New Moon "conspiracy." Lunar gravity is not 1/6th that of the Earth, but 64% and NASA is c

[MeteorWayne]

<p>Well said alp, and it's why we "waste" our time refuting such intillectual garbage. Sure it seems pointless at times, because the true woowoo will never let science or facts get in the way of a good belief, but we do make an effort to protect the mind of the naive, who just don't know any better yet.</p><p>It's a good thing... and thanx for your and many other's efforts in that regard.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp; How many kids read this garbage and then think that it is real "science" and who's possible contributions to man's true knowledge are forever lost?&nbsp; How many people find some sort of existential meaning in this garbage they pay for because some cult woo-woo psuedoscience leader has managed to crowbar religion into their ramblings just to make a buck?I think this junk is damaging.&nbsp; I won't say it is dangerous because stupid people drown in mud-puddles and I can't see how this is any different.&nbsp; But, it upsets me to see people taken in by charlatans and hucksters simply because they have the misfortune of being innocently ignorant.&nbsp; The possibility of new minds being forever closed to true science really upsets me as well. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Although I would rather this kind of thing did not exist, as long as it does, I have mixed feelings about it.</p><p>A good controversy, even if unfounded, is an excellent way to get people engaged in a subject. I think, most people while in their learning stages would take in this information and then talk to someone to find out what the "real deal" was.&nbsp; I have had many such conversations over the years.&nbsp; The truly dim just won't get it and will insist on believing wht they believe. But that's not such a problem as, being truly dim, they would most likely&nbsp; have not made any contribution to human knowledge. The truly bright, will immedaitely grasp the explanation and understand the matter. The average person may struggle to udnerstand but if they are committed to the truth then this is a good way for them to learn how to discern it. And for them also to learn to be skeptical when they encounter similar claims in the future.</p><p>I like to look at the positive. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Although I would rather this kind of thing did not exist, as long as it does, I have mixed feelings about it.A good controversy, even if unfounded, is an excellent way to get people engaged in a subject. I think, most people while in their learning stages would take in this information and then talk to someone to find out what the "real deal" was.&nbsp; I have had many such conversations over the years.&nbsp; The truly dim just won't get it and will insist on believing wht they believe. But that's not such a problem as, being truly dim, they would most likely&nbsp; have not made any contribution to human knowledge. The truly bright, will immedaitely grasp the explanation and understand the matter. The average person may struggle to udnerstand but if they are committed to the truth then this is a good way for them to learn how to discern it. And for them also to learn to be skeptical when they encounter similar claims in the future.I like to look at the positive. <br /> Posted by MannyPim</DIV></p><p>I can see the value in that.&nbsp; A curious mind will reach out in order to understand a concept which interests them.&nbsp; During that search, they may happen upon the truth and see the fallacy for what it is.&nbsp; However, there are far too many that just listen and agree.&nbsp; They meekly click on the cult-related links and see more woowoo conspiracy crap.&nbsp; They come to believe that the "truth" is being kept from them by the evil powers that be...&nbsp; They think every scientific explanation is a coverup and they're encouraged to think so by their cult leaders.&nbsp; The trouble is I still think some of these woowoos are worth saving and I can not forgive those who prey upon their ignorance.&nbsp; Never.&nbsp; People that prey upon another's ignorance in order for personal gain are vile.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can see the value in that.&nbsp; A curious mind will reach out in order to understand a concept which interests them.&nbsp; During that search, they may happen upon the truth and see the fallacy for what it is.&nbsp; However, there are far too many that just listen and agree.&nbsp; They meekly click on the cult-related links and see more woowoo conspiracy crap.&nbsp; They come to believe that the "truth" is being kept from them by the evil powers that be...&nbsp; They think every scientific explanation is a coverup and they're encouraged to think so by their cult leaders.&nbsp; The trouble is I still think some of these woowoos are worth saving and I can not forgive those who prey upon their ignorance.&nbsp; Never.&nbsp; People that prey upon another's ignorance in order for personal gain are vile.&nbsp; <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>You are discussing two different classes of hucksters.</p><p>Those that prey on people's ignorance are simply frauds, who, in order to "prey", must have two characteristics.&nbsp; First, they themselves must know better.&nbsp; Second there must be some potential benefit to themselves, either money, ego reinforcement, or something else.&nbsp; These guys deserve to be chopped off at the knees, and prosecuted if violation of the law is involved.&nbsp; I don't thing there are very many of this sort involved in the woowoo world.&nbsp; They generally fail the first test -- they actually believe the nonsense that they are spouting.</p><p>Then there are those who actually believe the nonsense that they are espousing.&nbsp; I get the distinct impression that these are the majority of the woowoos.&nbsp; While their arguments are sometimes clever, the people involved are actually not at all intelligent -- they are unable to evaluate all of the facts and reach logical conclusions.&nbsp; They learn a little piece of something and then extrapolate that little piece beyond all reason, to the pont of unrecognized self-contradiction in their ideas -- electric universe proponents are famous&nbsp;for this.</p><p>I really doubt that the effect of either of these types is very lasting on anyone&nbsp;who has the potential to actually contribute to science.&nbsp; If one is not sufficiently sceptical and logical in their thought processes so as to be able to evaluate the woowoos and then go on to real science, one will&nbsp;probably never make it as a&nbsp;scientist.</p><p>I am a bit more worried about those who will never become scientists but who might be contributing members of society and who ought to have some literacy in science but are derailed by the nut jobs.&nbsp; This is a class of people who might obtain a significant portion of their knowledge of science from internet sites.&nbsp; Thoe people, and I think there may be a large number of them, I think can profit from observing a debate in which the woowoos are debunked.