Some ChronoAstroBiology Evidence (as requested by DrKitten)

Firstly, it matters little who makes the claim. The claim itself must stand. It isn't uncommon for figures who have offered valuable contributions to the scientific world to go on to make certain outlandish, unsupported claims. It is a shame, as it demonstrates that earlier, successful work found support with evidence in spite of an obvious disregard for the scientific method. Occasionally it seems to be an effort to magnify earlier discoveries beyond their worth.

As might be the case here.

From what I understand of this report, it is a speculation that biological rhythms can form under the influence of stimuli as diverse as planetary magnetic fields and sunspots. All well and good to speculate, however there is no evidence that such things do influence our biology.

All of what he says in this paper is either researched historical debate, conjecture, musings over apparent patterns in statistics... things that are more woo than science. It's little different to cherry picking interesting patterns. In some instances, there might be valid reasons. Such as the variations in cicada pupation over a number of years. However, to make a direct correlation between such a pattern and solar activity or magnetic fields is stretching it, especially where there is no evidence and there are more likely reasons.

Maybe somebody should one day write a book, 'When Good Scientists Go Bad'.

Athon
 
Your response below reminds me of an incident many years ago that has haunted me ever since... I was talking to a very intelligent and well-educated person, and I said to him something like "a implies b, yes"? And he said "yes." And then I said, "b implies c, yes?" And he again said, "yes." And then I said, "And thus a implies c, yes?" And he said, No!" And when I asked him,"How could that be?" he responded that there must be something wrong with my logic because, "a could never possibly imply c." Which to me indicated that he simply did not like where my logic led. Note that the above conclusion did not contradict either a implying b or b implying c, and note also that I was only asking him to consider the logical conclusion further -- instead of immediatelly dismissing it out of hand, ala, Aristotle's, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."







athon said:
Firstly, it matters little who makes the claim. The claim itself must stand. It isn't uncommon for figures who have offered valuable contributions to the scientific world to go on to make certain outlandish, unsupported claims. It is a shame, as it demonstrates that earlier, successful work found support with evidence in spite of an obvious disregard for the scientific method. Occasionally it seems to be an effort to magnify earlier discoveries beyond their worth.

As might be the case here.

From what I understand of this report, it is a speculation that biological rhythms can form under the influence of stimuli as diverse as planetary magnetic fields and sunspots. All well and good to speculate, however there is no evidence that such things do influence our biology.

All of what he says in this paper is either researched historical debate, conjecture, musings over apparent patterns in statistics... things that are more woo than science. It's little different to cherry picking interesting patterns. In some instances, there might be valid reasons. Such as the variations in cicada pupation over a number of years. However, to make a direct correlation between such a pattern and solar activity or magnetic fields is stretching it, especially where there is no evidence and there are more likely reasons.

Maybe somebody should one day write a book, 'When Good Scientists Go Bad'.

Athon
Click to expand...
 
Jackel said:
Your response below reminds me of an incident many years ago that has haunted me ever since... I was talking to a very intelligent and well-educated person, and I said to him something like "a implies b, yes"? And he said "yes." And then I said, "b implies c, yes?" And he again said, "yes." And then I said, "And thus a implies c, yes?" And he said, No!" And when I asked him,"How could that be?" he responded that there must be something wrong with my logic because, "a could never possibly imply c." Which to me indicated that he simply did not like where my logic led. Note that the above conclusion did not contradict either a implying b or b implying c, and note also that I was only asking him to consider the logical conclusion further -- instead of immediatelly dismissing it out of hand, ala, Aristotle's, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Click to expand...
That's an interesting story. Could you please identify a, b and c in athon's post? I can't.
 
I said "reminds me". Can you please identify where I said a, b, and c are in athon's post?

Originally Posted by hgc View Original:

hgc said:
That's an interesting story. Could you please identify a, b and c in athon's post? I can't.
Click to expand...
 
Jackel said:
I said "reminds me". Can you please identify where I said a, b, and c are in athon's post?
Click to expand...
No. I just don't know then why it's relevant. What about athon's post "reminds" you of an experience with an allegedly illogical intellectual?
 
Couple of quick observations:

1. This paper was never reviewed. Submission and acceptance dates are too close together.

2. If you're willing to consider all scales of nature from the subatomic to the extragalactic, you can find rhythmic patterns of virtually every frequency and phase you want. Without identifying a mechanism, the whole paper is one huge post hoc, ergo prompter hoc exercise.

3. Mechanism is important. Just for example take the proposal that "sunspots lead to cholera." Well, sunspots also are linked to solar output and climate on Earth -- things that might very plausibly influence disease vectors.

