Use these links to navigate through this site
you seem to debunk any author from C Calleman to Z Sitchin for whatever their claim is, my question is none of these theories is "close" to the reality ? they're all wrong ?
and you debunk them with certainty ?
is none of these theories is "close" to the reality ? they're all wrong ?
They're sufficiently lacking in evidence to be dismissed.
and you debunk them with certainty ?
Science never claims certainty. Science is about observation, evidence, theory, testability and falsifiablity. If Calleman, Sitchin and friends fall short in these respects, whose fault is that?
Science never claims certainty.
in this case some other theories should be considered since you're not 100% sure :-)
in this case some other theories should be considered since you're not 100% sure :-)
You complained about me cutting your post in half, yet you completely ignored most of bikenbeer's post.
"Science is about observation, evidence, theory, testability and falsifiablity. If Calleman, Sitchin and friends fall short in these respects, whose fault is that?"
I don't think you understand what he said anyway, because your idea of science is actually more religious than scientific, wherein latch onto a claim and then look for evidence to support it, instead of building your hypothesis around the evidence. Bad form, seeker. In reality, the point is that science, by definition, does not claim certainty. It can't.
Where's the evidence supporting the ideas of Sitchin, Calleman, et al.?
since you debunk these theories, why can't you be certain ?
here is an other article about this asteroid
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/01/huge-asteroid-will-hit-antarctica-in-2012/
since you debunk these theories, why can't you be certain ?
Because science, by definition, is not a matter of certainty. If you want a philosophical discussion, which is what it ultimately comes down to, read up on falsifiability, empiricism and the null hypothesis. If you don't know what any of that means, then you don't even have a basic understanding of what you're trying to argue about.
here is an other article about this asteroid
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/01/huge-asteroid-will-hit-antarctica-in-2012/
It's practically the same article, chalk full of the same fake information. For such a "truthseeker," you sure are gullible.
For such a "truthseeker," you sure are gullible.
it's not because you name thegreat, it means you're holding the truth or know every thing
it's not because you name thegreat, it means you're holding the truth or know every thing
Let me explain this to you again, "Truthseeker," since you have the habit of pulling one tiny line out of a post and ignoring everything else, and you seem to have a very selective memory.
"TheGreatJuju" is a humorous and deliberate use of irony. Do you know what "juju" means? Look it up, then consider that the person (me) using the name "TheGreatJuju" is a methodological naturalist. If you don't get the joke or don't find it at least somewhat amusing, I'm sorry, but there it is.
As an example, let's take a look and break this story apart for analysis. A number of claims are made, and here is the evidence cited:
(1) Starfire Tor said so.
(2) The Mayans, Sumerians, Babylonians and Native Americans foresaw this.
(3) An unnamed professor from University of British Columbia published an online article about it, but said article disappeared.
(4) There was a CTV news story concerning astronauts' advice that we should work on asteroid defense.
Let's set aside the fact that the claims are irrational. A 800m object has insufficient mass to flip the earth upside down. Nor can its scant gravity cause animals, the sun, or the magnetic pole to act strangely. In fact, there is little support that even significant amounts of gravity, like Venus coming closer to us, does that. And let's set aside the unprofessional nature and obvious bias of this [edit: referring to the website that the article was sourced from] website, which casually throws around conspiracy laden argument with no evidence.
No, the death knell of this story is this: the evidence breaks down to ENTIRELY hearsay. Someone said it exists on the radio. Ancient people who could have never seen it supposedly wrote about it. An authority figure who is not named provides the science details, but it mysteriously disappeared and nobody has any record of it or can even recall his/her name.
Then, we get a generalized statement from astronauts saying we should have a defense against rogue asteroids, reported by a legitimate news agency. This is a real reference, but gives no evidence of this asteroid.
Short form: This doesn't even come close to believable. There is not a single shred of actual evidence in it.
unprofessional nature and obvious bias of this website, which casually throws around conspiracy laden argument with no evidence.
