Doomsday of Minds and Thoughts

Summary:

It is certainly duel of mind and soul to keep them unbiased and keeping them rationale is another struggle. If you read too much of doomsday theories, they sink you in them. Read on!

Doomsday of Minds and Thoughts

Swati Singh (guest) 26 Jan 2011 20:12

Yes, it happens with lots other scenarios. Remember the stories of several cults which are based on thing grounds.

I liked this site because it matches my wavelength of thinking. About me: I own the site http://www.just2012.com which carries the media focus and is primarily an account of journalist. To cut it short, that's about me. Read on below how it goes about the hoaxes and fake theories.

Virtually, you can prove any ridiculous idea. Those who do not know this art, there are several books available on the subject of proving anything and everything right. The problem with public is, it buys everything which is polished crap. Doomsday theories lack the basic rules. Most of the theories of doomsday are badly flawed. And if you look at the knowledge of the experts, yes, they are pathetic in many subjects like history, geography and most important the realities of modern world. Everything you read about doomsday is fake.

No theory can stand the test of basic logic. It is good to see people here coming and educating themselves so that they are not duped by con-artists and cunning marketeers.

Best of luck! — Swati — Just2012.com

Re: Doomsday of Minds and Thoughts

Tomy2011 26 Jan 2011 20:27

Thank you for the kind words, Swati. You are welcome here.

Re: Doomsday of Minds and Thoughts

emmylou 27 Jan 2011 01:00

Interesting site Swati :)

welcome to the Forum :)

---

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Albert Einstein

Swati Singh (guest) 27 Jan 2011 06:28

Thanks all for warm welcome. Although I am busy with lots of stuff around me, I would make sure that I check this site more often and comeback to comment and offer the points.

Regs - Swati

Tomy2011 27 Jan 2011 12:37

Ok, good luck and welcome!

Re: Doomsday of Minds and Thoughts

CaneLaz 27 Jan 2011 13:28

Swati,

Please explain how the debunkers here have not proven the theories to be false? That's a mighty big claim you have there. You also stated that the Aztec Sun Stone calendar is the same as the Maya Long Count. They end roughly 15 years from each other given the current correlation.

I did enjoy your P. Geryl article though.

I look forward to hearing more from you.

Last edited on 27 Jan 2011 13:29 by CaneLaz Show more

Re: Doomsday of Minds and Thoughts

JamesJJlm 27 Jan 2011 13:39

Careful here, the Aztec calendar's next possible end date is 2027. The possbility is every 52 years which could have been inherited by the Maya. Mark Van Stone has a pretty detailed explanation on famsi.org

Re: Doomsday of Minds and Thoughts

CaneLaz 27 Jan 2011 16:49

You are correct James. 2027 is the current end date for the Aztec Calendar.

Re: Doomsday of Minds and Thoughts

JamesJJlm 27 Jan 2011 18:37

I also find it interesting that a lot of proponents attribute the Mayan's 52 year tradition of making sure the god's would grant them another 52 years is "evidence" that they knew about a disaster that happened before. However, if you use the 3114bc start date or even 9792bc don't match up with a 52 year interval leading to 2012. Meaning their 52 year cycle doesn't even end in 2012 and won't end for several years after.

If thats incorrect, please let me know.

Swati Singh (guest) 01 Feb 2011 22:19

My focus is not to prove or refute anything. I am standing between debunkers and supporters. My role is neutral and I take the media approach of reporting what I see rather than what I feel. It is very important for one to observe than taking sides. Someone said, "You would represent the truth of the side of the fence where you stand". Look, the popular game goes like this. If you join the camp of the debunkers, the theories seem wrong and the same theories you would prove right when you are with the supporters. It does not matter who is right. When something or grave nature hits the ground, the theories bite dust. In other words, most of the people are throwing wild guesses. Ironically, it is very difficult to find a doomsday expert who does not have his books to be sold in the market. Sounds funny. Yes it is. It is money which can come either by supporting or debunking the theories. I recently wrote the piece, that debunking and supporting the theories is fundamentally same.

TheGreatJuju 02 Feb 2011 00:10

Hellow, Swati.

I am standing between debunkers and supporters.

That doesn't strike me as a particularly well-defined position.

If you join the camp of the debunkers, the theories seem wrong and the same theories you would prove right when you are with the supporters.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. First of all, this assumes that "debunkers" is a "camp," when really that is more often just the term used by conspiracy proponents and pseudo-science believers to describe people who demand evidence and criticize unscientific, unsupported claims. More accurately, there are people who accept science and provide evidence for claims, and there are people who do not.

Secondly, there are no "theories" addressed by the people you refer to as "debunkers." No scientific theories, anyway.

It does not matter who is right.

Actually, yeah, it does.

When something or grave nature hits the ground, the theories bite dust.

Sorry, I have no idea what this means.

In other words, most of the people are throwing wild guesses.

So you think a theory is a "wild guess?"

Ironically, it is very difficult to find a doomsday expert who does not have his books to be sold in the market.

I don't know what a "doomsday expert" is. Never met one, as those who purport to occupy such roles tend to be more accurately described as b.s.-artists, cranks, frauds and True Believers™. There are lots of doomsayers who simply post on blogs and Internet forums, and I'd submit that these folks are perhaps more harmful in some cases than those in bookstores.

