#60419
03/14/2002 6:22 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618 |
|
|
|
#60420
03/14/2002 11:26 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
I am NOT supporting bunk
Dear Max: We do understand that you are NOT supporting any of the bunk that sensible people take great pleasure in debunking. We simply disagree with you when you say that it is possible to "debunk" something which is not "bunk" in the first place.
One can't even CLAIM to be debunking something which has no bunk in it without misusing the word "debunk".
If I devise a machine to suck all the oxygen out of a molecule of hydrogen, I may claim that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. I may even believe that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. But, since there is no oxygen in hydrogen, I cannot describe the process as "deoxygenation" without misusing the word deoxygenation.
Its like sticking a "Mustard" label on a jar of blueberry jelly. It just ain't so.
The word "deoxygenation" has a specific meaning. It means removing oxygen. It doesn't mean trying to remove oxygen. It means actually removing it. So it is with debunking. Where there is no bunk, there can be no debunking.
Dear Max: I think we are all agreed that debunkery is a commendable act practised upon a sham. (That's why we have "Bunko Squads".) Since the truth and serious science can never be dismissed as a "sham", it is not possible to "debunk" either one.
In sum, "No sham, no bunk. No bunk, no debunkery."
We know that conscientous people misuse the word "debunk". That's how this thread got started in the first place. But one cannot cite evidence of misuse in high places as proof that that misuse is correct.
|
|
|
#60421
03/14/2002 11:57 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
sigh... Max, I see your point, I agree with it, but I despair of better communication.
Aside to Max: does this seem eerily reminiscent of the White Knight's Song in Through the Looking Glass? [What is this song? What is this song called? What is the name of this song? What is the name of this song called?]
|
|
|
#60422
03/14/2002 12:02 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771 |
But one cannot cite evidence of misuse in high places as proof that that misuse is correct.Oh, plutarch. Say it ain't so. Main Entry: ain't
Pronunciation: 'Ant
Etymology: contraction of are not
Date: 1778
1 : am not : are not : is not
2 : have not : has not
3 : do not : does not : did notCourtesy of http://www.m-w.com. 
|
|
|
#60423
03/14/2002 12:13 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,069 Likes: 2
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,069 Likes: 2 |
Ignorance and apathy: I don't know and I don't care
My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts.
|
|
|
#60424
03/14/2002 1:29 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I think you're describing the ideal situation. Was E. O. Wilson less a scientist because he published "On Human Nature" and was considered "debunked" by the likes of Gould and campus radicals? Was Blondlot considered to have been debunked by Wood because N-rays were imaginary? Were Pons and Fleischman debunked?
It well may be that "debunk" is incorrectly and over used.
k
|
|
|
#60425
03/14/2002 1:42 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Sigh is right, Max. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But I do see your point and I think you argued your case most admirably.
Whether or not my logic prevails over yours, I can never claim to have "debunked" your definition of "debunk". That's 'cause I respect your intelligence, Max, and the rigors of your analysis, even if I disagree with your conclusion.
Your conclusion may be wrong, but it certainly isn't "bunk".
|
|
|
#60426
03/14/2002 2:00 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
"If I devise a machine to suck all the oxygen out of a molecule of hydrogen, I may claim
that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. I may even believe that I am deoxygenating hydrogen."
Dear plutarch: I suspect that when you said "hydrogen" you meant "H2O"
|
|
|
#60427
03/14/2002 2:33 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Since the truth and serious science can never be dismissed as a "sham", it is not possible to "debunk" either one.However, due to the huge pressure to win prestige (and tenure), and to publish, there have been highly documented istances of scientists falsifying finds or experimental results just to further their careers. How would we categorize that? This from the Jan./Feb. 2002 issue of Archaeology: After Japanese archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura was caught on camera planting artifacts at a Paleolithic site in 2000, he insisted he was guilty of perpetrating only one other hoax during a remarkably successful career in which he pushed back the earliest occupation of Japan to 600,000 years ago ("Hand of God Does the Devil's Work," Jan/Feb 2001). Now the disgraced archaeologist has come clean and admitted to faking discoveries on at least 42 Middle and Lower Paleolithic sites in Japan.
Charles Keally, an archaeologist at Sophias University, Tokyo, notes that these sites account for virtually the entire archaeological record in Japan before the Upper
Paleolithic. "This leaves us with our oldest evidence for human occupation of Japan at 35,000 years ago," he says. Japanese textbooks are already being revised.
