Believing the impossible and conspiracy theories

Jan 26, 2012

Distrust and paranoia about government has a long history, and the feeling that there is a conspiracy of elites can lead to suspicion for authorities and the claims they make. For some, the attraction of conspiracy theories is so strong that it leads them to endorse entirely contradictory beliefs, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and Personality Science.

People who endorse conspiracy theories see authorities as fundamentally deceptive. The conviction that the "official story" is untrue can lead people to believe several alternative theories-despite contradictions among them. "Any conspiracy theory that stands in opposition to the official narrative will gain some degree of endorsement from someone who holds a conpiracist worldview," according to Michael Wood, Karen Douglas and Robbie Sutton of the University of Kent.

To see if conspiracy views were strong enough to lead to inconsistencies, the researchers asked 137 college students about the death of Princess Diana. The more people thought there "was an official campaign by the to assassinate Diana," the more they also believed that "Diana faked her own death to retreat into isolation." Of course, Diana cannot be simultaneously dead and alive.

The researchers wanted to know if the contradictory beliefs were due to suspicion of authorities, so they asked 102 about the death of Osama bin Laden (OBL). People who believed that "when the raid took place, OBL was already dead," were significantly more likely to also believe that "OBL is still alive." Since bin Laden is not Schrödinger's cat, he must either be alive or dead. The researchers found that the belief that the "actions of the Obama administration indicate that they are hiding some important or damaging piece of information about the raid" was responsible for the connection between the two . Conspiracy belief is so potent that it will lead to belief in completely inconsistent ideas.

"For conspiracy theorists, those in power are seen as deceptive-even malevolent-and so any official explanation is at a disadvantage, and any alternative explanation is more credible from the start," said the authors. It is no surprise that fear, mistrust, and even can lead to muddled thinking; when distrust is engaged, careful reasoning can coast on by. "Believing Osama is still alive," they write, 'is no obstacle to believing that he has been dead for years."

Explore further: Less privileged kids shine at university, according to study

More information: The article "Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories" in Social Psychological and Personality Science is available free for a limited time at m.spp.sagepub.com/content/earl… 50611434786.full.pdf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

California man indicted in 'botnet' case

Feb 11, 2006

A California man was indicted Friday for allegedly creating a "botnet" that used university computer systems and disrupted information technology at a Seattle hospital.

Recommended for you

Why are UK teenagers skipping school?

Dec 18, 2014

Analysis of the results of a large-scale survey reveals the extent of truancy in English secondary schools and sheds light on the mental health of the country's teens.

Fewer lectures, more group work

Dec 18, 2014

Professor Cees van der Vleuten from Maastricht University is a Visiting Professor at Wits University who believes that learning should be student centred.

How to teach all students to think critically

Dec 18, 2014

All first year students at the University of Technology Sydney could soon be required to take a compulsory maths course in an attempt to give them some numerical thinking skills. ...

User comments : 64

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
I don't believe conspiracy theories, however I do know this; despite evidence that R11 and R22 Freon had negative effects on the ozone layer, Congress did not actually ban Freon until duPont had patented a new, improved and more expensive freon replacement.

Or Government Motors, there's no conspiracy that Toyota was forced to recall tens of thousands of autos to repair a "unexplained sudden acceleration" fault, a fault that later turns out, didn't exist, while Chevy Volts catch fire days and weeks after a crash, whild NTSB says, "nothing to see here, move along".

Nothing to see here, move along.
theskepticalpsychic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
This article SO explains why people vote Republican!
kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2012
"People who believed that "when the raid took place, OBL was already dead," were significantly more likely to also believe that "OBL is still alive."

--What they didn't believe simply was the MSM lying to their face. How is that irrational?
hcl
1 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2012
The mainstream media is Jewish-owned. It lies on all issues of political significance. That's a fact - turn to nytimes.com and read today's daily propaganda. It's our Pravda or People's Daily.
Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (12) Jan 27, 2012
Some people read the words "conspiracy theory" and automatically assume that there are no such thing as conspiracies. They assume that believing in such makes a person paranoid. Close-minded people. Sure, some conspiracy theories are ridiculous, but others are somewhat plausible, possibly with some basis in reality.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
They assume that believing in such makes a person paranoid.


