(Tears) Fads and Fallacies by Martin Gardner

[James Nicoll]

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner

A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

[Don]

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

Is biggest crank in all history not William Shackle-spur of
Stratford-upon-Avon (barely able to write his own name) but
rather, a ham called Bacon?

Even Sir Francis Bacon (1567-1631) with all his modernity of
thought, failed in this instance to recognize the value of
[Copernican theory] and, despite his interest in Galileo's
discoveries, harked back to the time-honored objections. At
first mild in his opposition, he later became emphatically
opposed to it. In the Advancement of Learning (1604), he
speaks of it as a possible explanation of the celestial
phenomena according to astronomy but as contrary to natural
philosophy.

<https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35744/35744-h/35744-h.htm>


The Royal Society was founded in 1660 by a group of natural
philosophers who had met originally in the mid-1640s to
discuss the ideas of Francis Bacon.

<https://www.rct.uk/collection/1057783/the-history-of-the-royal-society-of-london-for-the-improving-of-natural-knowledge>

Danke,

[Don]

<snip>

Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

Darwinism's extreme improbability:

Mathematical Challenges to Macroevolution

Abstract

The theory of evolution was advanced by Darwin in 1859, prior
to Mendel’s experiments demonstrating the particulate nature
of inheritance. The modern synthesis was formulated in the
early 1940s, well before the concept of coded information
was understood. This paper outlines four mathematical
challenges to the modern synthesis, which are based on
current understanding of the proposed mechanisms of
evolutionary change within the constraints of experimental
molecular biology.

(10.4236/jamp.2022.1011224)

enlightens (so to speak) its religious nature:

"Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but a basis
of a worldview, and an emergency ... religion for the many
troubled souls who need one." - Gelernter.

# # #

Unlike the occult corners of Shakespeare and the reportedly virgin
"Faerie Queene" Elizabeth I, "New Atlantis" is openly acknowledged
as being begot by Bacon before his demise in 1621. This early
Science Fiction features a world ruled by ?mad? scientists.

Danke,

[William Hyde]

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.

Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are
actually interested in it.

William Hyde

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are
actually interested in it.

Bacon never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Oliver Goldsmith a century later.
--scott

[Titus G]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are
actually interested in it.

Bacon never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Oliver Goldsmith a century later.
--scott

Goldsmith never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Wilde a century later.

Wilde never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Vonnegut a century later.

This post may need updating in 60 years time. (Cunningly back on topic.)

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Titus G

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are
actually interested in it.

Bacon never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Oliver Goldsmith a century later.
--scott

Goldsmith never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Wilde a century later.
Wilde never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Vonnegut a century later.

I have it on good authority that _The Odyssey_ was not written by Homer,
but by someone else with the same name.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Titus G

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are
actually interested in it.

Bacon never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Oliver Goldsmith a century later.

Goldsmith never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Wilde a century later.
Wilde never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Vonnegut a century later.

Sure, but Vonnegut wrote most of his major works centuries before he was
born. I have it on good authority from Montana Wildhack that at some point
he became unstuck in time.
--scott

[Don]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are
actually interested in it.

Do you recognize the cognitive dissonance in your statement? As one of
the earliest Science Fiction writers, Bacon is on topic and people are
actually interested in it enough to follow up my post.
Beings my Bacon beef (so to speak) has "only yet begun" people ought
to expect more of the same.

Sneak preview. Many people know how _Forbiden Planet_ is an adaptation
_The Tempest_. Robert Frederick's interpretation of the latter makes my
muse warble with exultation.

The Tempest is discovered to be an allegory of initiation
into an ancient mystery school - the Eleusinian Mysteries.

<https://thehiddenlifeisbest.com/post/episode-6/episodes>

Finding fashionable futuristic Eleusinian "Easter eggs" in
_Forbiden Planet_ will be fun - at least for me. YMMV.

Danke,

[Don]

Typo corrected within.

Post by William Hyde

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are
actually interested in it.

Do you recognize the cognitive dissonance in your statement? As one of
the earliest Science Fiction writers, Bacon is on topic and people are
actually interested in it enough to follow up my post.
Beings my Bacon beef (so to speak) has "only yet begun" people ought
to expect more of the same.

Sneak preview. Many people know how _Forbidden Planet_ is an adaptation
_The Tempest_. Robert Frederick's interpretation of the latter makes my
muse warble with exultation.

The Tempest is discovered to be an allegory of initiation
into an ancient mystery school - the Eleusinian Mysteries.

<https://thehiddenlifeisbest.com/post/episode-6/episodes>

Finding fashionable futuristic Eleusinian "Easter eggs" in
_Forbidden Planet_ will be fun - at least for me. YMMV.

Danke,

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Don
Typo corrected within.

Post by William Hyde

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.

I may have to explore Thunderbird's killfile capability, which
until now, I haven't needed.