Though Fujimura's precise whereabouts have not been made public, he is known to have checked into a psychiatric hospital. Another archaeologist, Mitsuo Kagawa, committed suicide last year after a magazine accused him of faking finds at the Paleolithic site of Hijiridaki Cave in Japan's Oita perfecture. His family is now suing the magazine that published the allegations.So I guess Fujimura actually debunked his own data by confessing to the falsification of evidence. How much similar fraud has been perpetrated by scientists over the years and actually entered into the scientific record? This act of deception is, of course, much easier to commit in the prehistoric sciences than, say, in chemistry or physics. Perhaps we'll never know. Distressing. So, can you debunk an act of scientific fraud without actually knowing it's fraudulent until you arrive at your results...or just simply disprove it? Or are we just splitting semantic straws here?  And, while I agree that the process of attempting to debunk or debunkery is always viable, I still assert that arriving at an actual debunking in the case of a scientific theory is a misnomer because a theory, by nature, is constantly evolving. However, if you discover another element in water, let's say, you can then debunk the fact that water is H20.
|
|
|
#60428
03/14/2002 3:33 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
"f you discover another element in water, let's say, you can then debunk the fact that water is H20."
At the risk of being tiresome, I repeat: "bunk" is an insult, and "debunk" is an insult.Only when ignorance or fraudulence have been involved should these terms be used.
|
|
|
#60429
03/14/2002 5:45 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
I suspect you meant H2O rather than Hydrogen
That would have turned my analogy upside down, wwh. There isn't any O2 in H so it is impossible to extract O2 from H. Hence, one cannot "deoxygenate" hydrogen. It simply can't be done. And thinking you are doing it doesn't make it so. Similarly, it is impossible to "debunk" something which is not "bunk" in the first place. No bunk in, no bunk out.
We are completely ad idem on this, wwh. Only when ignorance or fraud is involved should these terms [bunk & debunker] be used.
"Debunking" is a noble undertaking but one doesn't need a Ph.D. to do it. "Bunk" isn't science and it isn't truth ... altho it usually masquerades as one or the other or both.
"Debunk" is a good word to describe the trashing of "bunk" or other "junk science". But let's not confuse it with the refutation of serious science or settled truths.
|
|
|
#60430
03/14/2002 7:25 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60431
03/14/2002 7:30 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60432
03/14/2002 7:42 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
There are those who merit both contempt and insults. I am free to insult, but mostly avoid it on the principle that kicking skunks is unrewarding.
|
|
|
#60433
03/14/2002 8:02 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
insults are always subjective
An insult is always experienced subjectively (if it is delivered with any effect), but the insult itself is not necessarily subjective. If someone has an IQ under 70, you might insult him by saying he is intellectually deficient, but you would also be stating an objective fact.
So it is with "bunk". It is certainly an insult to dismiss a postulation as "bunk", but that characterization is perfectly accurate if the postulation is merely junk science.
Serious science can never be debunked because it isn't tainted with bunk and it doesn't deserve to be treated as bunk.
|
|
|
#60434
03/14/2002 8:21 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,069 Likes: 2
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,069 Likes: 2 |
I think we're mostly agreeing with each other. And with much heat, at that.
|
|
|
#60435
03/14/2002 8:27 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60436
03/14/2002 8:32 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
But not progressing toward any resolution, eh Max?
|
|
|
#60437
03/14/2002 8:33 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
For a while I had a debunking job in Army. When recruits were slow to get up for reveille, I used to grab the foot of their mattress, and jerk it right out from under them, leaving them bouncing on the bare springs. It was a very effective way of debunking them.
|
|
|
#60438
03/14/2002 8:49 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
I think we're mostly agreeing with each other. And with much heat, at that. -wofaholicodoc
Naw wofdoc, on slow days we just choose up sides and argue greatly just for kicks...
Everyone agrees:
It is more logical to de- a real bunk.
Everyone agrees:
There are no innate meanings in words, and usage determines meaning.
So if it is not for fun, then...Why are we talking?
|
|
|
#60439
03/14/2002 8:59 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
>>So if it is not for fun, then...Why are we talking?
