View Full Version : Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

04-23-2013, 09:22 PM
LLow IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice ow IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice (Part1)
Stefanie Pappas, Live Science Senior Writer


There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies (http://www.livescience.com/16746-conservatives-disgust-political-views.html), the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias (http://www.livescience.com/8189-individuals-rare-disorder-racial-biases.html) are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism (http://www.livescience.com/16257-racial-stereotypes-clothing-social-status.html) and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling datahttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html#) and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You (http://www.livescience.com/17852-unhealthy-personality-traits-neuroticism.html)]

"The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."

Brains and bias

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican (http://www.livescience.com/17534-life-extremes-democrat-republican.html)]

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races (http://www.livescience.com/8299-feel-pain-race.html)." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases (http://www.livescience.com/16339-culture-racism.html); Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood (http://www.livescience.com/3375-children-older-men-suffer-iq.html) corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

A study of averages

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence andsocial conservatism (http://www.livescience.com/16746-conservatives-disgust-political-views.html), the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.

Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.

"We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap."

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link.

04-23-2013, 09:25 PM
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice (Part 2)

Simple viewpoints

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb (http://www.livescience.com/16797-intelligence-smart-dumb-brain.html), liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naļve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place (http://www.livescience.com/18056-conservatives-liberals-biology-threats.html)'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs (http://www.livescience.com/14962-anti-prejudice-campaign-increase-prejudice-bias.html) encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.

You can follow LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/) senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas (http://twitter.com/#!/sipappas). Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience (http://twitter.com/#!/livescience) and onFacebook (http://www.facebook.com/#!/livescience).

04-24-2013, 07:20 AM
Interesting but probly baloney anyhow.
Racizm kan be good.
Prejudice kan be good.
Low IQ and education are probly different.
So, interesting, but probly baloney.
Psychology and psychiatry aint science. They shood be science -- they kan be science-- but they aint.
But for sure konservativs are shite -- that aint baloney.

WV Slim Shady
04-24-2013, 08:21 AM
Well them republicins and tea partyers is about the most ignornt people around.

04-24-2013, 08:38 AM
Racizm iz probly good -- likewize prejudice.
Ignorance aint good.
Lemmesee -- selfishness kan be good, but iz mostly bad. Lazyness kan be good, but often bad. Ignorance iz muchly lazyness. Lazyness iz mostly selfishness.
So, where are we, where are we going with this -- lost my train of thort -- duzzenmadder.
Anyhow all shellfish are selfish.

04-24-2013, 08:49 AM
There's no gentle way to put it:.....

People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb......

...children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults.....

These findings point to a vicious cycle.....

Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies......

Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change.....

.....attitudes that can contribute to prejudice....

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,"


Gayle in MD
04-24-2013, 08:50 AM
Interesting but probly baloney anyhow.
Racizm kan be good.
Prejudice kan be good.
Low IQ and education are probly different.
So, interesting, but probly baloney.
Psychology and psychiatry aint science. They shood be science -- they kan be science-- but they aint.
But for sure konservativs are shite -- that aint baloney.

Max, Max, Max.... neither racism nor predjudice is ever good, Max. I don't know how anyone could believe such a thing.

Also, the word, 'Science' describes the nature of study, and any study which uses theoretical models and data from experiments or observation, determines what is or isn't Science, not the subject.

Of course we can all just take tha path of least resistance, and just call everything baloney. Thank goodness Scientists aren't generally of that sort of personality. And speaking of personality, what study focuses on the causes, impacts and results of individual personality among people? Do you think that ones personality is just baloney as regards ones experience of life, ones values, decisionsm with no overall impact of personality over the course of everyones life? To suggest that psychology and psychiatry can be, should be, could be Science, but are not, is a huge contradiction my firiend.

04-24-2013, 09:53 AM
Gday Gayle -- good to seeya again.
I once went to a 2-day lecture by a psychologyst. He told us that no-one haz a personality. Or, putting it another way, everyone haz N number of personalitys, where N iz the number of people that u hav intercourse with.
Schizophrenix hav N + 1 personalitys.

But, i bet, if i googled, i would soon find a real study by a real scientist that showed that humans (and other intelligent life-forms) depend on prejudice for day to day survival.
Me myself i am racist. I like the different races. If i were king i would encourage racial purity -- but not in a biased way -- ie not like the KKK, or the Black Brotherhood (iz there any such thing)(praps i am thinking of the Black Panthers).

