Science is a conspiracy

Personally, I beleive that the major fault of using the scientific method to verify a theory is the fact that "What we know" is used to validate "what we don't know." Can you fully describe what a car is if you compare it to apples? Or can you comprehend how a space rocket works by looking at a firecracker? No.
I tell you this, you must compare cars to cars, and rockets to rockets to understand how each works. Only that way is your oppinion trully unbiased.

[edit on 7.29.06 by ProveIt]

from curiousity's earlier post which quotes the bible (and i do not consider myself of modern religious faith.; "Pride comes before destruction, and an arrogant spirit before a fall. "

upon reading this it seems to be one of the more valuable lessons that people should understand and then learn in life ....back to the post

some read this post and wonder how can someone like ourselves question the validity of science itself when so many greater minds have been a part of something...which of course is faulty logic but also creates the mental block which stops there critical thinking on the matter

scientif logic is flawed and in a thread i wrote i kind of detailed the perspective which sheds light on this...

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true

what if the knowlege we have now is more accurate and differs from that at the time the scientific law went into being. wouldn't that mean that the " it doesn't really need real proof its just always been observed to be true" line is almost silly

and the last few words could be better rephrased to say " perceived that way"

because observations are based on perceptons and perceptions change especially with advances in knowledge and also depending on the values of a society and to say somethng came into scientific law because it was always observed to be true or " perceived that way" at a time when the observations were limited by our own limited knowlege at the time seems almost absurd



but more and more theories and "facts" are going to fall by the waysdie as we get closer to the New begining october 28. 2011 the transformation of consciousness that is occuring which steadily builds up to this date is inevitable and gives us the awareness and capacity's to use our right brain (creative side) to see thru the deceptions that this materialist world has been built on (and not to sound like i haven't enjoyed this materialistic world, i have but u can't have the good without the bad, even if the good blinds you) as we are intimes of radidly changing consciousness or for the christians (great tribulation) more and more REVELATIONS of higher truths are going to be revealed to us by our transforumation of concsiousness as we transform more toward (divine light and love)


by october 28, 2011 we will break on thru to the other side















[edit on 29-7-2006 by cpdaman]

i saw an episode of "house" like this once
there was a kid who could heal people by the power of god

think he turned out to be a charlatan with herpes
none of his "patients" were really healed

www.tv.com... ry.html?tag=ep_list;title;18

also be especially skeptical of things from russia
they'll sell you watter that'll "heal cancer" but more often than not just tastes funny going down

You've got to be yanking our chains!



The charlatan is the contents of their 'scripts'...

Totally laughable nonsense.

The only thing even more laughable is the 'scripts' for the show Numbers.

Originally posted by rich23
Ah, yes, CSICOP - the name says a great deal. From the linked article on Natasha:

Other features of Natasha's readings foster the illusion of accuracy. When she tells clients something that agrees with previous medical diagnoses, they credit her with a hit.

Why not? What's wrong with that, exactly?

Well, "you have a problem in the chest area" counts as a "hit." So, this could mean a rash (shingles) or breast cancer or a cold or pneumonia or a broken rib, etc, etc. This is hardly "astonishing accuracy." In fact, if we tallied up the number of readers of this thread who had some sort of "problem in the chest area recently" this would include me (cardiac arrhythmia and blood pressure) and a host of others.

Have you heard of "cold reading"? The "cold reading" "medical analysis" would start like that. Generally the patient will nod or say "oh yes, my heart!" After that, you can then say things like "I'm sensing something in the ventricle area" and the patient will then say something like "wow! Yeah! A leaky heart valve." You, the cold reader, were given a 100% by this patient.

(BTW, this is one of the magic tricks that I learned to do. It's very easy if you know the right vague questions to ask.)

So the question is: "is this cold reading or is it real."

If it's real, you should be able to get "heart valve problem" without any preliminary questions.