You never heard people talking with no reason?
|
|
|
#60440
03/14/2002 9:02 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#60441
03/14/2002 9:05 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
Max, you're absolutely WRONG!!! That number of angels CAN dance on the head of a pin! [grrrrr -e]
|
|
|
#60442
03/14/2002 9:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Keiva: An infinite number can dance on the head of a pin. Somewhat fewer can dance on the point of the pin. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_132.html
|
|
|
#60443
03/14/2002 9:25 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
oh goody... let's talk some about slightly more than and slightly less than infinity. we can keep notes on our definitive conclusions in the margin. http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
#60444
03/14/2002 9:33 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Well, since Dr. Bill ventured to lapse into humor here , let me share a little anectdote I was saving: In '86 when I first worked in Atlantic City, I was employed in slot promotions at the Claridge Casino/Hotel. At that time their marketing campaign centered around the material of an old comedian, Eddie Lawrence, who billed himself as "The Old Foolosopher." He had a character and a vast repertoire of sayings (ala Rodney Dangerfield's "ain't got no repsect" focus) centered on his fractured philosophy. A sample might go like this (always said with a patronizingly sad and understanding tone): "You say the days never seem to get better but only get worse, that your wife just ran off with the postman in your brand new car, that your nearest bus stop is three miles away, that taxi drivers will never let you in when they see your face, and your dog just peed on your left foot...is that what's bothering you, Bunky?" ("is that what's bothering you, Bunky?" is the catch-phrase repeated at the end of every scenario). So...the marketing department decided that "Bunky" would become their mascot-character! He was drawn as a little guy similar to the old gent on Monopoly cards. I worked in the Bunky Booth, we had coupons called Bunky Bucks, we had a Bunky Lounge, and there was actually a guy in a papier maché Bunky suit who walked around all day and night as the character! No one really knows where The Old Foolosopher got "Bunky" from... Now how's that for a load of real bunk? 
|
|
|
#60445
03/14/2002 11:35 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Is that what's bothering you, Bunky?
I wonder if your Claridge customers ever figured out that the "Bunky" joke was on them. Whatever their fate with Lady Luck, Bunky's fortunes were always worse.
|
|
|
#60446
03/15/2002 2:57 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
We have a lot of talented debunkers in Afghanistan. Ask the Al-Quaeda.
|
|
|
#60447
03/15/2002 3:26 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
-- 8 -- You got a problem with that!? 
|
|
|
#60448
03/15/2002 11:20 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
where The Old Foolosopher got "Bunky" from
Allus thunk it was from bunkmate.
|
|
|
#60449
03/15/2002 11:46 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Where did Bunky come from?
Bunky is the "bunkmate" everyone would love to have. No matter how bad things are going for us, things are always worse for Bunky. Even his dog let him down.
So how come we are comforted, even amused, by the adversities of others, especially when we are depressed ourselves?
Bunky reminds us things are never as bad as they seem. But where is the humor in Bunky's unrelenting suffering? Why do we laugh at Bunky?
When bear-baiting was all the fashion in some places in Europe long ago, someone said they were opposed to bear-baiting "not because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators".
Bunky gives us access to the deeper reaches of the human condition. What we see there is not always uplifting.
There is more to this than "There but for the grace of God go I", I think. Bunky closes the loop between ordinary people who laugh at Bunky's misfortunes, as a salve for their own wounds, and neo-Nazis who paper over their own insecurities by dehumanizing others.
Who was it who said that the germ of every psychopathology resides within all of us? Pogo said: "I have seen the enemy. And it is us."
|
|
|
#60450
03/15/2002 7:22 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
I'm still amazed that an expensive TV program could be so wasted.
I get so "amazed" every time I watch *it.
|
|
|
#60451
03/15/2002 7:36 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Mostly, this thread has been boring.. but once you mentioned bunkmate-- i thought about sleeping (or not) in a bunk.
Any movie fans out there know the name of the circa 1948 movie, about a man who enters a contest sponsered by a coffee company for a new slogan?
His (the hero of the movie) slogan is "If you can't sleep, its not the coffee, its the bunk." (but i think he put in the brand name where i said coffee.)
every one thinks its a dumb slogan.. its an interesting movie... mostely about how we react to words!
and the name is?
|
|
|
#60452
03/15/2002 7:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
|
|
|
#60453
03/15/2002 8:07 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
If you can't sleep, its not the coffee, its the grind.
|
|
|
#60454
03/15/2002 10:44 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Mostly, this thread has been boring..
Oh, mercy, I have loved it! I think it exemplifies what this board is all about: what's the real meaning?; but wait, have you considered this aspect? kind of thing.