The question is not: "Are you paranoid?"
But: "Are you paranoid enough?"
rawa1
1.3 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2012
Many conspirational theories are actually of emergent origin. As I'm saying occasionally, when the whole crowd of people will make just a tiny step against wall, the people near wall will be crushed with no mercy and the people near wall cannot be accused from their murder. For example the instinctive hostility of mainstream physicists toward cold fusion has lead into its active denial for twenty years and we lose huge money or even lives just because of it.

http://pesn.com/2..._Fusion/

http://pesn.com/2...locaust/

But the assumption, some particular person or group of lobbyists is responsible for such widespread ignorance would be simply very naive belief. The cold fusion deniers are all around us, even on this forum - and they're formed with retired programmers, teachers etc. - i.e. the people without real influence and power.
patnclaire
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
Most hyper-sensitive or over stimulated conspiracy searchers fail to realize that most so-called conspiracies happen on a golf course, or at a dinner party, or on a yacht, or in an office where two or more people get together and decide to agree on a set of ideas that guide a course of action with regard to a particular stimulus or situational event. This is usually done on the quiet because there is opposition in all things. Even Machiavelli wrote in the Prince (Ch 6), that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things
Go ask Jesse Ventura about his television show Conspiracy Theory. It got too close to the truth. Go ask the ABC reporter and camera man who filmed the coming and goings of the Democratic Big Wigs in Denver in 2008. He got arrested with no charge. Just removed from filming the rich and powerful.
Deathclock
2.4 / 5 (12) Jan 27, 2012
The US government (through the CDC) endorsed the intentional infection of unknowing American citizens with a deadly virus for experimental purposes. This WAS a conspiracy theory decades ago, one that most people laughed at and ridiculed those that believed it to be true... recently high level government officials came clean about it and made a public apology on behalf of their antecedents.
Deathclock
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2012
For whoever rated that a 2, what I am talking about is detailed here, search for the term "guatemala"

http://en.wikiped...d_States

Also you should look up the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments.
roboferret
3 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2012
The difference between scientific theory and conspiracy theory is falsifiability. A conspiracy theorist simply ignores, or rejects any contradictory evidence as part of the conspiracy ("Thats what they WANT you to think").
roboferret
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2012
In addendum
I wouldn't claim conspiracies don't happen; history has demonstrated that they do. all that is needed is an agenda, power and a lack of accountability. However, the burden of evidence lies, as ever, with the claimant.
What the article demonstrates is that conspiracy theorists generally prefer conspiratorial explanations, even if they are contradictory. This is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.
Rational enquiry requires we go with the evidence, even if the explanation is mundane.
rawa1
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
roboferret
3 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2012
Rawa1,
You're right,you have the easy job. All that you need to do is demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that your theory is right, in one instance. One verifiable demonstration of cold fusion would do.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2012
All that you need to do is demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that your theory is right, in one instance.
Scientific method prohibits to prove, beyond reasonable doubt the less, theory is right. You can only falsify scientific theories - and frankly, it's not quite my job at the moment, when the theory proves its usefulness.

The problem is somewhere else: every theory or finding is accepted just after then and only then, when it becomes more useful than harmful for existing generation of physicists. For example, the cold fusion finding would be very useful for the rest of people, but its harmful for all physicists, who are engaged in research of alternative methods of energy production, conversion, transport and storage, which would be rendered useless with cold fusion.