In summary, this might be worth some follow-up investigation, but unless you can find those missing links this doesn't (and can't) prove a thing.
 
Much thanks. This is exactly the kind of reasoned critique I was looking for!


R.Mackey said:
Couple of quick observations:

1. This paper was never reviewed. Submission and acceptance dates are too close together.

2. If you're willing to consider all scales of nature from the subatomic to the extragalactic, you can find rhythmic patterns of virtually every frequency and phase you want. Without identifying a mechanism, the whole paper is one huge post hoc, ergo prompter hoc exercise.

3. Mechanism is important. Just for example take the proposal that "sunspots lead to cholera." Well, sunspots also are linked to solar output and climate on Earth -- things that might very plausibly influence disease vectors.

In summary, this might be worth some follow-up investigation, but unless you can find those missing links this doesn't (and can't) prove a thing.
Click to expand...
 
Jackel said:
instead of immediatelly dismissing it out of hand, ala, Aristotle's, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Click to expand...

Forgiving the irrelevant little trip down memory lane, I'll respond to the last line.

Hey, look, entertain me. Give me reasons to believe it. I'm all ears. However, as I said, the paper offers me nothing. Pattern 'A' matches Pattern 'C' is barely a starting place for investigation. But if it doesn't move past that, you have nothing. As what this paper does.

It's not 'dismissed out of hand'. There's nothing in hand, other than some musings of a gentleman who previously went further than speculation to provide us with a useful scientific theory.

Athon
 
This maybe a stupid question but....evidence of what?

I'm not a big fan of Dr Kitten, but I found that article completely incomprehensible and not evidence of much I could decipher.
 
athon said:
Maybe somebody should one day write a book, 'When Good Scientists Go Bad'.
Click to expand...

It's 1903. René-Prosper Blondlot is conducting experiments with X-Rays. Or so we think. Dun dun dun! (lightning strikes) N-rays!

Meet Blaise Pascal, a mild-mannered mathematician and natural philosopher, making breakthrough progress in fluid dynamics and mathematics. But then, suddenly, dun dun dun! Pascal's Wager!

Alex Gurwitsch is a Russian scientist on the verge of an important discovery. No, it's not biophotonics, it's morphogenic field theory!

Nicola Tesla was an eccentric inventor. He is also a spiritualist and, uh, obsessed with the number three for no apparent reason. And today he is about to make conspiracy theory history. Dun dun dun! The dynamic theory of gravity!
 
Yes, sometimes even great scientists fall off scientific cliffs.

On the other hand, prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible. While, a relatively few scientists without empirical evidence believed otherwise.

And as I also recall Lord Kelvin had a view of physics in which the idea of quantum bundles of energy was more woo-woo than good science.

Therefore, are you saying that until something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is not possible? Or are you saying that until something is accepted by the establishment, it is not acceptable, at least per further logical speculation and scientific exploration?


c4ts said:
It's 1903. René-Prosper Blondlot is conducting experiments with X-Rays. Or so we think. Dun dun dun! (lightning strikes) N-rays!

Meet Blaise Pascal, a mild-mannered mathematician and natural philosopher, making breakthrough progress in fluid dynamics and mathematics. But then, suddenly, dun dun dun! Pascal's Wager!

Alex Gurwitsch is a Russian scientist on the verge of an important discovery. No, it's not biophotonics, it's morphogenic field theory!

Nicola Tesla was an eccentric inventor. He is also a spiritualist and, uh, obsessed with the number three for no apparent reason. And today he is about to make conspiracy theory history. Dun dun dun! The dynamic theory of gravity!
Click to expand...
 
Jackel said:
Yes, sometimes even great scientists fall off scientific cliffs.

On the other hand, prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible. While, a relatively few scientists without empirical evidence believed otherwise.

And as I also recall Lord Kelvin had a view of physics in which the idea of quantum bundles of energy was more woo-woo than good science.

Therefore, are you saying that until something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is not possible? Or are you saying that until something is accepted by the establishment, it is not acceptable, at least per further logical speculation and scientific exploration?
Click to expand...

No. These are examples of pathological science, except in the case of Pascal because Pascal's wager isn't even remotely scientific. Establishment and outlandishness alone is not the only reason that these theories were disproven. For example, the problem with N-rays was that only Blondot could see them. This would be like if the Wright Brothers could only fly when nobody else was looking, and they were the only ones who could do it. So even if heavier than air flight were later found to be possible, they're not exactly helping. So if we do find something called N-rays, it's not thanks to Blondot, he's still mistaken, his experiments can't be duplicated, and it's a coincidence.
 
