Stargazing live, black holes and the scary ass CP

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stargazing live, black holes and the scary ass CP

so, I'm watching stargazing live, and ep two is talking black matter. and i thought I'd be curious about what some conservative sites we know and love, think of them - as it would be unlikely in a 6000 year old universe. But what surprised me was linking to their Black HOles entry. People with no physics backgrounds really have the audacity so say "controversial relativity" and that "you cannot prove there are no black holes in the universe, therefore it fails falsifiability". dear god in heaven. i knew CP was bad, but fuck...

I do like how BC is pretty much telling everyone "there are no fucking aliens, now get the fuck off it". ;-)

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina00:36, 4 February 2012

I was reading up some old CP stuff the other day (i.e., my twice bimonthly "dear fuck Schlafly is an idiot" session) and it happened to be the physics section and on black holes. It's worth reading because there is a beautiful description of how theories work by KSorrenson - seriously fucking jealous that it wasn't me that wrote that one. She basically schooled the fuck out of the lot of them in every area of physics you can think of. Meanwhile all Schlafly can come up with is "you need to have an open mind", which is my book concedes de facto defeat faster than declaring your opponent to be irrational.

Scarlet A.pngpostate01:45, 4 February 2012

I don't really "do" CP, but I was just curious tonite. But what you point out is WHY i don't do it. To bother arguing with them is pointless. and they cause very little harm, cause their audience is already biased. Though I am constantly bothered that he "teaches" (note the quotes) some after school program. Kids should not be denied a chance to actually think.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina01:47, 4 February 2012

I wonder if he still tells potential contributors that they're "ice skating up hill"? It's one thing to be a stupid stubborn cunt, but it's another thing entirely to openly admit to it and suggest that it's a good thing.

Though I apply the maxim: it's impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic01:52, 4 February 2012

Well, we've talked about my dislike/distrust of the term "reason" or "rationality", as if it's some divine way of looking at life. 1) I doubt most things are actually decided on reason, 2)I think we are far better at reasoning ourselves into staying in a position that we give ourselves credit for. Especially if it's embarrassing on the other side, cause you have to admit you were wrong.

That said, I have a very hard time understanding people who stand up and say "That is not true" without really understanding X or Y. Even those who might damn well be right, coincidentally. Cause, ironically, turns out Relativity might not be right... but not in the way the lunatic asylum thinks, but in the "azimov's 'relativity of wrong'" (I think it's just delicious that if Einstien is right, than by his own math, he's wrong - where black holes are concerned. Course, the guy from oxford said, quite logically, "the real world is always more messy than the math, making the impossible, possible - just cause there's stuff you don't account for).

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina01:58, 4 February 2012

Most things probably aren't decided on reason, but it doesn't stop you putting methods in place to minimise that effect, which is the point. You generate a series of checks and balances, usually involving discussions with others, that ensures you're not just making stuff up. If it goes right, you hold beliefs that gel nicely with how the world works, if it goes wrong you don't but believe it's true anyway even more. I presume it's the latter that you object to, it probably is a big risk.

Relativity of wrong is a great concept, though. Seriously, when I get around to teaching undergraduates philosophy of science (a version of it aimed at actual lab-working scientists, not philosophers who think they understand how it works) that will certainly be included. There's too much "well it's certainly wrong because science is incomplete" and that just gives the wrong impression. To quote Tetronian: "We're all wrong, but I'd rather be *puts on sunglasses* less wrong."

Scarlet A.pngd hominem11:53, 4 February 2012

Of course, some of the checks and balances are more complicated than others...

Scarlet A.pngpostate12:03, 4 February 2012

When you posted that link, my first thought was: "Sweet, a paper by Scott Aaronson on disagreement!"

After scrolling through it: "Oh balls."

Tetronian you're clueless15:13, 4 February 2012

I know... it's a bit down the rabbit hole in places isn't it. And when I mean "in places", I mean everywhere apart from the abstract.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic17:03, 4 February 2012