I don't want to waste my time on this nonsense.

pt

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Don
Typo corrected within.

Post by William Hyde

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.

I may have to explore Thunderbird's killfile capability, which
until now, I haven't needed.
I don't want to waste my time on this nonsense.
pt

Just kill (k) the thread.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Don
Typo corrected within.

Post by William Hyde

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.

I may have to explore Thunderbird's killfile capability, which
until now, I haven't needed.
I don't want to waste my time on this nonsense.
pt

Just kill (k) the thread.

Nah, I just want some peoples posts marked read, so I skip over them.

pt

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Don
Typo corrected within.

Post by William Hyde

Post by Robert Woodward
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?

No, it will not.

I may have to explore Thunderbird's killfile capability, which
until now, I haven't needed.
I don't want to waste my time on this nonsense.
pt

Just kill (k) the thread.

Nah, I just want some peoples posts marked read, so I skip over them.
pt

Ah. Right click the email address, choose "create filter from".

[Robert Woodward]

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

I read many of the same books you did (at least the right wing books)
and I am neither an anti-vaxxer nor do I scream vile epithets at
anybody. I don't believe I have read this book, though I read reviews of
it in several SF magazines.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:10:29 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

I read many of the same books you did (at least the right wing books)
and I am neither an anti-vaxxer nor do I scream vile epithets at
anybody. I don't believe I have read this book, though I read reviews of
it in several SF magazines.

Ditto - and having read Martin Gardner's work in Scientific American
over multiple decades you could convince me to read most anything with
his name on it.

Not quite sainthood but close...

[Paul S Person]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:10:29 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

I read many of the same books you did (at least the right wing books)
and I am neither an anti-vaxxer nor do I scream vile epithets at
anybody. I don't believe I have read this book, though I read reviews of
it in several SF magazines.

Ditto - and having read Martin Gardner's work in Scientific American
over multiple decades you could convince me to read most anything with
his name on it.
Not quite sainthood but close...

Sadly, his later work in /Skeptical Inquirer/ was ... not as
memorable.

And I found /The Annotated Alice/ to be ... not actually worth it.

But I did like his SA columns!

[John Savard]

Post by The Horny Goat
Ditto - and having read Martin Gardner's work in Scientific American
over multiple decades you could convince me to read most anything with
his name on it.

One of my regrets is that Leo Moser passed away before I began
attending the U of A.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:10:29 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

I read many of the same books you did (at least the right wing books)
and I am neither an anti-vaxxer nor do I scream vile epithets at
anybody. I don't believe I have read this book, though I read reviews of
it in several SF magazines.

Ditto - and having read Martin Gardner's work in Scientific American
over multiple decades you could convince me to read most anything with
his name on it.
Not quite sainthood but close...

Just to warn though, he is not the only
Professor Martin Gardner. So, something
with his name on may be not from this
Martin Gardner.

[John Savard]

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

In addition to the obvious L. Ron Hubbard, there is A. E. van Vogt
(General Semantics) and John W. Campbell (the Hieronymus Machine).

One of my favorite books.

John Savard

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by John Savard

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

In addition to the obvious L. Ron Hubbard, there is A. E. van Vogt
(General Semantics) and John W. Campbell (the Hieronymus Machine).
One of my favorite books.
John Savard

Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still
be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some
useful insights.

[John Savard]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still
be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some
useful insights.

Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.

Similarly, while there may be useful insights in General Semantics,
its original form reached too far.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still
be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some
useful insights.

Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.

Sounds like an illustration of the statement "if all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail".

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also
to still be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as
providing some useful insights.

In my advanced years, I think I see that there's a recurring pattern.

A very bright person makes some accurate observations, draws some
inferences from them. The inferences tend to be of mixed quality,
some good, some off the wall, the latter possibly derived from
beliefs that the bright person may unconsciously regard as axiomatic
-- inferences nevertheless deserving of scrutiny.

Then numerous people, perhaps including the original bright person,
exfoliate an extensive, sometimes putatively universal, often complex
system of further inferences, hypotheses and, eventually dogmata which
become a whole school of increasingly questionable beliefs and
doctrine.

The original bright person and h{is,er} original observations are
tarred with the contradictions of the questionable beliefs and
doctrine and are relegated to the scrapheap of respectable thinking.

Lesson: Don't allow your credible insights to exfoliate into anything
that purports to be a universal theory of everything -- neither
metaphysics, physics, cognition, society nor language. And don't get
on board the train and bask in the adulation when/if others to do
that.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by John Savard
Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.

I've recently been shocked to discover how many educated, apparently
adequately intelligent people subscribe to homeopathy and use its
"remedies".

Post by Paul S Person
Sounds like an illustration of the statement "if all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail".

[James Nicoll]

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also
to still be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as
providing some useful insights.