This allows for her generally vague utterances to be retrofitted to what the client or observer knows to be true. An example of such retrofitting occurred when Natasha was doing a reading in London. Dr. Chris Steele, described by The Daily Mail (January 29, 2004) as one of her champions, was observing.

So we have a believer -- an expert believer -- helping here.

I also would LOVE to see conventional doctors trying to diagnose their patients with some of the same restrictions imposed on Natasha. I think their hit rate might go down... but does that mean they're just picking up on subtle kinesic cues?

In fact, I do know these statistics because (da-dummm) back in 1980 at the behest of the Texas Tech School of Medicine (Biomedical Engineering department) under the direction of Dr. Anthony Way, I wrote a program to evaluate the ability of interns to diagnose illnesses. We ran quite a number of tests and it was incorporated into a paper for the Third Annual Conference on Computing In Medicine.

The answer is "80%." Some are better, some are worse. The average was 80%.

I'd have designed an experiment with a much larger sample of subjects who were actually ill right at that moment. I would videotape each diagnosis from as many angles as I could, but unobtrusively. I would also have some control subjects who were in a good state of health (some older people in that group, ideally) and give them a thorough medical before they walked in to see her. If she diagnosed any condition with the control subjects I'd double-check that they didn't have what she suspected.

Remember that her patients are believers. When Dr. Steele was told he had a "problem with his pancreas, kidney, liver" he went off and did a test. There were no problems with those organs, BUT.... he found a problem with his lymph nodes. This, to him, counts as 100% even though there are no lymph nodes in the pancreas or kidney or liver.
xmb.stuffucanuse.com...

If YOUR doc said you had pancreas problems and it later turned out to be a lymph node infection, would YOU praise him to the skies as the most accurate diagnostician ever? I wouldn't... but I'm a cranky ol' skeptic.

I would allow Natasha to interact normally with half the test subjects, and impose the restrictions devised for the CSICOP test with the other half. I would not, however, impose arbitrary definitions of success or failure on the results before they came out.

Natasha's mom insisted that she would make a 100% accurate diagnosis.

How would you rate a "problem in the liver/kidney/pancreas" Natasha diagnosis versus the "we did a scan but what we found was lymph node problems" diagnosis. Would you call this a hit?

How do you eliminat the "cold reading" factor?

Originally posted by golemina
You've got to be yanking our chains!

The charlatan is the contents of their 'scripts'...

Totally laughable nonsense.

The only thing even more laughable is the 'scripts' for the show Numbers.

no, i was illuding to the concept that this healer girl's story is probably fake much like what happened in that episode

perhaps they got the idea for the episode from this girl.

Originally posted by Byrd

This allows for her generally vague utterances to be retrofitted to what the client or observer knows to be true. An example of such retrofitting occurred when Natasha was doing a reading in London. Dr. Chris Steele, described by The Daily Mail (January 29, 2004) as one of her champions, was observing.

So we have a believer -- an expert believer -- helping here.

I also would LOVE to see conventional doctors trying to diagnose their patients with some of the same restrictions imposed on Natasha. I think their hit rate might go down... but does that mean they're just picking up on subtle kinesic cues?

Remember that her patients are believers. When Dr. Steele was told he had a "problem with his pancreas, kidney, liver" he went off and did a test. There were no problems with those organs, BUT.... he found a problem with his lymph nodes. This, to him, counts as 100% even though there are no lymph nodes in the pancreas or kidney or liver.
xmb.stuffucanuse.com...

If YOUR doc said you had pancreas problems and it later turned out to be a lymph node infection, would YOU praise him to the skies as the most accurate diagnostician ever? I wouldn't... but I'm a cranky ol' skeptic.