So that the cold fusion is simply ignored, because for this close community it's more advantageous to ignore it as a whole. Is it understandable enough?
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2012
This ignorant stance is easily predictable, it has absolutely nothing with conspiracy (it's widespread psychosocial phenomena) and the rest of human society should simply face it, or we cannot move forward with acceptance of the new findings and theories. We dedicated all decisions about acceptability of new findings into hands of the close group of people, who got the informational monopoly during years, So now we should realize, no finding or theory, which will not advantageous for physicists will be ever accepted willingly with the close group of physicists. We should realize too, all acceptance rules and criterions of the new findings and ideas are adjusted in the way, which is primarily advantageous for physicists, not for the rest of human civilization as such.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2012
For example, many useful findings or even theories can be applied without formal math. We can implement the cold fusion or room temperature superconductivity without math already. We can understand the space-time, quantum mechanics or relativity without math. But such approach is not advantageous for most of teachers and theorists, who spend their lives in learning of math and with teaching of math. At the moment, when some predictions or findings would become accessible more easily, these chaps would lose their informational monopoly, social credit or even jobs. So they prohibit by all means thinkable the spreading of non-formal ideas and findings. For example, they developed a philosophy of "mathematical universe" and they tend to ignore every theory or finding, which is not postulated at the formal level. Only such a theory can provide additional job perspective for them - the fact, such a theory is essentially useless for the rest of people doesn't bother them at all.
rawa1
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
roboferret
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2012
I'm not sure you quite understand the scientific method.
Say I had a theory - "Cows eat only grass" . You could falsify it by producing one cow that eats hay.
According to physics as we understand it, cold fusion cannot occur. There is not enough energy in the neutrons to overcome the strong force to get a chain reaction started.
All you need to do to falsify this is demonstrate one definite occurrence of cold fusion.
The frequency and amplitude of your protestations have no bearing on the reality of the situation.
My physicist friends, who incidentally have have nothing to do with the power industry and have nothing to gain for saying so, think its bunk. Conversely, demonstrating cold fusion would certainly be a Nobel prize gimme.
roboferret
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2012
Rawa1
Physics is a mathematical science. It IS applied maths. No way round it. If you can't do the maths that underlies it, you have no business attacking the subject. There's no get-out clause, you need maths to truly understand relativity, QM etc. Without advanced maths, these discoveries would never have been made.
By admitting you can't/won't do the maths, you have succeeded in discrediting every claim you have ever made better than anyone else could. So thanks for that.
ODesign
5 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2012
believing the impossible and ____________________. For some, the ___________________ is so strong that it leads them to endorse entirely contradictory beliefs,

fill in the blank with . . .
religion,
greed,
dreams,
company policy,
schizophrenia,
psychedelics,
conspiracy
etc.

COCO
1 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2012
what continues to amaze is the number of people - some well educated that question NIST especailly on WTC 7 - where all is well explained - yet 'they' continue to question. That is why we need to gaol these chaps and show them the value of free thought!
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2012
Physics is a mathematical science. It IS applied maths. No way round it.
Richard Feynman "The next great awakening of the human intellect may well produce a method of understanding the qualitative content of the equations."

Apparently, many people here don't really think like the Feynman. BTW I'm not explaining physics here - but observable reality. As Einstein once said: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

If it's so, why to start with explanation of the later? Contemporary physics contains myriads of misconceptions - so it's much easier to present the correct model first and just after then to deal with the gradual correction of these misconceptions.
roboferret
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2012
Richard Feynman understood the equations. You need to do that first.
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2012
Richard Feynman understood the equations. You need to do that first.
I understand them too. Actually, the contemporary theories aren't so complex, because the formal math can describe only relatively schematic models only. Actually, if Feynman would really understand the equations, he wouldn't struggle with their qualitative meaning. After all, how you can understand something, if you cannot understand it qualitatively? Such understanding is rather an oxymoron.
roboferret
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2012
So, Callipo/Rawa1 (please be consistent with your sockpuppetry)
You admit ignorance of the maths, have demonstrated your misapprehension of science, and continue to abuse the English language, Yet you think you know more than all the physicists of the past 100 years. You've said nothing to indicate to us you could cross the street without a responsible adult, let alone be the greatest genius of our age (as you would have to be).
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2012
Yet you think you know more than all the physicists of the past 100 years
This is reductio ad absurdum fallacy. I'm not wasting time with logical fallacies. http://en.wikiped...absurdum
roboferret
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2012

Reductio ad absurdum Isn't a fallacy unless it is false dichotomy (like you being comical or wrong). I didn't present a dichotomy, I just want to know how your experimental physics is superior.
Logical fallicies are all you deal in. All your time is wasted time.

http://en.wikiped...elusions
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2012
I just want to know how your experimental physics is superior.
Experimental? What has to do with relevance of AWT? For example, Einstein never did any experiment connected with his theory. He analyzed the diffusion of sugar in his thesis. You can get my qualification only with analysis of AWT model as such.
kochevnik
1.2 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2012
This is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.
I disagree. This is a classic example of being lied to. All 9/11 offered was a potpourri of conspiracy theories. Don't like the MSM? Go with CIA operative Steven Jones. No explanation yet matches the physical save one. The implications are lugubrious. A group of people have a very powerful weapon, rivaling nukes, and they can do whatever they want to anyone, anywhere, any time, while everyone will fall into line behind them and even round up the detractors.
Fionn_MacTool
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012
I think it was John Wheeler who put it best when he said of quantum mechanics "If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it."

I personally find it much easier to assign probabilities to reality. Some things have a very high probability of being true. For instance, if I drop something it will most likely appear to move (relative to me) towards the earth's core.

When events are extremely complex and we have limited knowledge about them and especially where there may be a motivation for persons to hide information about the event, I think it is better to keep an open mind. Like the JFK assassination. The United States House Select Committee on assassination concluded there was more than likely 2 shooters. Yet some people still hear JFK and think "Conspiracy!" and have a very strong emotional response. http://en.wikiped...inations
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2012
If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.
The intersubjective collective stance of mainstream physics society prohibits the spreading and acceptance of every idea, which would make such an understanding more straightforward from many psychosocial reasons:
The finding of ultimate interpretation would threaten the jobs and social status of existing theorists, as R.Wilson mentioned already
The lack of intuitive understanding maintains the gap between the community of physicists and the rest of layman society, which makes the control and public feedback more difficult (from the same reason the shamans and alchemists covered their findings into incomprehensible language and allegories).
The lack of intuitive understanding maintains the importance of formal math based approach, which further supports the social status and jobs of theorists and teachers.
etc.
roboferret
3 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2012
Have you considered, Rawa1, that the subject, at this level, might be fundamentally unintuitive? Our intuitions have evolved to deal with macro-physical events such as catching prey, avoiding falling rocks and not getting eaten. There is no intuitive understanding of things like wave-particle duality.
The physicist's job is to find explanations of the mechanisms of the universe that WORK. Sometimes this means they will be too hard for you to understand. Waa. Go learn physics.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012
Have you considered, Rawa1, that the subject, at this level, might be fundamentally unintuitive?
You can imagine the universe as a tree, the physicists are climbing along its fractal branches like bugs and revealing their increasing complexity with gradual increasing the complexity of their formal math models. But they forget the trunk and the general principles, determining the whole geometry of that tree. You cannot find the way, how its two main branches are connected, until you will not climb down a bit and attempt to find their connection. You cannot find the answer at the complex fractal ends of that tree.
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012
@rawa1 The tree is a useful metaphor for humans, although perhaps if we ever manage to finaly remove them all from the face of the earth it may no longer be so ;)

It is a macro level metaphor though and I don't see it as being a useful metaphor to describe quantum mechanics. In fact, finding any metaphor to describe quantum mechanics is difficult and that is precisely the problem we are talking about here.

You can imagine the universe as a tree because you have seen a tree (I would say all humans can relate to it due to our shared ancestry). Try describing the tree to the bug you mention or to a worm at its root. What I would like to determine is, are you saying that the bug has a better understanding of quantum mechanics, because they spend all their time at the roots?

rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
AWT is conceptually very simple: no matter, how complex the environment is, if its infinite, then for every limited observer it will appear like random noise composed of particles at the very end. This noise can be modelled with nested density fluctuations of gas and we can turn back again and derive the existence/geometry more complex objects in this way. AWT essentially promotes the concept of Boltzmann brain in the role of human observer, in which the humans are just extraordinarily complex nested fluctuations of this random environment. It even proposes the way, in which this complexity arised: with travelling of subtle portion of matter along long path at the single place, i.e. at the surface or rotating planet rotating at the surface of solar system rotating at the surface of galaxy.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
are you saying that the bug has a better understanding of quantum mechanics, because they spend all their time at the roots
The experts have poorer understanding of external connections of their models, just because they're specialized on it and they tend to perceive it as a selfconsistent. For example, the relativist falling into black hole will perceive the speed of light constant all the time, although it would revolve the black hole at place already, thus effectively staying at place. From perspective of observer from outside it's already apparent, something is wrong with his approach, but the intrinsic observer cannot recognize it by itself. In this contex the reasing the reading of articles The era of expert failure by Arnold Kling, Why experts are usually wrong by David H. Freeman and Why the experts missed the crash by Phill Tetlock may be useful.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
One example in more illustrative way: if you want to become expert on climatology, you're not required to be an expert on molecular processes driving the forces inside of water droplets. These things simply happen inside of surface density gradient, which is behaving like informational singularity and portion of the information is lost there for ever. So you're not required to be a detailed expert on this lost portion of information.
Many of you are programmers of IT technicians, so we can use another analogy: you're not required to be an expert in assembly language for being able to do successful carrier in programming of business applications, simply because you'll be separated with many software abstraction layers from complexities of assembly language programming during it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012
It is a macro level metaphor though and I don't see it as being a useful metaphor to describe quantum mechanics.

Metaphors an analogies are only useful if the metaphor you use is more fundamental than the thing you use it for. Otherwise making inferences based on the metaphor are completely unwarranted (and if they work at all it's pure chance)

Our view/experience of the world does not include expriences of direct observations of individual quantum events. So we shouldn't use analogies to describe them (just the maths that describes them)

Since we're quoting Feynman here I'd just point out that the above is his view on anaogies (see the latter part of this intrview with him)
http://www.youtub...PId_6xec
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
It is a macro level metaphor though and I don't see it as being a useful metaphor to describe quantum mechanics.
It was metaphor of gnoseologic approach to the reality understanding - not the quantum mechanics. The metaphor of quantum mechanics provided with AWT is the observational perspective of bubble, which is sitting at the water surface and observing, i.e. interacting with its neighbourhood via surface ripples. But because surface of water is full of Brownian noise, the image of very small objects will get blurred in the same way, like the image of these very large and distant ones. At these small distances the deformations of water surface cannot be neglected: for example every surface wave deforms it like carpet, so that the place deformed is slowing the another waves which are travelling trough the place deformed, i.e. it's behaving like density fluctuation of surface or like the piece of matter, i.e. like the particle and we get the particle-wave duality of QM.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
If you understand, why every deform of water surface induces the material behaviour of this surface we can make just one step forward and to assign certain energy density content to each deformation of water surface: both potential, both kinetic one. It means, at the short scale the water surface is behaving like undulating string, the mass density is proportional to its energy density in each time and space interval. And this is essentially what the Schroedinger equation is about and now we are firmly in the realm of quantum mechanics: we deduced both uncertainty principle, both particle-wave duality, both Schroedinger equation just from behaviour of water surface deforms at short scales.

http://aetherwave...tum.html

The important aspect of AWT is, the same dependency manifests itself at the very large scales too, so that the quantum mechanical behaviour of our Universe is essentially symmetric with respect to the distance scale
Fionn_MacTool
3 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2012
"The experts have poorer understanding of external connections of their models" So what you want to say (correct me if I am wrong) is that by examining the trees many "experts" will miss the forest.

Well, let's take it as a given that most people who are experts on a subject are intelligent enough to understand that what they study is not the whole reality. The tree expert has already taken the time to study the root. I would imagine most experts are simply unfolding the understanding of its complexity a little bit more and the scientific method allows for that understanding to change (perhaps some see that as being "proved wrong"). I don't think they will ever find a singular truth there, but anyone who is looking for that through science probably doesn't understand quantum mechanics.

So, if you are making a judgement that by being an expert in a field automatically makes you short sighted, I think that reflects more on your prejudice. Perhaps try meditating under a tree.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012
that by being an expert in a field automatically makes you short sighted
I'm not talking about individuals, but about emergent effects arising from synergies between members of community of experts. Individuals may be an exceptions from all rules thinkable, but the stance of their community averages all exceptions from general rules: both positive, both negative one. The same tendencies, which are making the community of scientists more effective in finding of answers to specialized questions are doing it less effective for finding of the answers for generalized questions. Robert Wilson was a president of APS and head of USA physical research for many years, so he recognized and named the conservatism of these emergent tendencies perfectly: http://www.aether...memo.gif
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
In AWT every community of experts in human society is behaving like black hole inside of vacuum: it exhibits the event horizon for information spreading, i.e. the censorship of ideas coming from inside, and it spreads the accepted paradigms superficially and superfluously in form of intersubjectivelly accepted propaganda. Mainstream ideas are accepted and parroted inside of community without critics - but the same community exhibits tough acceptance of informations from outside. From outside perspective it behaves like tough, but brittle surface of neutron stars, which are formed with superfluid internally.

