Scientists are human, fallible, biased, cliquish, etc. Like everyone else with a job, they also have to deal with politics. When money speaks, the truth keeps silent, and there are infinite ways to distort raw data, so the idea that real science is somehow immune to politics and economics is farcical.

There's more junk science than real science being reported by the media charlatans. Lots of scary bullshit that never comes to pass, and the taxpayers always get stuck with the bill for the next round of tyrannical laws which do nothing except expand the size of government.

If facts/reality were really liberally-biased, you wouldn't need so many liars and shills (Obamedia) spouting off around the clock.

And Stink Uyger can cram it as usual, and take rottensheep with him.

Hmmmm... which is more likely? That the patient wasn't as "dead" as the doctor claims she was? Or that a magic ghost heard the details of the conversation outside of the body and "remembered" it when the patient came back to?

Pu-leeze...

While the stories are probably very very interesting and definitely point to the fact that we don't understand the human brain very well, I suspect that this doc is just pandering to the pseudo-sciency types of explanations because they sell FAR more books than real science and will get him a LOT more publicity.

Now, having not read the book, it is hard for me to say if he jumps to excessive bs conclusions, but the way this is marketed in this piece definitely makes it seem more sensational than objective.

(upvote because I love discussions and pseudo-science!)

Curiosity is fine, but it is not wise to take every perspective seriously without checking how sound it is.

Look at what we are dealing with here:

"David Albert, a philosopher of physics and professor at Columbia University, who according to a Popular Science article, is "outraged at the final product," because the filmmakers interviewed him about quantum mechanics unrelated to consciousness or spirituality, and then edited the material in such a way that he feels misrepresented his views"

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-10/cult-science


You want to learn about quantum physics, then consult with PHYSICISTS, not a woman who thinks she is 3500 years old and makes a film to promote her cult.

You cant stop asking questions? then study real science and philosophy, from actual philosophers, and from reliable science sources. This video and the movie, and the movement behind it, are not reliable.

This is the same thing as that movie called the Secret. you gain absolutely nothing from it. Just because these films make you wonder and feel good, does not mean you have gained any truth or have expanded your perspectives. How can you expand it form something that is false and misleading?

Admitting one's ignorance about reality is great and should be applauded, but there is a reason why philosophers use the Socratic method, and scientists use the scientific method whenever a new idea comes along. The ideas presented here do not pass either of those tests.

Don't take this as an attack, I'm just trying to show you that this is not the content to stimulate your curiosity of things.

>> ^charliem:
This video is an excerpt from a psudeo-science bullshit film, where the writers are trying to somehow mesh actual physics with some meta-physical mind-controlling spirituallity garbage to change the outcome of the universe.
Total bunk science, its just as crazy as scientology, only leaning quite heavily on existing science to try to push its point across.
It would be nice if just thinking could change the universe, but it has zero basis in any established scientific journal. Dont let the real confusing, real science get in the way of the garbage this video is trying to push.


What he said...

This video is an excerpt from a psudeo-science bullshit film, where the writers are trying to somehow mesh actual physics with some meta-physical mind-controlling spirituallity garbage to change the outcome of the universe.

Total bunk science, its just as crazy as scientology, only leaning quite heavily on existing science to try to push its point across.

It would be nice if just thinking could change the universe, but it has zero basis in any established scientific journal. Dont let the real confusing, real science get in the way of the garbage this video is trying to push.

I love how each year we unearth (pardon the pun) more evidence confirming evolution.
*doublepromote

"She could also question religion itself."
Unfortunately creationist nutjobs have been exposed to lots and lots of scientific proof that are in direct conflict with their "beliefs", and they're still being bats*it insane, so I don't think this will help in that department, really. Instead I'm happy for the advance it will provide for real science and in understanding the evolution of our species.

Besides illustrating that reality is a horrible, complex fucked up set of events at the best of times, the other thing I take from the video is that the assailants had fucking guns in the first place. Yes I'm no big gun fan.

Still there's no automatic need to view this an anti-gun piece is there?

I don't see any real science going on here but their point is that usage of guns in any scenario, especially the worst-case one depicted, is going to be messy experience unless you're a trained pro. Now a life of constant training for people to keep their edge does not seem smart or practical - more like completely insane. I'm sure there's a wonderful buzz to be had in owning guns but you've got to recognise and deal with the downsides.