In my advanced years, I think I see that there's a recurring pattern.
A very bright person makes some accurate observations, draws some
inferences from them. The inferences tend to be of mixed quality,
some good, some off the wall, the latter possibly derived from
beliefs that the bright person may unconsciously regard as axiomatic
-- inferences nevertheless deserving of scrutiny.
Then numerous people, perhaps including the original bright person,
exfoliate an extensive, sometimes putatively universal, often complex
system of further inferences, hypotheses and, eventually dogmata which
become a whole school of increasingly questionable beliefs and
doctrine.
The original bright person and h{is,er} original observations are
tarred with the contradictions of the questionable beliefs and
doctrine and are relegated to the scrapheap of respectable thinking.
Lesson: Don't allow your credible insights to exfoliate into anything
that purports to be a universal theory of everything -- neither
metaphysics, physics, cognition, society nor language. And don't get
on board the train and bask in the adulation when/if others to do
that.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by John Savard
Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.

I've recently been shocked to discover how many educated, apparently
adequately intelligent people subscribe to homeopathy and use its
"remedies".

Gardner speculated that in its early days, homeopathy's great
benefit to patients was that heavily diluted anything is less
likely to kill people than some of the accepted cures being
used in olden days. Today, however, the adherents are just idiots.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also
to still be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as
providing some useful insights.

In my advanced years, I think I see that there's a recurring pattern.
A very bright person makes some accurate observations, draws some
inferences from them. The inferences tend to be of mixed quality,
some good, some off the wall, the latter possibly derived from
beliefs that the bright person may unconsciously regard as axiomatic
-- inferences nevertheless deserving of scrutiny.
Then numerous people, perhaps including the original bright person,
exfoliate an extensive, sometimes putatively universal, often complex
system of further inferences, hypotheses and, eventually dogmata which
become a whole school of increasingly questionable beliefs and
doctrine.
The original bright person and h{is,er} original observations are
tarred with the contradictions of the questionable beliefs and
doctrine and are relegated to the scrapheap of respectable thinking.
Lesson: Don't allow your credible insights to exfoliate into anything
that purports to be a universal theory of everything -- neither
metaphysics, physics, cognition, society nor language. And don't get
on board the train and bask in the adulation when/if others to do
that.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by John Savard
Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.

I've recently been shocked to discover how many educated, apparently
adequately intelligent people subscribe to homeopathy and use its
"remedies".

Gardner speculated that in its early days, homeopathy's great
benefit to patients was that heavily diluted anything is less
likely to kill people than some of the accepted cures being
used in olden days. Today, however, the adherents are just idiots.

Homeopathic medicine is, of course, bunk.

Oddly, however, vaccines operate by a method not too far off part of
homeopathic doctrine. Not the dilution part, but the part which says
to give the patient a little of what causes their symptoms.

pt

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Cryptoengineer
Oddly, however, vaccines operate by a method not too far off part of
homeopathic doctrine. Not the dilution part, but the part which says
to give the patient a little of what causes their symptoms.

Where homeopathy, of course, defines "a little" as "only one chance
in a gadzillion of the nostrum containing even a single molecule of
the stuff that causes their symptoms."

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 4 May 2024 20:55:54 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Cryptoengineer
Oddly, however, vaccines operate by a method not too far off part of
homeopathic doctrine. Not the dilution part, but the part which says
to give the patient a little of what causes their symptoms.

Where homeopathy, of course, defines "a little" as "only one chance
in a gadzillion of the nostrum containing even a single molecule of
the stuff that causes their symptoms."

As he said, "not the dilution part".

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still
be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some
useful insights.

Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.

Sounds like an illustration of the statement "if all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I don't particularly hesitate to interpret
a proposition that "All diseases are
fundamentally caused by ____" as bunk,
without scrutiny. And likewise
"effectively treated by". Say, stem cells.
Diseases are diverse.

I am getting anxious about the wide
application of vaccines to diseases which
don't look like a thing to get vaccinated
against. However, the theory seems to be
to persuade the patient's immune system to
pick a fight against something that it
usually ignores which is a disease component.

I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 17 May 2024 at 11:17:25 BST, "Robert Carnegie"

Post by Robert Carnegie
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?

Since that would be literal magic-level tech, could be anything.
Vaccines work by prepping your immune system and largely rely on
training your system to recognise specific protein combos that are on
the outside of the invading disease; sugar is notably low in
protein-nature.

Most likely a sugar scavenger in your system would put you in a coma.

Cheers - Jaimie

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Robert Carnegie
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?

I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.

You _can_ vaccinate against some toxins. The ubiquitous diphtheria
and tetanus vaccines confer immunity against the toxins produced
by the respective bacteria, rather than the bacterial infections
themselves.

A cocaine vaccine has been developed, but I don't know if it is
used in practice to treat addiction.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Robert Carnegie
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?

I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.