The only problem that I have with what you are saying is that you are looking at those fiascos only in retrospect. What I am saying is that at the time there were reasons to further explore what would end up being silly notions. And I am saying that there are always good reasons to explore what seem like silly notions because some of those silly notions end up being correct, and when they are correct, science advances greatly.

The problem is when and how much time to put into apparently silly notions? I am inclined to believe that the degree of sillinessness/odd duckness is not always a good yardstick. You are likely to disagree. My way keeps the door open to huge breakthroughs, your way keeps it tight shut. I believe it is also the difference between being too trusting and being too skeptical -- Type I vs. Type II errors or vice versa. :-)


c4ts said:
No. These are examples of pathological science, except in the case of Pascal because Pascal's wager isn't even remotely scientific. Establishment and outlandishness alone is not the only reason that these theories were disproven. For example, the problem with N-rays was that only Blondot could see them. This would be like if the Wright Brothers could only fly when nobody else was looking, and they were the only ones who could do it. So even if heavier than air flight were later found to be possible, they're not exactly helping. So if we do find something called N-rays, it's not thanks to Blondot, he's still mistaken, his experiments can't be duplicated, and it's a coincidence.
Click to expand...
 
Jackel said:
The only problem that I have with what you are saying is that you are looking at those fiascos only in retrospect. What I am saying is that at the time there were reasons to further explore what would end up being silly notions.
Click to expand...

Well I can't use examples from the future that haven't happened yet! The point is even geniuses can be wrong, and a reputation does not validate scientific theory. Therefore you would want a heavy dose of skepticism to avoid future errors along those same lines. Or do you object to learning from past mistakes?
 
Jackel said:
Yes, sometimes even great scientists fall off scientific cliffs.

On the other hand, prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible. While, a relatively few scientists without empirical evidence believed otherwise.
Click to expand...
For the record, this analogy is false. Virtually all scientists not only believed it was possible, but thought it would happen soon. The Wright Brothers had several competitors, notably Samuel Pierpont Langley, who had already demonstrated heavier-than-air flight. What he hadn't done was built a scaled-up model that could carry a human being. And he might have beat the Wright Brothers to it, if he hadn't insisted upon launching from a houseboat.

The Wright Brothers were consummate engineers, who researched the best knowledge of the time, built models, simplified their problem, and ultimately succeeded. They were focused, meticulous, and dedicated. They were not mavericks challenging the scientific establishment.

Carry on.
 
Last edited:
For the record, it is you distort the situation! As can be determined from some fine recent biographies on the subject. Langley was as close to inventing aeronautics as you are to knowing all the facts.

It is true that here were maverick scientists who thought flight was possible -- without proof, mind you, but legions of scientists were proving nothing of the sort could happen.

And yes the Wright brothers were meticulous... but the facts are clear that two bicycle mechanics pretty much all on their own invented the discipline of aeronautics, not any of the science establishment or the science mavericks. Perchamnce, are you part of the science establishment? :-)

R.Mackey said:
For the record, this analogy is false. Virtually all scientists not only believed it was possible, but thought it would happen soon. The Wright Brothers had several competitors, notably Samuel Pierpont Langley, who had already demonstrated heavier-than-air flight. What he hadn't done was built a scaled-up model that could carry a human being. And he might have beat the Wright Brothers to it, if he hadn't insisted upon launching from a houseboat.

The Wright Brothers were consummate engineers, who researched the best knowledge of the time, built models, simplified their problem, and ultimately succeeded. They were focused, meticulous, and dedicated. They were not mavericks challenging the scientific establishment.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
 
Jackel said:
For the record, it is you distort the situation! As can be determined from some fine recent biographies on the subject. Langley was as close to inventing aeronautics as you are to knowing all the facts.
Click to expand...
I have advanced degrees in aeronautics, and I am a scientist working for NASA.

You are a liar. I distorted nothing. Prove me wrong.
 
c4ts said:
It's 1903. René-Prosper Blondlot is conducting experiments with X-Rays. Or so we think. Dun dun dun! (lightning strikes) N-rays!

Meet Blaise Pascal, a mild-mannered mathematician and natural philosopher, making breakthrough progress in fluid dynamics and mathematics. But then, suddenly, dun dun dun! Pascal's Wager!

Alex Gurwitsch is a Russian scientist on the verge of an important discovery. No, it's not biophotonics, it's morphogenic field theory!

Nicola Tesla was an eccentric inventor. He is also a spiritualist and, uh, obsessed with the number three for no apparent reason. And today he is about to make conspiracy theory history. Dun dun dun! The dynamic theory of gravity!
Click to expand...


Serious question; is there a book out there on a topic such as this?

If not, I get dibs on writing it!

This would make a rather good reference text, I think.

Athon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom