Congrats! CP, you know I enjoy your contributions to this site, so I'm happy you've made the big 100! And, jimnms, I, too, enjoy your reason-laden videos, especially those with Michael Shermer. Congrats to the both of you.

Thanks very much.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Michael-Shermer-Why-People-Believe-Weird-Things

In reply to this comment by rembar:
We used to have a brilliant TED talk edited down by Farhad on here that included similiar footage used in the original visual cognition experiment that discovered this phenomenon. Wish I could find it right about now.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Michael-Shermer-Why-People-Believe-Weird-Things

In reply to this comment by rembar:
We used to have a brilliant TED talk edited down by Farhad on here that included similiar footage used in the original visual cognition experiment that discovered this phenomenon. Wish I could find it right about now.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Michael-Shermer-Why-People-Believe-Weird-Things
This is the TED talk in question, one of Michael Shermers best moments IMO.

In reply to your comment:
“"2. that it doubtfull [sic] that shimmer [sic] will prove theories acupuncture and life energy wrong." Of course he won't prove them wrong. To assume he can prove something wrong is a logical fallacy. It formally called, "The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative"

It's not on Shermer to prove their theories are wrong, it's on the acupuncturists to prove them to be right. To prove a negative, a person would have to be able to account for every moment and every location throughout the history of the entire universe to say definitively "That never happened anywhere, ever." Someone could say, "Santa Claus exists." I say, "No. He doesn't." They say, "Prove it." That's a fallacy. It's not on me to prove (or disprove) your claim. I'm not the one making it. I could just point to the person's lack of evidence and be done with it. I don't need to disprove Aliens abducted you. You have to prove it to me since you are making the assertion. That's where the burden lay.”



what ever

"2. that it doubtfull [sic] that shimmer [sic] will prove theories acupuncture and life energy wrong." Of course he won't prove them wrong. To assume he can prove something wrong is a logical fallacy. It formally called, "The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative"

It's not on Shermer to prove their theories are wrong, it's on the acupuncturists to prove them to be right. To prove a negative, a person would have to be able to account for every moment and every location throughout the history of the entire universe to say definitively "That never happened anywhere, ever." Someone could say, "Santa Claus exists." I say, "No. He doesn't." They say, "Prove it." That's a fallacy. It's not on me to prove (or disprove) your claim. I'm not the one making it. I could just point to the person's lack of evidence and be done with it. I don't need to disprove Aliens abducted you. You have to prove it to me since you are making the assertion. That's where the burden lay.

@bighead,

I didn't say Shermer was belligerent (quite the opposite), and I made that very clear. Either your first line demonstrates your belligerence, or your inability to read and follow simple sentences.

I don't think I've ever seen a comment with so many ridiculous, uninformed, paranoid, and moronic statements. Line after line of complete and utter foolishness. I encourage you to stick around and continue to "contribute" comments to the discussions here on VS, as they will no doubt be a source of great hilarity.

I do apologize for assuming your lack of understanding of so many things was due to ignorance. You aren't ignorant. Ignorance can be addressed. Ignorance can be overcome, cured. No, I think you are just rather dim-witted. A Wiki-jockey with right-click->Thesaurus. Luckily, society grades on a curve. You push average Joes like me up into solid "A" territory. Thanks for that.

Have a nice day. May the Force be with you.

Shermer views on acupuncture were. kind of funny ...im glad you admit that shemmer was belligerent. that was my maine point.
shemer thinks acupuncture is based on a quack theory. he thicks that he the can prove 2000 years of life energy theories from the fare east as wishful thinking, with junk the establishment (Harvard) taught him.

as for you saying i think science is vague. that i would say is a mater of semantics.
science is a vague word in that . to talk about this subject i wanted to distinguish between value of science and pitfalls of modern scientific method. particularly the gold standard of randomized controlled studies.

what are you views on the ama and its highjack scientific method. do you not agree that the ama has used its power to promote itself under the banner of " we are so smart and our rigorous double blind studies are to help man kind. " i think the ama is extremely belligerent this respect

science is important and useful and can be used like a good tool that it is . but
my problem is with scientism. shemer is one who contends that scientism is the way of the modern world. this is a extremist view. even the establishment acknowledges this.
i repeat
1 scientific method is not wrong or unjust in it self but that individuals often use scientific method to achieve fame (shemmer) wealth the (ama).
2. that it doubtfull that shimmer will prove theories acupuncture and life energy wrong.
3. that science is not something that began in the 19th century.
4. that good science is a tool not a bandwagon that trys to debunk rather then understand.

star trek was a metaphor to the way people are so busy looking for big answers to "Save" or understand mankind at the cost of failing to see simple natural truths with out the blockage of being tide down to needing to get down to the jest of everything.
and you pint out the scientest / humans have so many flaws. i dont buy that excuse. its the same excuse people use when the get busted riging their so called scientific studys so they get fame and money . you should slow dawn and not just dismiss bad moral character. that is at the root of my skepticism of mikey Shermer and his followers who preach intolerance and dogmatism. remember other key words money

establishment
moral character
champion

In reply to your comment:
“I was hoping for some examples and some lively debate. You gave no examples (c'mon... flawed and outdated views on acupuncture? Acupuncture?!?), and although we are all entitled our own opinions regarding others, I think your personal opinion of Shermer is baseless. As far as debate, I don't think it will be possible to meaningfully debate with someone who views "science" as vague, thinks the AMA is the second-biggest corporation ever, and invokes Star Trek in his/her argument.

Even if Shermer were belligerent, science is not, and that is something I don't think you understand. As Ann Druyan explained very beautifully here (coincidentally, Shermer is sitting in the audience), scientists are human and have bias's. They can be assholes. They can be dismissive, strident, condescending, intractable, and prejudice, just like every other human being. But scientific method ultimately wins the day as its' built-in checks and balances overcome these things.

Your comment was all over the place, bighead, but I think your pessimism towards science and scientific method is based in ignorance rather some anecdotal experience. Read more. Think critically, not paranoidally. Don't be afraid to expose yourself to things you "know" to be untrue. If nothing else, you may learn the minds of those you disagree with. This isn't meant to be condescending. Just friendly advice.”



Shermer views on acupuncture were. kind of funny ...im glad you admit that shemmer was belligerent. that was my maine point.
shemer thinks acupuncture is based on a quack theory. he thicks that he the can prove 2000 years of life energy theories from the fare east as wishful thinking, with junk the establishment (Harvard) taught him.

as for you saying i think science is vague. that i would say is a mater of semantics.
science is a vague word in that . to talk about this subject i wanted to distinguish between value of science and pitfalls of modern scientific method. particularly the gold standard of randomized controlled studies.

what are you views on the ama and its highjack scientific method. do you not agree that the ama has used its power to promote itself under the banner of " we are so smart and our rigorous double blind studies are to help man kind. " i think the ama is extremely belligerent this respect

science is important and useful and can be used like a good tool that it is . but
my problem is with scientism. shemer is one who contends that scientism is the way of the modern world. this is a extremist view. even the establishment acknowledges this.
i repeat
1 scientific method is not wrong or unjust in it self but that individuals often use scientific method to achieve fame (shemmer) wealth the (ama).
2. that it doubtfull that shimmer will prove theories acupuncture and life energy wrong.
3. that science is not something that began in the 19th century.
4. that good science is a tool not a bandwagon that trys to debunk rather then understand.

star trek was a metaphor to the way people are so busy looking for big answers to "Save" or understand mankind at the cost of failing to see simple natural truths with out the blockage of being tide down to needing to get down to the jest of everything.
and you pint out the scientest / humans have so many flaws. i dont buy that excuse. its the same excuse people use when the get busted riging their so called scientific studys so they get fame and money . you should slow dawn and not just dismiss bad moral character. that is at the root of my skepticism of mikey Shermer and his followers who preach intolerance and dogmatism. remember other key words money

establishment
moral character
champion

I was hoping for some examples and some lively debate. You gave no examples (c'mon... flawed and outdated views on acupuncture? Acupuncture?!?), and although we are all entitled our own opinions regarding others, I think your personal opinion of Shermer is baseless. As far as debate, I don't think it will be possible to meaningfully debate with someone who views "science" as vague, thinks the AMA is the second-biggest corporation ever, and invokes Star Trek in his/her argument.

Even if Shermer were belligerent, science is not, and that is something I don't think you understand. As Ann Druyan explained very beautifully here (coincidentally, Shermer is sitting in the audience), scientists are human and have bias's. They can be assholes. They can be dismissive, strident, condescending, intractable, and prejudice, just like every other human being. But scientific method ultimately wins the day as its' built-in checks and balances overcome these things.

Your comment was all over the place, bighead, but I think your pessimism towards science and scientific method is based in ignorance rather some anecdotal experience. Read more. Think critically, not paranoidally. Don't be afraid to expose yourself to things you "know" to be untrue. If nothing else, you may learn the minds of those you disagree with. This isn't meant to be condescending. Just friendly advice.

please read my coment about the coal walker post.


In reply to your comment:
“Beyond science? What is beyond science is whatever you WANT to believe, whatever you NEED to believe.

Let's not move on. Michael Shermer is wrong about so many things? Least you can do is provide just a few examples.”

Michael Shermer work on acupuncture has been belligerent. in general he uses science as a way to vent his frustrations. he seems up tight and kind of a know it all. i know some one who sent him an e mail. this guy pointed how flawed and outdated Shermer views on acupuncture were. kind of funny ...

first science is a vague word. i think political science is important. and i like when nome chomsky backs up what he says with facts. sure other types of science can be useful.


"nothing in science is absolute". this is the rule that every one forgets when so involved in there studies to "save man kind." it gets old.
dont tell drug companies that there drugs are less then perfect because that will fuck up sales. if nothing is perfect, why do i have to use gold standard to justify everything. science has saved lives and it also kills people. the american medical association is second only the Catholic church in the bigest corporation ever.
if it doesn't sell it wont get funded . this is a big flaw. so i look else were. they can do as they wish but i will not worship there theories on what is right and wrong.

and the state of science seems to be lame in that new=radical views that DO follows scientific method are considered a joke because of big bucks. if people stand up challenge something it could be they get the ax at the job. everyone in the end has to follow what the man tells you or you are out = no work. in other words i see a dogma here.

another reason why i think its good to go beyond science you can be as logical as you want just remember some things are never absolute. like on star trek where science have given them so much ability . is it usually human nature that saves the day?

Beyond science? What is beyond science is whatever you WANT to believe, whatever you NEED to believe.

Let's not move on. Michael Shermer is wrong about so many things? Least you can do is provide just a few examples.

we know what science can tell us but what is beyond science? thats where real knowledge lies. well Michael Shermer is wrong about so many things lets just move on.

Melua's rerecording of this is mentioned/played at the end of Michael Shermer's TEDTalk. Apparently Simon Singh was upset with the inaccurate measurements she used in the song.