Ya, you _really_ don't want a glucose vaccine....

[BCFD 36]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Robert Carnegie
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?

I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.

Ya, you _really_ don't want a glucose vaccine....

No, you don't. This could be called diabetes, where you literally can't
use the glucose in your food.

I responded on a person one time that decided to commit suicide by
stopping taking his insulin. The paramedics got her back but he/she was
unhappy with us.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by BCFD 36

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Robert Carnegie
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?

I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.

Ya, you _really_ don't want a glucose vaccine....

No, you don't. This could be called diabetes, where you literally can't
use the glucose in your food.

A diabetic still processes glucose, just not as well. A COMPLETE
inability to process glucose would cause death by starvation and there
wouldn't be any way to stop it.

[BCFD 36]

Post by BCFD 36

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Robert Carnegie
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?

I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.

Ya, you _really_ don't want a glucose vaccine....

No, you don't. This could be called diabetes, where you literally
can't use the glucose in your food.

A diabetic still processes glucose, just not as well.  A COMPLETE
inability to process glucose would cause death by starvation and there
wouldn't be any way to stop it.

A Type 1 diabetic does not produce insulin. Insulin allows glucose to be
used by the body. When a diabetic stops producing insulin entirely or
maybe just not enough of it, and blood sugar goes way up, the diabetic
goes into ketoacidosis (not quite sure of the spelling). They get this
sweet fruity smell, somewhat like Juicy Fruit Gum. The insulin they that
they take allows them to process the glucose. Too much insulin will also
cause problems, and a patient will go through several stages of insulin
shock. In one of my first experiences with insulin shock, I saw the
paramedics shoot a completely unconscious and barely breathing patient
with a big ampule of glucose (or maybe dextrose) and she woke up not too
much later, very out of it, but still alive.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Robert Carnegie
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?

I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.

Ya, you _really_ don't want a glucose vaccine....

Well, how about sucrose...

Say, instead of you gaining weight,
your immune system digests it before
you can...

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Robert Carnegie
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?

I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.

Ya, you _really_ don't want a glucose vaccine....

Well, how about sucrose...
Say, instead of you gaining weight,
your immune system digests it before
you can...

I think that suggestion hurt my brain.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 17 May 2024 11:17:25 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still
be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some
useful insights.

Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.

Sounds like an illustration of the statement "if all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I don't particularly hesitate to interpret
a proposition that "All diseases are
fundamentally caused by ____" as bunk,
without scrutiny. And likewise
"effectively treated by". Say, stem cells.
Diseases are diverse.
I am getting anxious about the wide
application of vaccines to diseases which
don't look like a thing to get vaccinated
against. However, the theory seems to be
to persuade the patient's immune system to
pick a fight against something that it
usually ignores which is a disease component.

The diseases will adapt (Natural Selection) and the Medical Industry
will make money, not just with the current vaccine, but with the next
and the next and the next ...

What's not to like?

Post by Robert Carnegie
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?

[James Nicoll]

Post by Paul S Person
The diseases will adapt (Natural Selection) and the Medical Industry
will make money, not just with the current vaccine, but with the next
and the next and the next ...

It is possible to wipe out specific diseases. It appears the C19 counter-
measures may have inadvertently eliminated two previously common flu
strains. As well, humans have eliminated smallpox in the wild.

We had considerable success with measles until a terrible outbreak of
stupid people brought it back.

[BCFD 36]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
The diseases will adapt (Natural Selection) and the Medical Industry
will make money, not just with the current vaccine, but with the next
and the next and the next ...

It is possible to wipe out specific diseases. It appears the C19 counter-
measures may have inadvertently eliminated two previously common flu
strains. As well, humans have eliminated smallpox in the wild.
We had considerable success with measles until a terrible outbreak of
stupid people brought it back.

Ah, yes. Stupid people. The reason I had a 2nd job. "Hey, y'all. Hold my
beer and watch this!" along with "Throw sum gasoline on that there fire"
and the like. Similar to "Them scientists! What do they know? That stuff
'ill probly give you a 3rd eye."

I remember lining up outside a church and getting the polio vaccine on a
sugar cube and in the 2nd or 3rd grade getting shipped through the
library at school and all of us getting a DTP shot. Amazing how
diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus virtually went away after that.

[Paul S Person]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
The diseases will adapt (Natural Selection) and the Medical Industry
will make money, not just with the current vaccine, but with the next
and the next and the next ...

It is possible to wipe out specific diseases. It appears the C19 counter-
measures may have inadvertently eliminated two previously common flu
strains. As well, humans have eliminated smallpox in the wild.

There are, I suspect, plenty of flu strains left and mutations still
happen, I presume.

Smallpox has been officially declared eradicated in the wild and,
since the last such case was in 1977, that may well be; however, two
labs have live smallpox virus under restrictions (ie, vulnerable to
terrorist liberation) and the genome has been published (ie, made
available to terrorists with advanced medical tech), so it's demise
may be a bit exaggerated.

