt before or since, so I doubt it was just a coincidence. The feeling I had when I then saw the news is indescribable.

If science has any theories as to how this happened, I'd like to hear them. Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude that there are phenomena in this universe that can affect our lives, and which science hasn't begun to even recognise, never mind explain.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being monstrously witty and ironic by pointing out that while the Universe doesn't care for people of the calibre of Einstein or Newton, out of 100 million individuals who depart this planet every year the Universe forces you to wake up with a hangover the very day that Princess Di died.

Have some rep for quite the most wicked demolition of 'spirituality' on the thread so far.

[ducasi]

Have some rep for quite the most wicked demolition of 'spirituality' on the thread so far.

Thank-you, but feel free to take it back, as I wasn't being ironic.

When I wake up with a hangover, the last thing I'll typically want to do is quickly turn on the telly.

One possible, but non-scientific, explanation for what I experienced might be global consciousness. A scientific explanation might suggest it was some sort of post-hoc auto-suggestion...

I'm normally highly sceptical of such things, but in this case I can't help but wonder. Either way, I'm keeping an open mind to the possibility that the universe might yet have a few tricks up its sleeve that science is not quite ready for.

If you're looking for links to help debunk this, here's some starting points...

The Global Consciousness Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...usness_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-suggestion

[JoC]

Errrrm. Ash is a 'he' not a 'she'.

Just thought I'd mention it...................................not that it makes any difference at all............................

M

It explains the tenacity perhaps

[JoC]

No, that's a misunderstanding you have about the nature of scientific proof. This is not mathematics where a proof stands (or should stand) on its own feet. In science one asks what matches best to the way the universe behaves? Which theory will best allow us to predict the outcome of events not yet occured? *snip*
The misunderstanding about the nature of scientific laws and theories is that the theory is only a description of how the universe behaves.

Now has clearly come the time to sing Justin Timberlake songs at you, the only scientist in the village.

I don't disagree with the above.

(I may look from a less than pure angle.)

Now where's the sander? I have something to prove in my bathroom.

[Ash]

I'm keeping an open mind to the possibility that the universe might yet have a few tricks up its sleeve that science is not quite ready for. Ducasi

[JoC]

I would like to add that I levitated slightly when I was three. I know I will receive a sympathetic ear on this thread.

(and apologies about the gender thing Ash, welcome to the gender-confused forum, there are many of us in here )

[Northants Girly]

I would like to add that I levitated slightly when I was three.

It's happened to me too . . . (seriously)

[El Salsero Gringo]

I'm keeping an open mind to the possibility that the universe might yet have a few tricks up its sleeve that science is not quite ready for. Ducasi

You won't find a scientist who disagrees with that, otherwise we could all pack up and go home. I just don't believe that astrology, homeopathy, Bach flower remedies, iridology, reflexology or a whole host of other rubbish is amongst those tricks.