Thank you bird for finding all that. Dr. Chris Steele is the expert i saw on ITV's This Morning show. I saw that program and i think he is being misquoted. He was quite skeptical about it from what i recall, maybe he has changed his stance since. She basically was saying he had cancer in his liver, he had an MRI scan i belive and it turned outt o be nothing near his liver. I can remember he said something like "Well it wasn't what she said, she wasn't close but at least me being worried of what she said caused me to have a scan whihc founda problem. I am grateful for that at least". So we have a man that's grateful that at least he went for a scan but not beliveing, at least then he didn't

I have to say i think it's cold reading. After seeing Derren Brown perform this on his messiah program it's a technique which can produce fantastic results. From "psychics" talking to the dead to amazing people detecting past health problems.

Originally posted by mindtrip02
i totally agree with curiosity. he makes some great points.

the one thing i can say, is that science changes almost , if not, everyday. the one thing that has stayed the same is faith. faith in people, faith in eachother. why not have faith in god.

Thats completely untrue. Did the first generations of christians had faith in the roman empire? Probally not. Why then, when looking at immigration trends throughout the United States history, would catholic immigrants (Especially the Irish, where you often get the scots-irish protestants distancing themselves from the catholic Irish, later would come the italians) be the ones most heavily discriminated against. One of the main reasons is their religious differences, which caused em to stand out. Do you trust everyone with your life, the lives of your family? Would you allow your kids to get in a car with anyone and have faith they will be completely OK? Faith is not all it's cracked up to be.

My guess is you would want to study the person, get to know them enough that you feel safe having your kids with them. You'll want to question lifestyle perhaps. The programs they watch on tv, foods they eat, what subjects they like to discuss and their opinons on those subjects. After getting to know people do your opinons of them change? Perhaps you don't like the way a person dresses, being a bit to crazy. Too many tatoos and piercings perhaps. Doesn't mean they are one of the most respectful and caring people you'll ever meet, however what is a first impression likely to be?

there is no faith is science. it can be changed so drastically, so quickly. why believe in something, that 5 minutes later will be something totally different?
the one thing that has stayed the same is religion. whether it be catholicism, christianity, baptists, or penecostal. they all believe in the same thing. their practices may vary, but they got the point.

First, faith can be very much shaken and our beliefs can change. However faith can change for no real reason other than because of our emotions towards an event. Science and scientific theories change because of answers to questions, and new observations that lead to new questions that peak our interests.

All the religions you pointed out share a common source. They have drastically changed from one another. History points that out.

like i said before, science is for people that are too proud to beleive that there is something " above" or "higher" than them. they want to believe that we are the higher power, well WE'RE NOT. thats why when scientist test something it will change, its not constant,. there will never be a definate answer. so keep believing in your " theories", but until we know the infinite truth that only god can give us. we will never know how we got here.

I'm not to proud to believe that there is something higher than myself. but i also realize that i'm not a choosen people. I'm humble enough to know i don't have the answers to infinite questions that i have, and i never will. However, i'm not afraid to question the world around me.

If you want to get into being to proud, how about the fact that many religions put people one step below the mystical; god, demons, angels. However, humans are always the choosen ones. People are always above the beasts, the shepards of the flock. It was up to noah to put 2 of every animal on the arch, Jesus was gods son. Adam and eve. I have no problem accepting the idea that i may not be all that different from my dog or cat. We share many similar traits.

Yes, science does find many weird and wonderful things that have never been witnessed or theorized about. But i can assure you this. Jump off the 3rd story of your apartment building with just a t shirt and shorts, no parachute or glider. You probally realize this is not a wise decision. I guarantee you'll hit the ground. Not because of faith, but because of previous observations. The begining steps of science, if you will.

Originally posted by dgtempe
And why is the basis of science skepticism?

Skeptics are needed so they dont go into projects with a pre-conceived ideology, therefore making them more believable in the end.

Take MUFON for instance. If you want to investigate for them YOU MUST BE A SKEPTIC. That is a requirement- and it is for the reason i stated above.

Mufon is not without criticism in the UFO community in fact I have little regard for it myself. Being a skeptic entails having an ATTITUDE about a subject when what is needed is an OPEN MIND.