&nbsp; If we do nothing more than encourage such people to actually read a no-kidding book we will have done some good.</p><p>A real problem with the internet is that there is so much information available, and so much of it is false, that those who rely solely on it are likely to be led astray.&nbsp; An open mind is a good thing, but there is a reason that the mainstream is the mainstream.</p><p><span class="huge"><font size="1">You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.</font></span> <br /><span class="bodybold"><strong><font size="1">Abraham Lincoln</font></strong><br /></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are discussing two different classes of hucksters.Those that prey on people's ignorance are simply frauds, who, in order to "prey", must have two characteristics.&nbsp; First, they themselves must know better.&nbsp; Second there must be some potential benefit to themselves, either money, ego reinforcement, or something else...<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I suppose I sort of overlook the "innocent woowoo leaders" as being truly innocent.&nbsp; To me, and this is how I look at such things, these people have a <em>responsibility</em> to those that believe in them.&nbsp; They have a responsibility to examine the facts and if they don't have the skill to do so effectively they must either acquire it or announce a disclaimer along with their rhetoric.&nbsp; I feel sort of strongly about this - Anyone put in a position where they are being relied upon to give factual information who then is unsure of the accuracy or validity of what they provide must be truthful about that.&nbsp; Given that and what these people constantly spew forth on "teh intrawebz" I can not understand how it is possible for them to make claims of validity/credibilty when such claims don't even stand up to the lightest scrutiny.&nbsp; There's only two possibilities - They're nuts or they aren't willing to defame themselves because they would lose face in the eyes of their followers.</p><p>Being "wrong" is fine.&nbsp; I've been wrong once.. probably.&nbsp; &nbsp; However, if I am not convinced with 100% certainty and can prove such, I let those who I am conversing with know this.&nbsp; I can't see how woo-woo leaders can say what they are spouting is 100% credible.&nbsp; Thus, they are either nuts or are purposefully perpetuating a lie for personal gain. /shrug&nbsp;</p><p>That may be a bit harsh.&nbsp; I'm willing to admit that.&nbsp; But, the "responsibility" factor of someone with implied knowledge/credibility is something I take very seriously and would expect any other normal human being to, at the very least, pay some cursory homage to that responsibility.</p><p>Is that too harsh?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">I suppose I sort of overlook the "innocent woowoo leaders" as being truly innocent.</font></p><p>When the woo woo leaders are adults such as Rael or Richard Hoagland. I don't consider them totally innocent. Hoagland makes money off of his scam while portraying himself as a critical scientist or person of scientific training. Therefore, he knows he's duping a good number of people.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">To me, and this is how I look at such things, these people have a responsibility to those that believe in them.&nbsp; They have a responsibility to examine the facts and if they don't have the skill to do so effectively they must either acquire it or announce a disclaimer along with their rhetoric.</font></p><p>I agree, unfortunately...in our society of easy answers, people who find they can make a buck off of their ideas will certainly do so. The buck coming before all else.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">I feel sort of strongly about this - Anyone put in a position where they are being relied upon to give factual information who then is unsure of the accuracy or validity of what they provide must be truthful about that.&nbsp; Given that and what these people constantly spew forth on "teh intrawebz" I can not understand how it is possible for them to make claims of validity/credibilty when such claims don't even stand up to the lightest scrutiny.</font></p><p>For the kind of stuff claimed here, they get away with it because nobody I know of has ever taken any of the hucksters to court. It would be a difficult case to prosecute and with the burden of proof on the plaintiff in this kind of case...that is, a plaintiff would have to prove a number of things about the defendant in such a case, most of which are not likely provable.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">There's only two possibilities - They're nuts or they aren't willing to defame themselves because they would lose face in the eyes of their followers.Being "wrong" is fine.&nbsp; I've been wrong once.. probably.&nbsp; &nbsp; However, if I am not convinced with 100% certainty and can prove such, I let those who I am conversing with know this.</font></p><p>I'd go with your second conclusion. They are not willing to loose face among their flock.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">I can't see how woo-woo leaders can say what they are spouting is 100% credible.&nbsp; Thus, they are either nuts or are purposefully perpetuating a lie for personal gain. /shrug&nbsp;That may be a bit harsh.&nbsp; I'm willing to admit that.</font></p><p>If someone has gone to the lengths some of these cultish leaders have gone to influence people. I don't think its too harsh to just come out and say they are perpetuating a lie for personal gain. We once had a poster here who was highly intelligent but believed in Rael.</p><p>I got into several debates with him about Rael and my commentary usually went along the lines of Rael being just another man...a man with a claim. A claim that puts Rael in the position of leadership and being sort of all knowing, at least about his religion.</p><p>I wasn't able to change the posters views but its not my intent to change their views, they have to do that themselves. But I like to just offer up a little dose of reality and common sense from time to time. I guess its my way of assuring myself that I still have common sense Lol.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">But, the "responsibility" factor of someone with implied knowledge/credibility is something I take very seriously and would expect any other normal human being to, at the very least, pay some cursory homage to that responsibility.Is that too harsh? Posted by a_lost_packet</font></p><p>Knowing that there are people out ther who can be irresponsible, and not necessarily with bad intent. Its up to those of us, even when we know we will probably loose the debate...to continue to tell people just what the real deal is. At least the real deal as we understand it from the perspective of actual accumulated knowledge of the past couple of centuries...don't know if that came out right but I'm still a bit foggy. Just woke up a couple hours ago.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>