It is money which can come either by supporting or debunking the theories.

Boy, I wish some of that money would come my way….

I recently wrote the piece, that debunking and supporting the theories is fundamentally same.

If you mean that authors of scientific literature can be paid for their work, yes, but that's hardly "fundamentally [the] same" as lying about the end of the world to scare people into buying your crap. Sites like this, operated by people "in the trenches" so to speak, generally don't make a dime on what you term "debunking." In fact, it costs Astrogeek to keep this thing running.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Tomy2011 02 Feb 2011 00:46

I am standing between debunkers and supporters.

Could you explain this?

My role is neutral

So you might have a reason to support both sides.

Last edited on 02 Feb 2011 00:58 by Tomy2011 Show more

Swati Singh (guest) 07 Feb 2011 06:18

Yep, you are right I do not have a well defined position. And same goes with anyone who has to debunk or support anything. The theories of subtle nature are never contested in the court of law. There is no absolute way of proving something wrong or right. As far as doomsday is concerned, it looks like more over the case of belief rather than science. Fundamental loop holes in the theories make them just crap and good to ignore.

Liked your response. Appreciate your time and thoughts.

TheGreatJuju 07 Feb 2011 07:29

Yep, you are right I do not have a well defined position. And same goes with anyone who has to debunk or support anything.

I can define my position for you right now. When extraordinary claims are made, I demand extraordinary evidence. Ockham's Razor never comes down on the side of magic. Science isn't perfect, but it works. Logic != truth, but it's certainly handy for putting the screws to baloney.

The theories of subtle nature are never contested in the court of law.

I have no idea what that means. If you mean that science is never contested in a court of law, that simply ain't true. However, courts of law are very often based on a high degree of subjectivity and salesmanship. Every court in the world could rule that gravity doesn't exist, but that doesn't change the behavior of this baseball when I drop it.

There is no absolute way of proving something wrong or right.

Is that absolutely true, Swati? What exactly are you basing that on?

Rather amusingly, you said exactly the opposite in your first post:

"Virtually, you can prove any ridiculous idea."

To the point, it depends completely on what you mean by "[prove]." Formal proofs are reserved for logic and mathematics. They do exist, and they don't cease to exist on your say-so. Proof in a legal context is something else entirely.

Science doesn't deal in proof; it deals in evidence and explanation. You can use the term colloquially (e.g. "a preponderance of evidence for or against a proposition" or "sufficient evidence"), but to conflate it with the legal or formal term is a display of sheer ignorance.

As far as doomsday is concerned, it looks like more over the case of belief rather than science. Fundamental loop holes in the theories make them just crap and good to ignore.

Apparently, you think everything is a belief, which leads one to wonder exactly what foundation you think you're arguing from.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 07 Feb 2011 07:30 by TheGreatJuju Show more

3WMElliott 02 Feb 2011 00:58

Okay, just had a quick read of this thread and the recent article of yours you mentioned, initial thoughts are along these lines: "Wow, really?"

Do you honestly think 'believers and debunkers' are one and the same? I've a whole YouTube series focused on credible proof for why Nibiru claims are complete nonsense, but I guess that means diddly squat because at the end of the day I'm just fighting YouTube fire with YouTube fire, right?

I'm going to have to read some more sometime, but I think you might just have started to stir some beasts from their slumber - this topic could be growing some legs…

Swati Singh (guest) 07 Feb 2011 07:02

*credible proof for why Nibiru claims are complete nonsense*. One theory for beating another is great to observe and certainly juicy to pass time. There can not nothing credible than someone taking a tour of universe and reporting that he did not find Niburu anywhere in the sight. Lets put it this way. The theories and rumors gain momentum because too many people investing their energies either in supporting or debunking them, provide fodder.
The best remedy of fighting such issues is, educate your readers to ignore them.

3WMElliott 07 Feb 2011 10:56

The best remedy of fighting such issues is, educate your readers to ignore them.

No. Hell no. That's essentially giving up. That's not right, that's not education. Why would I tell somebody to ignore the nonsense when there is an ideal opportunity to point them in the right direction to research the actual science for themselves?

You say that debunkers only add to the problem, so are we meant to just let idiots run amock? Are we supposed to promote bad science by letting it happen? "Don't worry folks, the likes of Patrick Geryl are wrong, we won't tell you why, we'll just hope you agree with us instead of him, that sound good to you?"

Information is far more important than ignorance - even if it leads to more nonsense spewing forth, because that'll only generate more information in return.

Tomy2011 07 Feb 2011 16:44

One theory for beating another is great to observe and certainly juicy to pass time.

If you think so…

The best remedy of fighting such issues is, educate your readers to ignore them.

Doing this, you educate critical thinking, but this way is not even close the most efficient. Educate critical thinking is hard today. We have Blogger, Facebook, millions of websites claiming bullshit, YouTube, Yahoo! Answers… It's hard. Convincing (not true) information is everywhere today.

As Elliot said, we can't just educate critical thinking instead of doing our job here: scientifically debunk all claims made. This is what we do, and this is what we will do until 21st December 2012.

Swati Singh (guest) 13 Feb 2011 00:19

Great to see the genuine efforts. Although I have my ways to educate people. Agreed several paths can be taken to ascertain the healthy state of mind. Got to learn few things from the people here. Yeah, I did. Thanks for collaborating on this thread.