Post by James Nicoll
We had considerable success with measles until a terrible outbreak of
stupid people brought it back.

IOW, measles wasn't eradicated at all.

There are, AFAIK, a lot of diseases that decades if not centuries
(well, one or two) of effort have not eradicated, although in many
cases vaccines exist so that, if you are explosed to one, the damage
is minimized.

No system or plan that deals with people and does not take the
possibility of really stupid people getting the hands on the Levers of
Change can be considered adequate. IMHO, of course.

And the MRSA that my brother was given as if it was a "welcome to the
hospital" fruit basket is a testimony to the ability of organisms to
survive, adapt, and resurge when confronted with modern medical care.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 May 2024 11:17:25 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still
be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some
useful insights.

Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.

Sounds like an illustration of the statement "if all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I don't particularly hesitate to interpret
a proposition that "All diseases are
fundamentally caused by ____" as bunk,
without scrutiny. And likewise
"effectively treated by". Say, stem cells.
Diseases are diverse.
I am getting anxious about the wide
application of vaccines to diseases which
don't look like a thing to get vaccinated
against. However, the theory seems to be
to persuade the patient's immune system to
pick a fight against something that it
usually ignores which is a disease component.

The diseases will adapt (Natural Selection) and the Medical Industry
will make money, not just with the current vaccine, but with the next
and the next and the next ...

Note the low sales of smallpox vaccine.

We'd have got rid of mumps and measles too, if people weren't idiots.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 17 May 2024 12:35:00 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 17 May 2024 11:17:25 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still
be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some
useful insights.

Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.

Sounds like an illustration of the statement "if all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I don't particularly hesitate to interpret
a proposition that "All diseases are
fundamentally caused by ____" as bunk,
without scrutiny. And likewise
"effectively treated by". Say, stem cells.
Diseases are diverse.
I am getting anxious about the wide
application of vaccines to diseases which
don't look like a thing to get vaccinated
against. However, the theory seems to be
to persuade the patient's immune system to
pick a fight against something that it
usually ignores which is a disease component.

The diseases will adapt (Natural Selection) and the Medical Industry
will make money, not just with the current vaccine, but with the next
and the next and the next ...

Note the low sales of smallpox vaccine.

Give it time. And maybe a lab leak.

Post by Cryptoengineer
We'd have got rid of mumps and measles too, if people weren't idiots.

"Woulda, shoulda, coulda" doesn't cut it.

People often /are/ idiots, so the Master Plan to Eradicate Mumps and
Measles was defective because it did not take that into account.

Apparently, the concept of "fool-proof" hasn't made an entry into
modern medicine (using the term broadly enough to include vaccination
campaigns and public health).

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Robert Carnegie
I don't particularly hesitate to interpret
a proposition that "All diseases are
fundamentally caused by ____" as bunk,
without scrutiny. And likewise
"effectively treated by". Say, stem cells.
Diseases are diverse.

All diseases are fundamenally caused by an excess of money and can be
effectively treated by billing the patient as much as possible. This is
why there is one doctor in the office and eight billing clerks.
forms.
--scott

[William Hyde]

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

John Sladek wrote a book of this kind two decades later, titled "The New
Apocrypha".

He was able to add a few sixties cults to the mix.


William Hyde

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

Was there no chapter on astrology?

Apparently, it was about /modern/ weirdness, not about traditional
weirdness.

Even Aquinas, who expressed doubts about astrology in general, was
aware that at least /one/ "heavenly body" clearly and undeniably
affects the Earth.

As, of course, does the Sun as well. But Aquinas didn't note that.

[David Duffy]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner

Was there no chapter on astrology?

Apparently, it was about /modern/ weirdness, not about traditional
weirdness.
Even Aquinas, who expressed doubts about astrology in general, was

Augustine says that everyone knows of twins, who despite having the same birth chart,
have quite different life courses. I did once read an MS on personality of twins
whose birthdays were before and after midnight of the cusp...

Cheers, David Duffy.

[Paul S Person]

Post by David Duffy

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner

Was there no chapter on astrology?

Apparently, it was about /modern/ weirdness, not about traditional
weirdness.
Even Aquinas, who expressed doubts about astrology in general, was

Augustine says that everyone knows of twins, who despite having the same birth chart,
have quite different life courses. I did once read an MS on personality of twins
whose birthdays were before and after midnight of the cusp...

Aquinas uses that to argue that all twins were intended by God to have
two of the same gender -- so the fact that some have one of each shows
that /what God wants/ and /what God gets/ are sometimes two different
things. This is why he mentions astrology.