Can we imagine such an environment, which is both rigid from outside and superfluous from inside? Actually it's the behaviour of every boson condensate, like the electrons within superconductor, which undergo Meissner effect. These electrons cannot be manipulated easily with magnetic field penetrating from outside, yet they're still superfluous internally.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
but about emergent effects arising from synergies between members of community of experts

I'll call "Bullshit Bingo!" on that one.

[q9in finding of answers to specialized questions are doing it less effective for finding of the answers for generalized questions
I'm not sure you are aware of this, but there are things like conferences and journals.

If it's one thing that characterizes scientits it's curiosity. And I have yet to meet a scientit who isn't intensely curious about any- and everything. That they spend most of their time working on their field of expertise is to be expected. but don't think for a minute that they therefore lack the ability to look beyond their own ken.

It's just with crank theories: They are dismissed not because "they go against dogma and we have to follow dogma". It's that they are immediately obvious as being self contradictory.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
It's somewhat ironic, the physicists who are dealing with event horizons and boson condensates all the time didn't recognized these aspects of this behaviour in their own community. Actually in context of AWT it's not so strange, because every community adopts the rules of its behaviour in such way, it will perceive itself as a behaving quite normally. Just from more distant and general perspective the bias in the stance of community of experts becomes more apparent. This doesn't apply to community of physicists, but to all isolated communities - the Churches, politicians, lawyers, doctors, patent officers, hackers, black people, whites whatever...
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
If it's one thing that characterizes scientits it's curiosity.
But it's biased curiosity, which deals just with subjects, which fit the intersubjectivelly accepted paradigms well. At the case, when some finding, idea or concept doesn't fit the intersubjectivelly accepted opinion, the same curiosity changes into obstinate ignorance rapidly. Why the Podkletnov's antigravity, J.F.Prins superconductivity or the cold fusion of Foccardi and Piantelli are ignored for decades? Aren't these phenomena interesting enough for curious and scientifically educated people? What all these phenomena have in common? At first, they don't fit the intersubjectivelly accepted criterion of validity: they lack the formal theory, they even violate some other formal theories - or at least they appear so. Many peer-reviewed journals even refuse every article about finding, which has no formal theory developed - no matter, how such finding may be important from practical purposes.
rawa1
Feb 03, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
Why the Podkletnov's antigravity, J.F.Prins superconductivity or the cold fusion of Foccardi and Piantelli are ignored for decades?

Because they couldn't be replicated. Not even by the people who claimed to have made the discovery. And people really tried (including NASA). So your argument that scientists will REFUSE to look at paradigm changing claims is, and I repeat myself: bullshit.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
The various crackpot theories are often behaving in similar way, like dense system of ideas, which are often contradicting mutually at the local level, but their hidden logics follows from this mess in emergent way. Many crackpots aren't presenting these ideas itself, but their internal fuzzy logics under the hope, someone more clever will recognize and denominate it. Unfortunately the deterministically thinking people cannot navigate itself trough such distributed information - they can see the trees, not the forest trough the trees. Until they cannot see the deterministically designated paths trough the trees, they cannot recognize usefulness of these ideas at all.
rawa1
Feb 03, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
they cannot recognize usefulness of these ideas at all.

You aren't reading too many articles on physorg, are you (or you must be reading other articles than I do)?

Many crackpots aren't presenting these ideas itself, but their internal fuzzy logics under the hope, someone more clever will recognize and denominate it.

Sounds like cold fusion.

The various crackpot theories are often behaving in similar way, like dense system of ideas, which are often contradicting mutually at the local level, but their hidden logics follows from this mess in emergent way.

