Machina Dynamica

Zenblaster,
I think Csontos is playing a GOTCHA GAME. The only thing is he may be the only one playing. I don't hear any echoes. STICK TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORIGINAL POST is the name of the game I am playing and I think a few of us are there, thankfully.

Mapman,
I think I have to agree with you when you said, "A lot of (good) science fiction is able to get people to envision how things that would not seem possible or appear to be nonsense might in fact be possible. Bad science fiction tends to be less successful at achieving the suspension of disbelief or leap of faith needed. Bad science fiction might still be regarded as good fantasy though.

My opinion of MD is that it is bad science fiction, but maybe good fantasy. Its more in the "Lost IN Space" camp than "Star Trek". No monsters in rubber suits quite yet though!"

Zen and the Art of Debunkery (excerpt)

As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.

What is "debunkery?" Essentially it is the attempt to *debunk* (invalidate) new information and insight by substituting scient*istic* propaganda for the scient*ific* method.

1. Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

2. Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."

3. Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.

4. State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

5. If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not supposed to prove *any*thing.

Cheers, Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Okay. Has anything you've presented gotten past the "preliminary evidence stage" or are they all evidentially preliminary by nature and therefore relegated to the "Kingdom of Faith". Cuz then we're talkin serious "Hocus Pocus". You might want to get out your Ouija board.

"What is "debunkery?" Essentially it is the attempt to *debunk* (invalidate) new information and insight by substituting scient*istic* propaganda for the scient*ific* method."

When Geoff publishes anything remotely indicating having applied the scientific method to reach a conclusion, then this might apply.

SO far all I see is "scient*istic* propaganda", the very thing this statement would seem to warn against.

No surprises here.

The author, Daniel Drasin, is an interesting guy from what I read, a Hollywood type with an interest in the realm that lies outside of current scientific discovery. That's a big realm that includes a lot! Luckily, we have Geoff and MD to help show us the way!

Where are those new frontiers for better sound? Is there more to be heard than our mere human ears have heard or even that each individual has perhaps taken notice of to date? I believe there is.

My standard response to "scient*istic* propaganda" though is:

Yawn.....

But I will keep my mind and ears open still so that I might recognize when something new of potential value pops up. I'm very open to advanced concepts...as long as they make sense. What makes sense or not is definitely an individualistic thing and science may often have very little to do with that.

I suppose that's why we have a brain I would think, to use it to help figure out what does and does not make sense. There is no science without the human brain, but the reverse is certainly possible.

Then there is credibility. One might be willing to take a leap of faith and buy into an advanced concept that makes little or no sense if the purveyor has credibility.

If....

As the stomach turns.