BTW Ryjkyj asked about that 50% observation. I can't quote any sources or figures right now but I remember watching some WW1 programmes last year (or maybe it was a newspaper) but apparently many soldiers didn't shoot to kill and at a certain point deliberately missed targets. Either because they were no longer feeling the cause or become traumatised. Doesn't apply to civilians but I suppose shock and panic might prevent them from using weapons they had originally intended to fire.

"I'm not afraid is science".

How can he be afraid of science when it's not real science that he's talking about?

Oh, and the next time I want a lesson in history, I'll pick up the Bible. That's all I need evidently.

I'm going to spend the rest of my life on inventing a device that would enable me to stick my hand through the monitor and BITCHSLAP ppl like this guy.

Seriously... Real science here, for all you skeptics.

>> ^dannym3141:
Oh dude... you're so completely missing the point, ornthoron. It's so completely basic that you've overstepped it in your intelligence.
They're not trying to trick you!

Have I missed the point? I have actually watched the whole movie that this clip is taken from, and believe me: The point is quite hard to miss. And that point is a completely unfounded idea that you are able to influence your surroundings drastically with mere thoughts, supposedly due to quantum mechanics. And no, they are not trying to trick me, as they probably believe in that nonsense themselves. But they certainly tricked one participant in the film, in that they edited together parts of his interview so that they misrepresented his views.


I think it shows the effect that cynicism and time can have on a person.

That's quite a jugdement to pass on me based only on one short comment. Those who know me will attest to my sincere amazement and love of all the wonders of nature, and will likely not recognize your characterization of me as a cynic. But I am a realist, in that I prefer to be amazed by real phenomena, and not some weird stuff that has been dreamed up by some self-appointed medium, no matter how tantalizing it may seem.

Don't get me wrong: I understand where you're coming from, as I too was once that little boy you describe so nicely in your little story. And I am him to some degree still today, constantly amazed by the new things I discover every day. And that is exactly why I hate this movie, since it wanders off into a pseudo-scientific swamp instead of showing people the wonders of REAL science.

I'll concede that I may have been a little harsh on this one clip in isolation, as it taken by itself doesn't overtly exhibit the New Age mindset that permeates the rest of the film. But if you read between the lines you can clearly see the message of humans possibly transcending into a higher state of conciousness. And that there is no justification for in quantum mechanics.


>> ^dannym3141:
This video is inspiring, and i want hours of this kind of thing in place of hours of big brother, pop idol, i'm a celebrity, celebrity fit club, celebrity cattle ranch, celebrity FUCKING DIRTY FILTHY LEECHES OF HUMANITY.

Me too. But is it too much to ask that those hours are filled with stuff from reality? There is so much fantastic stuff to choose from that you can fill hours of it without including quasi-philosophical mumbo-jumbo. I speak from the bottom of my heart: Let all the small children be challenged, puzzled, amazed, wondering, talking and asking about all the weird things in the world. But please don't send them hidden messages as well.

>> ^rougy:
"Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how physical reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook." (Wikipedia)
Economics is nothing if it is not political and cultural.
A person can make a science out of studying the way a Monopoly game is played, but almost every "discovery" made in that research will apply exclusively to the game of Monopoly.
It will not transfer to the Game of Life, or Sorry, or draw poker.
In the real world we have labor, capital, and a problem to solve or an objective to reach.
Capitalism, socialism, and communism are merely varying methods of using labor and capital to solve those problems or reach those objectives.
The "science" that you are purporting to share here is merely a study of one of those methods, capitalism, and an explanation of the peculiarities inherent in its rulebook.
For the sake of our world and humanity, it's time we found and established a new set of rules.


quoted because it's awesome. economics ≠ science

>> ^Doc_M:
It's a shame to see the median income has dropped so low bellow the mean.
I'm guessing it will be even more shocking in a year when we see the 2009 national debt and inflation rate. The rate at which we have been printing money this year makes Al Gore's "hockey stick" look like a tooth pick. Not to mention the other trillions that the new administration and the Dem congress want to dish out.


Not to pick on you, DocM, but your comment (and the fact that it's gotten several upvotes), is a prime example of how I think most conservatives misunderstand the relationship of various aspects of our economy.

First, you make a comment about median incomes dropping so far below the mean. As a liberal/progressive, I think after unemployment, that's one of the largest issues with our economy today.

Second, you say you think that issue will be somehow directly affected by the national debt and inflation rate (with the implication that those two things also have direct correlation to each other).

Third, you blame Democrats, and not the Fed, for the increase in the money supply, and presumably the inflation rate and national debt too.