The way i look at it...
-Religion is the old science, we used it before science was around to explain or find answears 'how we got here' 'who is our creator' ect...

-Science is the new age religion that provides more facts than idears or beliefs...as humans its in our nature to not belive something unless there is something we can physicaly see or touch on.

Though there is a problem within, one constantly counteracts the other and vise-versa, this is how we end up with a massive conflict.

The only CONSPIRACY i can see in science, is that throughout human history we have really only been given one 'field of view' or 'idears'...take the combustion engine for a small example- most people cant think of any other way to create a working motor. Our minds have been focused down a narrow train of thought for thousands of years.

You have voted curiousity for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

I have only read your first initial post, and I haven't seen this documentary, but I agree with you on the way science is done. Not too many people have the same point of view, but I agree wholeheartedly.

The scientific method is what it is. However , there is no other better way to do it. Having said that , the scientific method of hypothesis testing is based on the following sequence:
(1)Start with a hypothesis
(2)Devise tests within the known realm .. that is you can devise tests from a set of existing accepted tests .. or you come up with something what a human mind can think within the limits already imposed by the scientific training.
(3)The tests will validate some already existing established theories or knowledge or will contradict them… keep in mind that the already existing knowledge was validated the same way initially.
(4)It will come with predictions that which are physically verifiable. However .. they will follow the same course for getting established in future.
(5)The results will be presented within the limitations of the word.. including mathematics which after all is just a more concise language.Add to it what the tester wants you to believe or disbelive based on his prejudices.

The obvious flaws are that the process of verifying and generating knowledge is in some way axiomatic in that ..that you start wih some reference points whose truth you accept …usually through the testimony of the scientific books or faith in the very method which was used to verify those facts which we are skeptical about.

To quote an example of the aristotalean inferential logic(… though lot of other guys have used the same method at different times)
I see smoke on a hill
Where ever there is smoke there is fire.(use existing knowledge database)
Like in a kitchen( I am damn sure now)
Hence there is fire on the hill

So from my observation of the smoke on the hill I infer there is fire on the hill without actually seeing the fire.
The example is contrived and trivial but serves the purpose to stress a few points. Now, have I seen all the somke and fire combinations of the world. Of all the worlds… of all the times .. past anf future… How true is the coincidental togetherness of fire and smoke although I have never been contradicted till now. The skepticism seems bizziare in respect of this trivial example … but just try to confront your self with say relativity or quantum mechanics question … and you immediately start doubting that your and my science is also no more than the faith reposed in prophets of science… prophet einstien or prophet max planck…

But still , it seems there is no better method than this as it serves as an acceptable lowest common denominator as a method to establish the truths or untruths.
I know what Ive said is not leading to anything… but should it really.. I am not establishing any truth .. just doubting the existing ones.

www.csicop.org...

ughhhh.. these posts are very frustrating... maybe you should bother to google your post topic once or twice before ripping into science...

as a matter of fact the girl does claim:

Natasha claims she can see everything inside of people's bodies down to the cellular level, and her mother says her readings are 100 percent accurate.

It took her over an hour to 'see' a patient with a large piece of missing lung and she completly missed a large metal plate inside of another patient.

Did anyone ever consider perhaps the earth isn't flat, the moon isn't hollow and 'science' isn't a giant consipiracy created to keep humanity down. Really, science isn't anything more than an adherence to the scientific method -- we are all scientists in our own right. Members here at ATS should have a greater respect for science than anyone, as it is the scientific method we employ most often to validate or invalidate wild claims. Even still, there seems to be an unhealthy disdain for science and those who employ it.