So to sum up what you are saying: Because some people who can't think logically and there is still some 'emergent' truth, which...No. Hold on. I take it back. What you say makes no sense at all.

(And I think the word denominate does not mean what you think it means.)
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2012
Because some people who can't think logically and there is still some 'emergent' truth, which...No. Hold on.
Nope, the only problem is, in the world where dominates the transverse waves spreading the density of noncausual information spreading is rather subtle. At the water surface most of energy is mediated in form of transverse waves, the energy density mediated with underwater longitudinal waves is subtle, but not insignificant - if we consider, these density fluctuations affect and determine the spreading of surface ripples at the very end. But the longitudinal waves are doing the same density fluctuations, like these transverse ones. The massive particles and solitons are formed with mutual resonance of longitudinal and transverse waves. The most atemporal ideas able to survival therefore must balance the intuitive and formal approach as well. You cannot develop abstract formal theories under the hope, someone clever will understand their hidden elegance and logics.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
LOL - who ever attempted for replication of Podkletnov antigravity or J.F.Prins superconductivity?

Ning Li and Douglas Torr from the university of Alabama did (and their paper on it was complete hogwash).

David Noever at NASA headed a team in 1997 that tried various approaches (and failed)
At NASA Glenn research center Ron Koczor and Tony Robertson tried in 2001 to replicate it (and failed)

Oh...and Podkletnov redacted his own paper. But he claimed that an (unnamed) scientist in Canada had replicated it.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
Ning Li and Douglas Torr from the university of Alabama did
Link, please.
..he claimed that an (unnamed) scientist in Canada had replicated it.
If Podkletnov is fraudster, why I should believe just him - show us some peer-reviewed paper issued with independent authority instead.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
Nope, the only problem is, in the world where dominates the transverse waves spreading the density of noncausual information spreading is rather subtle.

Oh boy. Do you even read what you write? That sentence makes no sense (neither on a gramattical level, nor on a scientific one)

And FYI: 'denominate' means 'to label/to give something a name' (or 'to give something a monetary unit'. But that makes even less sense).

Then there's the self contradictory term "noncausal information". Do you even know how information is defined? Go look it up on wikipedia.
http://en.wikiped...n_theory
Work thorugh the math. It isn't particularly hard. If you can't then you should get a clue that you are in WAY over your head when talking about anything scientific.

The rest is just more Bullshit Bingo. Stringing random words from a "scientific terms generator" together does not a scientific insight make.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
This link is stating explicitly that..:
"...In 1990 a senior scientist at the University of Alabama named Douglas Torr started writing papers with a Chinese woman physicist named Ning Li, predicting that superconductors could affect the force of gravity. THIS WAS BEFORE Eugene Podkletnov made his observations in Tampere, so naturally Li and Torr were delighted when they heard that Podkletnov had accidentally validated their predictions.."

So it's not / can not be a replication of Podkletnov's experiments at all. The worse for mainstream physics, if these experiments weren't replicated, although their results were actually predicted theoretically in advance. What all these physicists are waiting for - a Christmas? Isn't antigravity theoretically predicted and experimentally confirmed interesting enough for all these "inquisitive minds"? I see, I can see the problem - it violates their religion: the relativity theory
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012
Link, please.

Go to the wikipedia site on Podkletnov (subsection related work).

I just happened to know this stuff because I was excited when he first announced it back in 1996 (while I was at uni going for a degree in electrical engineering, so the subject of superconductors was naturally appealing because it was THE hot area of research at the time). I had a short e-mail discussion with Podkletnov on the subject. So I followed it up for a while. But it turned out to be extremely murky. No one who made any claims came forward with a demonstrator or a viable paper. And the credible groups (like NASA) failed to duplicate it altogether.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
And the credible groups (like NASA) failed to duplicate it altogether.
They forget to publish it, huh? Or did you "forget" to link it again? You see, not only the mainstream proponents hesitate to replicate the uncomfortable finding, they even hesitate to link them. Is this what the natural "scientific inquisitiveness" means?