Unprofessional nature? Of course, the 2012ers are professionals. Claims about Nibiru, an invisible planet behind the sun, a fast pole shift that is impossible, a catastrophic alignment, destructive solar flares and gamma rays are better than any scientific prove that this "unprofessional website" provides.
The 2012 scam is full of conspiracy theories. What for? To put government or media against the population.
They like to create conspiracy theories mostly against NASA. Why? Because they want to debunk David Morrison proofs against 2012. Then they use the Nibiru to strengthen the conspiracy, then Pole Shifts… and then use NASA as prove for their stupid claims.
Lovely, they start with 9/11 conspiracy, and with some math, they link it to 2012.
Are you still going to say that we are being biased?
I was referring to the unprofessional nature of the website from which the guy got his article. I'm sorry the wording I used did not make that clear. I'll fix it for clarity.
An authority figure who is not named provides the science details, but it mysteriously disappeared
I expect this 'professor' was assassinated. That's the usual sort of claim put forward by the conspiracy brigade.
I like this claim from the article:
There is evidence to suggest the object is going to strike one of the poles
To project an impact in one of the polar regions, its trajectory must have been tied down to within 1,000 km or so. But wait! They don't know which pole. That impiles an error of about 13,000 km.
I do wish they'd make their minds up.
and you debunk them with certainty?
I am not one of the debunkers (not one of the moderators), but I hope so. And all proponents have some relation with this hoax.
Your argument appears to be that if presented with 10 answers to a question, that one of them must be correct. I'll leave it for your 'homework' to play 'name-that-fallacy'.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
that one of them must be correct
I don't get that ?
In your original post you said:
they're all wrong ?
and you debunk them with certainty ?
I take this to mean that you are questioning whether we are unbiased, and that you are implying that we have an unreasonable certainty about our debunking, and that we can't be correct about all of the claims.
The fact of the matter is that we reject claims that are made on the basis of no evidence, contrary evidence, or insufficient evidence. Various times we have seen claims made based on the fact that the author had an epiphany while visiting the Maya pyramids, or in another case after ingesting hallucinogens. Still other authors simply repeat every crazy 2012 claim that they find. That isn't evidence! Claims made on these bases should be rejected, and that's what we do.
I don't care if you have 10, or 50 or 100 different people claiming different things. If they make a positive claim (i.e., "If x, then y. x, therefore y"), they have to support it with evidence. They have to show that y occurs because of x. They have to show that x is true. If they can't do that, their logical proposition falls apart.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
that we have an unreasonable certainty about our debunking, and that we can't be correct about all of the claims.
no, if science is not certain it means your theory of magnetic shift falls apart too, what's the % of uncertainty ?
You're continuing to ask a meaningless question. When one is confronted with an assertion with no evidence to support it, there is no way of determining the percentage chance of uncertainty.
Additionally, I'm not sure you understand how uncertainty is used in science. It's not the sort of thing you hang on a hypothesis, it's the sort of thing that is used in a measurement. For example, an ruler marked in millimeters might be considered to have an uncertainty of + or - 1 mm, assuming no interpolation is used. The measurement made from the ruler is included with the uncertainty, so a measure of 13 mm might be written 13 +- 1 mm. Then, when calculations are done using this value, the uncertainty is carried through something we loathingly call 'propagation of error'. This is the very simplified form, more advanced mathematics are used in determining things like confidence limits, usually calculated from standard deviations of sets of repeat measurements.
So, when you see scientists assign a chance that Apophis will hit us in 2036, this is from a detailed math crunch based on the uncertainty of the instruments used to measure its position. It is something that can only be determined from volumes of evidence, not a lack of evidence.
no, if science is not certain it means your theory of magnetic shift falls apart too, what's the % of uncertainty ?
You're making up attributes and trying to apply them to the discipline of science. Whatever you think science is, it doesn't even resemble the fantasy you've built in your head.