The charts already on display should dispel all of these assertions, but somehow, they haven't.

If you look at real national debt, you will see that the curve had a brief slope downward during the Clinton years. CPI during that time continued to rise. National Debt and inflation do not have a causal relationship, nor do Democrats and National Debt, if you look at joedirt's chart.

Now, Fed interest rates and inflation rates have a high correlation, though that's not a perfect fit, either. I don't think we have a chart that shows us inflation vs. income disparity, but I'd love to see that, along with top marginal tax rates, and see which has a higher degree of correlation, because I think income disparity has more to do with tax rates than inflation.

Lastly, there is actually a reason why Democrats (and the Fed) are dishing out trillions. Notice how the CPI has a hook downward? That's deflation, and the last time we had that was during the Great Depression. So Ben Bernanke, being a student of Milton Friedman, is pumping out massive amounts of cash to try to prevent a deflationary cycle from taking root. Unfortunately, Fed rates have been at zero for a while now, and it can't get any lower, which brings us to fiscal stimulus, like what Obama got passed.

Now, imstellar subscribes to a theory of economics that essentially says deflation is a good and natural thing. That's fine. I disagree, but at least there are plenty of people smarter than both he and I who take up opposing sides of that debate.

Most conservatives though, have never heard of Austrian Economics, and certainly can't explain why they disagree with most mainstream economists about what to do right now. They're operating on a much simpler philosophy: say anything to encourage people to think everything bad happens because of (Democratic) government.

Lots of people repeat ludicrously nonsensical economic "policy" on that foundation alone, and do things like relentlessly point at the green line in Chart #3 and say "see, our debt is insane!" When the real issue is the size of the gap between the Red and Green lines on that chart, not the height of the Green line itself. Then they mix in inflation, not understanding that inflation actually helps keep our debt under control to some degree, since the dollars we owe are fixed, but the value of the dollars we use to pay off the debt are worth less as time goes on.

They also seem to propose, with just as much vigor, that what government needs to do is slash taxes, without remembering their momentary concern over debt. They also seem to think cutting government spending in a recession will help speed the recovery, not deepen the decline (ditto for letting banks and auto manufacturers collapse spectacularly). They also fail to see that a contracting economy can create a government deficit all on its own, since tax revenues fall as unemployment rises and mean income falls, and dismiss the proposition that government spending to get us out of a recession is likely better for the debt in the long run.

So in the end, we end up fighting about the same tired bromides about the size of government, rather than noticing that income disparity has been growing steadily despite an overwhelmingly conservative swing in our government's policy for the last 30+ years.

But people go on merrily slitting their own economic throats by demonizing Democrats as "big spending liberals" or more recently "socialists", not realizing that we're the ones that want to cut your taxes, and make government serve the people and not just the top 1% of income earners, and make fixing income disparity a top issue.

I'm not really surprised by that, but I'm constantly fascinated at how many knots people have to twist themselves in to defend the Republican party line.

be interested to hear your thoughts on this data.

http://science.videosift.com/talk/Real-Science-Economics-by-the-Numbers

any thoughts?

http://science.videosift.com/talk/Real-Science-Economics-by-the-Numbers

^imstellar28: I think the event that happened around 1970 was that the US dollar was no longer tethered to the gold standard. I believe the apparent jump in the country's GDP may also have devalued the currency significantly.

* *
Here's some info from a comment I made on this video. I had come across a site that estimated what the value of money is and was, and how that has changed over the years and played with it's currency value calculator. Seems to be relevant.


In 1900, $100.00 from 2006 is worth:
$4.04 using the Consumer Price Index
$4.71 using the GDP deflator
$1.51 using the value of consumer bundle
$0.88 using the unskilled wage
$0.61 using the nominal GDP per capita
$0.16 using the relative share of GDP
In 2006 $100.00 from 1900 is worth:
$2,476.66 using the Consumer Price Index
$2,124.46 using the GDP deflator
$6,602.73 using the value of consumer bundle
$11,412.86 using the unskilled wage
$16,316.15 using the nominal GDP per capita
$64,073.94 using the relative share of GDP
In just over 100 years, the dollar has lost between 96 and 99.8 percent of its value, depending on how you measure. Meaning that a penny in 1900 more then likely worth more then a dollar today.
The source I used does not measure the last two years, as the most recent data is not yet all finalized. I can only imagine what 2007 and 2008 have done to the value of money.
As a share of the U.S. GDP, I could happily live on $100 per year of 1900's money.