It has no meaning to waste my time just with you - the thinking of proponents of mainstream science will never change. The religious people are religious, the ignorants are ignorants - and it has no meaning to speculate about it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012
Just google the names. You know how to google, don't you?
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2012
@rawa1 Why throw the baby out with the bath water? There will always be disagreement within the scientific community, that doesn't mean that everything scientists in the mainstream do is bunk. And the idea that the thinking of proponents of mainstream science never changes is rather a bold claim, unless what you mean is that they don't simply accept every new theory as true, which I would have to say is probably preferable to the alternative.

Instead of being so angry why don't you go out and do some research yourself, find something new out, publish it and see how it goes? If the results are repeatable, it will eventually be accepted. If it doesn't happen immediately, do more experiments and get more proof until no one can deny it. Because in the end, not even the holy roman catholic church could hold back "progress" for ever.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
Instead of being so angry why don't you go out and do some research yourself, find something new out, publish it and see how it goes?
I'm not payed for it from public taxes, the scientists are. I know, the scientists are just waiting for verification of cold fusion by A. Rossi - but this is not, what these parasites are payed for. And it's definitely not what the "scientific inquisitiveness" is called.
Because in the end, not even the holy roman catholic church could hold back "progress" for ever.
The tax payers should expect more rational approach from scientific community, than the Holy Church stance, which accepts the opposite opinions just after when all opportunities for their denials and persecution of opponents are depleted.
Just google the names. You know how to google, don't you?
Nope, you're claiming, these experiments were replicated in peer-review press, you should bring the proof. Or simply shut up and accept your defeat.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012
Nope, you're claiming, these experiments were replicated in peer-review press, you should bring the proof.

Where did say that? I said these people investigated and either redacted (Podkletnov and Li) or failed to publish (Torr) or failed to replicate at all and consequently didn't publish (Noevor, Koczor and Robertson)
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
Sorry, in science you have no evidence without publication - even the negative result cannot be accepted until it will not pass the peer review. For example the lack of gravitational waves is apparent, nevertheless it has been published in standard way. http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781 Why the antigravity or cold fusion research is not maintained in the same way?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
Sorry, in science you have no evidence without publication - even the negative result cannot be accepted until it will not pass the peer review.

Trying to prove a negative? Are you kidding me?

It's extremely rare that anyone will publish unsuccessful results. The last time I saw this the guy almost got a standing ovation (publishing a negative is important, because it helps others avoid making the same mistakes)

But Podkletnov himself says that he can only guarantee that they will get results if they do it exactly like him (without specifying how exactly he did it)
http://www.theliv...002.html
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2012
So do you agree, these results weren't even attempted to replicate in mainstream peer-reviewed press - whereas the various unsuccessful attempts for detection of extradimensions, gravitational waves and/or Higgs boson were published over and over?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2012
So do you agree, these results weren't even attempted to replicate in mainstream peer-reviewed press

There were serious attempts at replication. By taxpayer funded agencies (universities, NASA). This is what you always whine about, isn't it? So they did EXACTLY what you wanted and came up empty. What are you crying about NOW?

whereas the various unsuccessful attempts for detection of extradimensions, gravitational waves and/or Higgs boson were published over and over?

What has this got to do with the subject at hand? How does publishing experimental results in one science shed any light on publishing (or not choosing to do so) in another?

But if you want to play, let's play: At least the Higgs guys gave some account of what the taxpayer money was used for. And their results are far from useless. The collider data gathered can (and will) be used for all sorts of analyses - not just looking for the Higgs.
rawa1
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2012
There were serious attempts at replication. By taxpayer funded agencies (universities, NASA)
Here we can read:
Podkletnovs research has been closely followed by NASA, and a replication of the initial superconductive gravity shielding test was attempted in 2001 by NASAs Ron Koczor and Tony Robertson of NASA Glenn research center, who performed tests on a superconductive disk designed by Podkletnov and built by SCI Engineered Materials. However, the replication achieved only 200 rpm of the required 5,000 rpm and failed achieve a measurable result.
Apparently, the mainstream physics didn't even attempted to replicate the speed of rotation. Is it an incompetence or just an intention?

So you can see it by now: the replication of useless results are repeated over and over, whereas the potentially useful applications aren't even worth of replication, publication the less..

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.