Here is the real summary of the story/tests:

The target conditions were: a removed appendix, a removed lower section of the esophagus, metal staples left in the chest after surgery; an artificial hip joint; a surgically removed upper section of the left lung; and a metal plate covering a removed section of the skull. (See:www.csmmh.org... ) Natasha claims she can see abnormalities down to the cellular level and her mother says her readings are 100 percent accurate. So the test -- which required her to match at least five of the target medical conditions to the correct subjects -- should have been a breeze. She didn't have to scan their entire bodies for unknown conditions. She was told exactly what to look for and exactly where to look. Yet, it took her more than fours to complete the test and she only matched four of the conditions correctly -- a score that everyone prior to the test had agreed upon would not justify further testing.

In other words, this little girl is just another miss cleo.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by zoopnfunk]

Personally, I beleive that the major fault of using the scientific method to verify a theory is the fact that "What we know" is used to validate "what we don't know."

Uhhh... No it doesn't...

The scientific method involves the following:

1. Making an observation

2. Formulating a hypothesis to explain your observation

3. Use of hypothesis to make predictions

4. Expirementation of your hypothesis under controlled conditions...


Your observation doesn't have to be explainable by science, and really nor does your hypothesis... you just need to be able to test your hypothesis and reproduce your results...

Here is a link for further explanation.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by zoopnfunk]

this story is bogus. thats my scientific conclusion.

the only things that is frustrating zoopnplonk is the repeated abstractions of thought you are unaware of that you keep using to validate your points

because someone sees that the scientic method is flawed (which if u can think critically and put your pride aside, it becomes clear) however this is the best test that can be formulated, and works reasonably well ( just because there is flaws doesn't mean it is a giant conspiracy to keep people down .....no one is suggesting that ... except you who uses the abstraction of thought that becuase the scientific method is flawed that it is a conspiracy trying to keep humanity down.

the point is that there are holes in the scientific theory it is not perfect it bears a very close resemblance to faith because science has faith in what they perceived to be facts and they validate new claims based on the "faith" i.e beleif that what they understood at the time they were validating earlier scientic theories was true (even though at the time the first scientific claims were validated we have learned a lot more since than, and also new scientific laws may be disproved because they don't fit the possibly faulty logic used to validate laws hundreds of years ago...but that's tricky to follow

spooky 666 thanks for breaking down the steps one can follow to see the wholes in the scientific method so others can understand the thought process

THE POINT OF THIS IS . IT IS MUCH EASIER FOR THE HUMAN MIND TO FOLLOW SIMPLE RULES OF LOGIC THIS IS TRUE THIS IS UNTRUE and then make rationalizations to keep things in this black/white perspective .

U SHED VERY IMPORTANT LIGHT ON A PERSPECTVIE THAT MANY THINGS SEEN AS SCIENTIFIC TRUTH , STRONGER THAN FAITH, ARE MERLY FAITH DRESSED UP IN A BUNCH OF ABSTRACTIONS AND RATIONALIZATIONS SO THE ANALYTICAL MIND CAN REPRESENT THINGS EASIER (BUT WITH MANY FLAWS) although the down side is often when one of your perceived truths crumbles (pride) your arrogant spirit (which trys desperately to preserve these truths) is in jeporday or taking a fall

how many other truths are just faith dressed up in this manner and shed light on more insights of false logic IT IS FEAR that causes the mind to look for absolute truths to keep us safe from misrepresentations in the mind and when u can see fear fake evidence that appears real in a more accurate fair way than u can take a step forward toward enlightenment, because u can free yourself from the fear of watching your absolute "truths" crumble knowing there was really nothing to fear in the first place.

the problem today is greed in a capatalistic world tries to feed these fears the best response is to creative absolute truths (beleifs in your mind that make u feel safe) often this creates to much pride and arrogance but it is a better alternative than falling prey to the false fears which are often abstracted and popularized until they seem "real"

[edit on 30-7-2006 by cpdaman]

[edit on 30-7-2006 by cpdaman]

[sarcasm]Well at any rate it is a good thing she didn't show up on ATS or she would have been labelled a hoaxer[/sarcasm]

We have people right here on line that have special talents and abilities and I fail to see any across-the-board concerted effort to recognize them. Let's face it, science has slid into apathy, not a conspiracy.