In fact, I am now going to yield to the temptation I resisted earlier in the thread, and see if there might be a mini-revival: centuries ago, it was "fact" that the world was flat. Was that "fact" bunk, back then? Because it sounds right to me now, to say that that "fact" has been debunked.
|
|
|
#60455
03/15/2002 11:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Jackie: I think the clue to what is 'bunk" is whether or not it deserves scorn. The people thousands of years ago formed opinions based on their ability to learn and understand the world around them. Their ideas were sadly erroneous, but need not be called bunk. When lazy or misguided people today choose to ignore the teachings of the brightest people, their errors need not be condoned, and may rightly be called "bunk".
The creationists are simply misguided, and their views do not deserve much respect. When they try to lower educational standards, it is justifiable to call their beliefs "bunk".
Anybody who has seen Grand Canyon, or good pictures of it, and can still profess to believe it is only a few thousand years old deserves no respect whatsoever.
|
|
|
#60456
03/15/2002 11:22 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Was that "fact", back then, "bunk"?
I suppose it became "bunk" the day after it was widely and reliably reported that Magellan circumnavigated the globe.
|
|
|
#60457
03/16/2002 12:40 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear plutarch: Long before Magellan, the Greeks knew the earth was round, and even computed its circumference:
Eratosthenes made a surprisingly accurate measurement of the circumference of the Earth. Details were given in his treatise On
the measurement of the Earth which is now lost. However, some details of these calculations appear in works by other authors such as Cleomedes, Theon of Smyrna and Strabo. Eratosthenes compared the noon shadow at midsummer between Syene (now Aswan on the Nile in Egypt) and Alexandria. He assumed that the sun was so far away that its rays were essentially parallel, and then with a knowledge of the distance between Syene and Alexandria, he gave the length of the circumference of the Earth as 250,000 stadia.
There is now some disagreement about the length of the stadium, but it does not really diminish his feat.
|
|
|
#60458
03/16/2002 12:48 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
A problem is that many things appear to be bunk and are only later discovered to be not so much bunk. An example is continental drift. The old guard is often scornful at newer views. Sometimes, even the greatest experts are wrong. And with so much politics thrown into the mix, it's often difficult for one to discern the bunk from the merely mistaken from the brilliant.
Are Peter Duesberg's ideas about AIDS and HIV bunk? A great many scientists disagree with him. But many people considered him brilliant before he broke away from the pack. I tend to disagree with him (only because of my herd instinct, though, and not because I know enough to evaluate what he says). Still, even if he's wrong, would we call his ideas bunk? If he's wrong, they might even be dangerous ideas. I'm sure there are some people who think his ideas (and probably his person) are worthy of scorn.
Evolution vs creation is an interesting case. I believe there are people among the creation scientists who deliberately mislead others. I say this as someone who was formerly a creationist and who is slightly irritated at having been misled. The vast majority of creationists, however, are not attempting to mislead anyone. Some don't have the education to understand what the issues are and how things work. Many are ignorant, but usually not wilfully so. Their heads are filled with crap before they're even old enough to distinguish their craniums from their sphincters. I certainly feel contempt for creationism, but seldom for creationists. And despite having heard that creationists are trying to make more moves on the school systems, I'm not that worried about it.
In Darwin's time, creationists declared that evolution was impossible because god would not make anything that wasn't perfect. When the gypsum moth was later used, they would say declare that, okay frequencies can changes, but nothing new could be created. Later, it was discovered that microbes mutate and they admitted that okay microbes can evolve but new species are not formed. Nowadays, the creationist elites (scientists at the ICR) admit that certainly evolution can produce new species, but not new *kinds* where *kinds* is ... well, wherever we notice a fossil gap, I guess. I'm not sure what it means. In any case, I suspect that in my children's lifetimes, creationist beliefs will become as rare as belief in a flat earth. My memory is fuzzy here and some of my facts might be slightly off, but I think this is generally true. Even creation scientists now acknowledge that evolution occurs.
Sidenotes:
You're surely aware there is a growing community of skeptics who are acutely interested in what is and what is not bunk. I read an article by Mary Lefkowitz some years back called "Greece for the Greeks: History is not Bunk" which I found pretty interesting. She wrote a book that expanded these ideas called "Not out of Africa" which a friend gave me for xmas and which turned out to be well worth the time. (She also edited a later one called "Black Athena Revisited" which I have not yet read. ) I wonder how many other books have the word "bunk" in the title.
Martin Gardner wrote two very good books called "Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus" and "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" that gave accounts of poor science and quackery. James (the Amazing) Randi wrote "Flim Flam." Last time I checked, there were dozens of books (at least) published by Prometheus, many of which dealt with the issue of bunk and its debunking.
k
|
|
|
|
|