The reason for this is the use of secondary causes, which sometimes
don't work as expected.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

| To quote its subtitle, Martin Gardner’s 1957 Fads and Fallacies in the
| Name of Science studies “the curious theories of modern
| pseudoscientists and the strange, amusing, and alarming cults that
| surround them.”

1957? No ancient astronauts then. My own interest in this took a
hard hit with von Däniken's fourth book, about spectral apparitions
(ghosts), which was not something I was willing to give any credence
to, no matter how many anecdotes he cited, and which put into
question his other writing.

| focusing mostly but not entirely on American theories.

No "earth rays" either then. That one was so specifically limited
to German-speaking countries that there isn't even an established
English term for "Erdstrahlen". There was some overlap with dowsing,
though. For a time in the 1970/80s, my parents were members of a
book club that had a quarterly mininum purchase requirement. At
some point my dad fulfilled this by buying a book on "Erdstrahlen",
but couldn't be bothered to read it himself and tasked me with it.
I skimmed through it. Intensely exasperating. I was hoping for
some physical characterization of those mysterious "rays"--particle?
electro-magnetic? ionizing? non-ionizing?--but it all remained
perfectly vague, with references to devices that supposedly could
detect those rays, but again devoid of any description of physical
principles. One or two hundred pages of nothing.

| “Judging by the number of Campbell’s readers who are impressed
| by this nonsense, the average fan may very well be a chap in his
| teens, with a smattering of scientific knowledge culled mostly
| from science fiction, enormously gullible, with a strong bent
| toward occultism, no understanding of scientific method, and a
| basic insecurity for which he compensates by fantasies of scientific
| power.”

Yes, ageism aside, that mirrors my own view.

| [list of contents]

I'm happy to say that there are quite a number I don't know at all.
I suppose many have fallen out of fashion since the book was
published.

I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

[James Nicoll]

Post by Christian Weisgerber
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Christian Weisgerber
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.

s/Neal/Scott/

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Christian Weisgerber
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.

s/Neal/Scott/

Scott Adams is a comic *strip* artist, and while he believes some
goofy things ("affirmations" forex), I don't believe I've seen
Expanding Earth among them.

Neal otoh, *does* seem to be associated with the theory.

[James Nicoll]

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Christian Weisgerber
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.

s/Neal/Scott/

Neal. Enjoy!

http://nealadams.com/science-videos/

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Christian Weisgerber
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.

s/Neal/Scott/

Neal. Enjoy!
http://nealadams.com/science-videos/

You mean _two_ comic artists named Adams plugged that nonsense?

[James Nicoll]

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Christian Weisgerber
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.

s/Neal/Scott/

Neal. Enjoy!
http://nealadams.com/science-videos/

You mean _two_ comic artists named Adams plugged that nonsense?

My impression is Scott Adams presented it as a thought experiment,
thus giving himself plausible deniability, whereas Neal Adams was a
True Believer.

[John Savard]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Christian Weisgerber
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.

s/Neal/Scott/

Neal. Enjoy!
http://nealadams.com/science-videos/

You mean _two_ comic artists named Adams plugged that nonsense?

My impression is Scott Adams presented it as a thought experiment,
thus giving himself plausible deniability, whereas Neal Adams was a
True Believer.

Whew! It's a good thing we don't quite have two of them!

This reminds me of something I came across...

While at one point, the Bible does speak of God hanging the Earth
"upon nothing", in many places it makes statements that can only be
understood on the basis of the notion of a flat Earth, surmounted by a
solid dome on which we see lights both stationary (except for sidereal
rotation) and moving.

At one point, it's even noted that God, instead of creating it in its
hemispherical shape, apparently created a flat sheet of material which
He then beat into shape as a human would beat brass.

Since it can be proven that the Earth is not flat, Answers in Genesis
is at pains to deny Biblical scholarship and claim that no, the Bible
says no such thing.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by John Savard
This reminds me of something I came across...
While at one point, the Bible does speak of God hanging the Earth
"upon nothing", in many places it makes statements that can only be
understood on the basis of the notion of a flat Earth, surmounted by a
solid dome on which we see lights both stationary (except for sidereal
rotation) and moving.
At one point, it's even noted that God, instead of creating it in its
hemispherical shape, apparently created a flat sheet of material which
He then beat into shape as a human would beat brass.
Since it can be proven that the Earth is not flat, Answers in Genesis
is at pains to deny Biblical scholarship and claim that no, the Bible
says no such thing.
John Savard

God may know how the universe works,
but a lot of people who wrote in the
bible clearly don't.

I'm not sure if the pieces would fit
together, and it's not a project that
I'm eager to do, and on the other hand
it may be already done; anyway, I have
an idea that Noah's flood story plus
some other bible statements about
God curating the world could be brought
together in a just-so story that the
sea goes out and in from the shore
because it is trying to flood the land
again and God holds it back.

Except that tsunamis happen. Publicly,
catastrophically, and in recent times.
So God is not in fact preventing that.

