Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Pyramidiocy!



On Sun, 22 Mar 1998, Donald E. Simanek wrote:

The Boston Globe used to have a reputation as a good newspaper. I've had
their site linked on my web page for over a year. The paper carried
regular essays by physicist Chet Raymo, who would certainly have commented
skeptically on this one, particular the freezing water ddemo. But I see
Chet's name is no longer listed as a regular contributor.

This is an example of what we are up against in trying to instill in
students an understanding of science and the scientific methods of
inquiry, a skeptical attitude toward extraordinary claims (a sensitive
"humbug detector"). <snip>

I strongly agree that the article is extremely overly-accepting of the
claims. But part of it is EXACTLY in lines with scientific method.
Experimental results (if solid) always win over theory. This pyramid
person presents evidence for unusual phenomena. We should never bad-mouth
this practice, no matter how crazy their other claims. If their evidence
is unconvincing, say so. If their evidence doesn't support their other
claims, say so. But if we lower ourselves to ignoring evidence and
calling things crazy because they appear so, then we become just as
bigoted as the the legendary doctors who ridiculed Seimmilweis (sp?), and
refused to wash hands before surgery. After all, when encountered for the
first time, the germ theory of disease is crazy! But because evidence
supported it, those who disparaged it turned out to be in the wrong (and
so killed their patients through their closemindedness.)

Rejecting "crazy" theories is one thing. Rejecting "crazy" EVIDENCE is
quite another, and those who indulge in this are courting the blindness of
prejudice. Sometimes a portion of even the disgustingly crazy things turn
out true, and so we must be just as much on guard against "pathological
skepticism" as against "true-believerhood." History teaches that total
closemindedness towards certain claims can be just as terrible a mistake
as total gullibility. Therefor fear prejudice, while remaining
openmindedly unconvinced, and demanding solid evidence.

If I was writing the article myself, I would have taken quite a bit more
skeptical a stance against most of his unproven claims, but I wouldn't
have killed the article entirely (it IS news, after all, and we should
never lower ourselves to silencing those with whom we disagree.) However,
his evidence for anomalous water phenomena, ion clouds, etc., is
interesting and should not be rejected as quickly as his "end world
strife" stuff. For example, I heard on NPR Science Friday (from Dr.
Stanley at BU) that water from certain sources exhibits unexplained
anomalies during supercooling (there is even supposed to be a recent
article in Nature about two phases of liquid water arising during extreme
supercooling.) Water is weird, and is not nearly as well-understood as
most scientists assume. Even crazy people can stumble upon interesting
science, especially if they are investigating areas that, because of
danger to their reputations, no scientist could ever touch. If pyramids
cause anomalous supercooling of water, perhaps something in that
environment holds the key to understanding this phenomena, and the claims
should be followed up. If I reacted with nausea rather than reason
towards claims of pyramid power, I might miss the gem hidden in the trash.

I expect that the water-cooling claims will never be followed up, because
reputations are so valuable that researchers cannot chance becoming
associated with a "pyramid power" supporter. I don't know what we should
call this problem, but calling it "Science" is a smear upon science.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L