As ThreeFangCat has already tried to explain to you, uncertainties in science are calculated from evidence, not a lack of evidence. If you don't have sufficient evidence about a given observation, you have no way of determining the potential error in your measurements.
From a slightly different perspective, absolute certainties in life cover a pretty narrow range of things. Your existence is one, because you can't claim to not exist without committing what we call a performative contradiction. Some aspects of mathematics are certain, providing parameters and terms are properly established and defined. For example 1+1 in a base-10 number system gives a result of 2, but 1+1 in a binary number system gives a result of 10. Both results are certain, but they're relative to particular definitions and systems.
Now consider things we observe in this intersubjective experience we often call objective reality, like the apparent motion of celestial objects across the sky. A number or explanations have been put forth throughout history, ranging from a god's flaming chariot being pulled across the sky, to the geocentric model of the Sun orbiting Earth, to our current heliocentric model of a Solar System orbiting the Sun. All of these models explained observations at the time they were formulated. Your logic is effectively a criticism of our heliocentric model based on the fact that the flaming chariot and geocentric models exist. That is sheer folly. Even if the heliocentric model is not as accurate as it appears to us now, that is not a de facto endorsement of any other model. Hypotheses and theories stand or fall on evidence. Only when a better theory is formed should the working one be modified or discarded.
This segues into a related idea that Isaac Asimov called the "relativity of wrong." He uses the example of planetary models over time, starting with the flat earth, because to early humans looking across the landscape, things looked pretty flat. However, observations eventually led this idea to fall out of favor, even though, according to Asimov, the curvature of the earth over a mile is almost zero. The ancient Greeks worked out that planet Earth must be a sphere, based on 1) vanishing stars as one traveled north, 2) a circular shadow on the Moon during lunar eclipses, and 3) ships disappearing on the horizon.
Of course, we now know that both of those ideas — the flat earth and the spherical earth — are wrong. Our planet is actually an oblate spheroid, with an equatorial diameter about 43 km greater than the polar diameter. However, even though the spherical model is wrong, it still works relative to the flat earth model, and the flat earth model still works in a very limited context even though it is completely wrong.
When you start demanding absolute certainty, or giving weight to propositions B and C because proposition A isn't absolutely certain, you fail epically. The claim that "[the standard] theory of magnetic shift falls apart too" is little more than a complete misunderstanding on your part of what science is, how it works, and what separates a good model from a bad one. Hopefully this longer-than-intended post can clear some of the fog from your brain. I also still suggest learning about falsifiability, empiricism and the null hypothesis if you intend to challenge the foundations of modern science.
Now, the error margin for standard assertions about geomagnetism is going to depend on a variety of factors, including the dating of magnetic rocks used in geological studies, the accuracy of computer models going back hundreds of years, and the accuracy of modern measurements of today's magnetic field. You'll have to consult individual studies for those numbers, and keep in mind that there is always an unknown element when modeling the past in order to forecast future phenomena. Again, consult ThreeFangCat's post.
What do you think the uncertainty percentages are for Sitchin, Calleman, Geryl, et al.? I suspect that the margin of error for claims requiring impossibly eccentric orbits, stealth planets, space aliens and magic is pretty significant.
Those making the positive claim have the burden of proof. This means, without evidence, the claim is not worth acting on, even if it might be theoretically true. There are an infinite number of possible claims that can be made with no evidence, you can't possible react to them. You HAVE to filter claims out based on whether they have evidence.
You are not a truth seeker. You are a woo-theory believer. You are not worthy of your user name.
"The Universe is cool enough without making up crap about it". —Dr. Phil Plait
"If psychics are capable of seeing into the future—why the f**k can't they give us the score to next year's Super Bowl" —Denis Leary
You are not worthy of your user name.
did I claim anything with my name?
did I claim anything with my name?
I don't know, but it's amusingly ironic, regardless. Kind of like TheGreatJuju, but for a somewhat different reason.
I feel the need to post this..
wow long link but yeah humor time =D