But I can't point right now to bible verses
which say unambiguously that he has promised
to do so.

I can point to God not creating plants that
live in water, presumably because the author
of that part of Genesis didn't know or think
about that.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 17 May 2024 11:35:20 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by John Savard
This reminds me of something I came across...
While at one point, the Bible does speak of God hanging the Earth
"upon nothing", in many places it makes statements that can only be
understood on the basis of the notion of a flat Earth, surmounted by a
solid dome on which we see lights both stationary (except for sidereal
rotation) and moving.
At one point, it's even noted that God, instead of creating it in its
hemispherical shape, apparently created a flat sheet of material which
He then beat into shape as a human would beat brass.
Since it can be proven that the Earth is not flat, Answers in Genesis
is at pains to deny Biblical scholarship and claim that no, the Bible
says no such thing.
John Savard

God may know how the universe works,
but a lot of people who wrote in the
bible clearly don't.
I'm not sure if the pieces would fit
together, and it's not a project that
I'm eager to do, and on the other hand
it may be already done; anyway, I have
an idea that Noah's flood story plus
some other bible statements about
God curating the world could be brought
together in a just-so story that the
sea goes out and in from the shore
because it is trying to flood the land
again and God holds it back.
Except that tsunamis happen. Publicly,
catastrophically, and in recent times.
So God is not in fact preventing that.
But I can't point right now to bible verses
which say unambiguously that he has promised
to do so.
I can point to God not creating plants that
live in water, presumably because the author
of that part of Genesis didn't know or think
about that.

Ah, you caught that!

Pursuing the theory which I encountered in reading Robert Graves --
that the day-by-day creation is actually about asserting that the God
of Israel actually did all the stuff other "gods" were said to have
done (that is, is a missionary tract for monotheism) [1], it could
also be that none of the "gods" had created sea plants so there was no
need to ascribe them explicitly to the God of Israel. The first
statement, after all, is normally taken to mean that God created
everything. And did it out of nothing.

[1] For the early bits, where the item created /was/ a "god", the
point was that these "gods" were created as ordinary things and not
"gods" at all.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:28:49 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Christian Weisgerber
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.

s/Neal/Scott/

Neal. Enjoy!
http://nealadams.com/science-videos/

You mean _two_ comic artists named Adams plugged that nonsense?

My impression is Scott Adams presented it as a thought experiment,
thus giving himself plausible deniability, whereas Neal Adams was a
True Believer.

Whew! It's a good thing we don't quite have two of them!
This reminds me of something I came across...
While at one point, the Bible does speak of God hanging the Earth
"upon nothing", in many places it makes statements that can only be
understood on the basis of the notion of a flat Earth, surmounted by a
solid dome on which we see lights both stationary (except for sidereal
rotation) and moving.

Ironically, I recently read a Psalm that clear stated that God set the
Earth on a "foundation" so that it could not be moved. And I'm not
sure how "flat" it was considered to be.

Aristotle, BTW, believed in a crystal sphere holding the stationary
lights. IIRC, I've encountered references to a different theory: that
the crystal sphere is painted black and the "lights" are where the
paint has worn off and we can see the Eternal Fire beyond.

Post by John Savard
At one point, it's even noted that God, instead of creating it in its
hemispherical shape, apparently created a flat sheet of material which
He then beat into shape as a human would beat brass.
Since it can be proven that the Earth is not flat, Answers in Genesis
is at pains to deny Biblical scholarship and claim that no, the Bible
says no such thing.

Biblical scholarship, like all related forms of scholarship, is
basically about people's opinions. It uses science and scientific
techniques in some situations, but that is mostly in dating
manuscripts and/or archaeological finds. It is not, as such, a science
in the modern sense; it is more of a "liberal art".

[John Savard]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:09:49 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

And here I thought some Australian guy came up with it...

Yes, Australian, not Austrian.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:09:49 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

| To quote its subtitle, Martin Gardner’s 1957 Fads and Fallacies in the
| Name of Science studies “the curious theories of modern
| pseudoscientists and the strange, amusing, and alarming cults that
| surround them.”
1957? No ancient astronauts then. My own interest in this took a
hard hit with von Däniken's fourth book, about spectral apparitions
(ghosts), which was not something I was willing to give any credence
to, no matter how many anecdotes he cited, and which put into
question his other writing.
| focusing mostly but not entirely on American theories.
No "earth rays" either then. That one was so specifically limited
to German-speaking countries that there isn't even an established
English term for "Erdstrahlen". There was some overlap with dowsing,
though. For a time in the 1970/80s, my parents were members of a
book club that had a quarterly mininum purchase requirement. At
some point my dad fulfilled this by buying a book on "Erdstrahlen",
but couldn't be bothered to read it himself and tasked me with it.
I skimmed through it. Intensely exasperating. I was hoping for
some physical characterization of those mysterious "rays"--particle?
electro-magnetic? ionizing? non-ionizing?--but it all remained
perfectly vague, with references to devices that supposedly could
detect those rays, but again devoid of any description of physical
principles. One or two hundred pages of nothing.