Originally posted by trudginup
You have voted curiousity for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

I have only read your first initial post, and I haven't seen this documentary, but I agree with you on the way science is done. Not too many people have the same point of view, but I agree wholeheartedly.

thank you very much for the recognition. And for your comments.

appreciated it very much.

Originally posted by zoopnfunk
www.csicop.org...
...as a matter of fact the girl does claim:

Natasha claims she can see everything inside of people's bodies down to the cellular level, and her mother says her readings are 100 percent accurate.

....science isn't a giant consipiracy created to keep humanity down. Really, science isn't anything more than an adherence to the scientific method -- we are all scientists in our own right. Members here at ATS should have a greater respect for science than anyone, as it is the scientific method we employ most often to validate or invalidate wild claims. Even still, there seems to be an unhealthy disdain for science and those who employ it.

Here is the real summary of the story/tests:

[edit on 30-7-2006 by zoopnfunk]

Mom made the statement of Natasha's accuracy mainly because of the test results and the resultant decision on the testmakers parts that she "had failed" the test. It was a defensive statement by a mother under stress who loves her daughter. I'm sure she believes it is true as well. All that was absolutely clear in the TLC program.

You didn't quote your source but since when is Googling something the ultimate in the search for Truth? I don't believe Natasha said anything that cut and dried, the TLC program certainly didn't make it clear and since you didn't quote your source, it is impossible to clarify what was said there unless we just take your word for it..

In any event, I didn't make the post to say whether Natasha was capable of doing what she said or not, but rather as a comment on how shabby the testing system
was and that the outcome was slanted. And to point out that the scientific method is biased.

Did you check either of these links that I gave?

www.nutech2000.com...

indypeer.org... (a lot of the links there are outdated apparently, but if you GOOGLE the names of the publications you'll find them quckly enough.)

Your statement about "'science' isn't a giant consipiracy created to keep humanity down" is a vast overstatement of anything spoken to on this thread by me or anyone else I've read. The whole point is the scientific method is not the end all be all in the search for the Truth. Nor is it unbiased or somehow endued with purity.

An "unhealthy disdain for science"?? What in the world does that mean? Does an "unhealthy disdain" for science mean we're all doomed? What?

There is enough info on those links, though, if you'll just google your way through about 15 of them, about cover-ups, deceit, and gross misrepresentations by scientists, to give pause to the most ardent scientific method fan.

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Well I'm an actual scientist. A geologist to be exact. I also work for the 'evil oil & gas' companies in the search for more petroleum reservoirs.
Anyways I can tell you with 100% conviction that my science is all made up as we go along. Nobody was around to measure time geologically speaking of course.
I can't begin to count the times we have pulled core samples out of the ground, take them in the lab, analyze them and lo & behold micro fossils, sponges, trilobytes, and all kinds of simple prehistoric creatures that were already suppossed to be extinct for a couple a hundred million years OR were not suppossed to have evolved yet for at least a few dwcades of millions of years.
All any one says is "oh must have been a fault zone or some kind of anomoly" but it hppens so much it has lead me to beleive the Earth is not as old as public school & Hollywood wish us to believe.
As for my own experience, geology is a made up science to help foster the idea of evolution.
But hey, the oil companies pay good, so if you want a great paying job become a geologist. No math, and the world is running out of resources.

What a great post! My guess is it will be ignored by the science fans and possibly even by the others on this thread because it is basically indisputable by gainsayers, and those who are already in agreement will find it validation enough by itself.

As for me, I wish I could vote you for 'way above top secret' but all my votes are gone for the month!

I once took a class to learn about electricity as part of a course on appliance repair. I quit when the teacher, after I questioned him several times, finally admitted neither he nor anyone else knows how electricity works, but only that it does. Yet up until then, he'd had charts, diagrams, and held me up to ridicule because I said none of the aids explained HOW it worked.

LOL, I'm really enjoying this post.....