The strongest actual argument against "parapsychology" (telepathy,
telekinesis, etc) was that, since none of the Four Fundamental Forces
(gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak) can explain them,
those who promote their reality must first come up with a Fifth
Fundamental Force. Which they have yet to even attempt, preferring
instead to wave their arms about and yell a lot.

| “Judging by the number of Campbell’s readers who are impressed
| by this nonsense, the average fan may very well be a chap in his
| teens, with a smattering of scientific knowledge culled mostly
| from science fiction, enormously gullible, with a strong bent
| toward occultism, no understanding of scientific method, and a
| basic insecurity for which he compensates by fantasies of scientific
| power.”
Yes, ageism aside, that mirrors my own view.

A hundred years or so ago, the "justification" of Science Fiction was,
precisely, that it would teach science to teenage males. (In that
culture, teenage females needed training in how to pour tea, not
science. Things have improved a bit since then, of course.)

| [list of contents]
I'm happy to say that there are quite a number I don't know at all.
I suppose many have fallen out of fashion since the book was
published.
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.

[Robert Woodward]

Post by John Savard
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:09:49 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

| To quote its subtitle, Martin Gardner’s 1957 Fads and Fallacies in the
| Name of Science studies “the curious theories of modern
| pseudoscientists and the strange, amusing, and alarming cults that
| surround them.”

<snip>

(I accidentally hit return on my first attempt at this replay, I don't
know if it posted)

Post by John Savard
The strongest actual argument against "parapsychology" (telepathy,
telekinesis, etc) was that, since none of the Four Fundamental Forces
(gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak) can explain them,
those who promote their reality must first come up with a Fifth
Fundamental Force. Which they have yet to even attempt, preferring
instead to wave their arms about and yell a lot.

I believe that Julian May used rather advanced handwaving for her
_Galactic Milieu_ series (but I can't remember if a 5th force was
involved).

[James Nicoll]

Post by John Savard
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:09:49 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

| To quote its subtitle, Martin Gardner’s 1957 Fads and Fallacies in the
| Name of Science studies “the curious theories of modern
| pseudoscientists and the strange, amusing, and alarming cults that
| surround them.”
1957? No ancient astronauts then. My own interest in this took a
hard hit with von Däniken's fourth book, about spectral apparitions
(ghosts), which was not something I was willing to give any credence
to, no matter how many anecdotes he cited, and which put into
question his other writing.
| focusing mostly but not entirely on American theories.
No "earth rays" either then. That one was so specifically limited
to German-speaking countries that there isn't even an established
English term for "Erdstrahlen". There was some overlap with dowsing,
though. For a time in the 1970/80s, my parents were members of a
book club that had a quarterly mininum purchase requirement. At
some point my dad fulfilled this by buying a book on "Erdstrahlen",
but couldn't be bothered to read it himself and tasked me with it.
I skimmed through it. Intensely exasperating. I was hoping for
some physical characterization of those mysterious "rays"--particle?
electro-magnetic? ionizing? non-ionizing?--but it all remained
perfectly vague, with references to devices that supposedly could
detect those rays, but again devoid of any description of physical
principles. One or two hundred pages of nothing.

The strongest actual argument against "parapsychology" (telepathy,
telekinesis, etc) was that, since none of the Four Fundamental Forces
(gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak) can explain them,
those who promote their reality must first come up with a Fifth
Fundamental Force. Which they have yet to even attempt, preferring
instead to wave their arms about and yell a lot.

I think at least some ESP types did handwave standard forces playing
a role, undocumented EM senses and quantum woo.

[John Savard]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

Was there no chapter on astrology?

No, there wasn't, because this was about foolishness that masqueraded
as science.

Also, it is a somewhat old book, so it may have pre-dated Gauqelin.

John Savard

[Charles Packer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

Was there no chapter on astrology?

No, there wasn't, because this was about foolishness that masqueraded as
science.

I guess you haven't browsed newspaper archives of the early
20th-century and come across full-page articles with "science
of astrology" in the headlines. The astrology I had in mind
is very much a product of 20th-century journalism.

[Don]

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen

Was there no chapter on astrology?

No, there wasn't, because this was about foolishness that masqueraded as
science.

I guess you haven't browsed newspaper archives of the early
20th-century and come across full-page articles with "science
of astrology" in the headlines. The astrology I had in mind
is very much a product of 20th-century journalism.

FWIW, today my _Eifelheim_ audiobook started and soon serendipitously
said:

So his patterns had predictive value, too. Patterns were
interesting. They could lead, like astrology, to real science.

Danke,