Unfortunately the word science nowadays allso deskribes non-science. Modern (non)science iz (or soon will be) on the noze -- it iz the epitome of prejudice and selfishness and lazyness. So, psuedo-sciences, like psychiatry, hav zero chance [with all due respekt to psychiatrysts who play a cue-sport and are doing very good work in their field].
Einsteinian relativity (SR and GR) and The Big Bang, and The Standard SubAtomic Particle Model, etc etc will soon be shown to be (and hav allready been shown to be) fakes and frauds and a pox on real science. [Read cahill and ranzan and crowther].
Paraphrazing Planck -- Science advances one funeral at a time.

04-24-2013, 10:19 AM
Scandals force psychologists to do some soul-searching
By Tia Ghose LiveScience
In the wake of several scandals in psychology research, scientists are asking themselves just how much of their research is valid.

In the past 10 years, dozens of studies in the psychology field have been retracted, and several high-profile studies have not stood up to scrutiny when outside researchers tried to replicate the research.

By selectively excluding study subjects or amending the experimental procedure after designing the study, researchers in the field may be subtly biasing studies to get more positive findings. And once research results are published, journals have little incentive to publish replication studies, which try to check the results.

That means the psychology literature may be littered with effects, or conclusions, that aren't real. [Oops! 5 Retracted Science Studies]

The problem isn't unique to psychology, but the field is going through some soul-searching right now. Researchers are creating new initiatives to encourage replication studies, improve research protocols and to make data more transparent.

"People have started doing replication studies to figure out, 'OK, how solid, really, is the foundation of the edifice that we're building?'" said Rolf Zwaan, a cognitive psychologist at Erasmus University in the Netherlands. "How solid is the research that we're building our research on?"

04-24-2013, 10:19 AM
Motivated reasoning
The high-profile cases are prompting psychologists to do some soul-searching about the incentive structure in their field.

The push to publish can lead to several questionable practices.

Outright fraud is probably rare. But "adventurous research strategies" are probably common, Nosek told LiveScience. [The 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]

Because psychologists are so motivated to get flashy findings published, they can use reasoning that may seem perfectly logical to them and, say, throw out research subjects who don't fit with their findings. But this subtle self-delusion can result in scientists seeing an effect where none exists, Zwaan told LiveScience.

Another way to skew the results is to change the experimental procedure or research question after the study has already begun. These changes may seem harmless to the researcher, but from a statistical standpoint, they make it much more likely that psychologists see an underlying effect where none exists, Zwaan said.

For instance, if scientists set up an experiment to find out if stress is linked to risk of cancer, and during the study they notice stressed people seem to get less sleep, they might switch their question to study sleep. The problem is the experiment wasn't set up to account for confounding factors associated with sleep, among other things.

04-24-2013, 10:20 AM
Fight fire with psychology
In response, psychologists are trying to flip the incentives by using their knowledge of transparency, accountability and personal gain.

For instance, right now there's no incentive for researchers to share their data, and a 2006 study found that of 141 researchers who had previously agreed to share their data, only 38 did so when asked.

But Nosek and his colleagues hope to encourage such sharing by making it standard practice. They are developing a project called the Open Science Framework, and one goal is to encourage researchers to publicly post their data and to have journals require such transparency in their published studies. That should make researchers less likely to tweak their data.

"We know that behavior changes as a function of accountability, and the best way to increase accountability is to create transparency," Nosek said.

One journal, Social Psychology, is dangling the lure of guaranteed publication to motivate replication studies. Researchers send proposals for replication studies to the journal, and if they're approved, the authors are guaranteed publication in advance. That would encourage less fiddling with the protocol after the fact.

And the Laura and John Arnold Foundation now offers grant money specifically for replication studies, Nosek said.

Gayle in MD
04-24-2013, 02:46 PM
As we all know, anything and everything can be twisted and convoluted.

Like everyone else, my opinions are mine, your are yours, but nothing could convince me that there is every any good that comed from predjudice and racism.

I believe that ones ability to accept others, as they are, and as they are not, indicates their own ability to love themselves.

I you cannot love and accept yourself, you can't love and accept anyone else.

As you know, I'm no spring chick, and I have studied psychology extensively through the course of my life.

There are principles, and the principles which have evolved from extemsive Scientific studies in the filed of psychology, have been around for a very long time, resulting from work by very brilliant men and women, and those principles are at work in your life, regardless of whether you believe in them, or not.

Life is all about people, and nature, of course. I find few things are as important to ones life, as the study of human behavior, particularly ones own, which is of course, the study of psychology, and IMHO, as I have written, a Science indicates the process, not the subject of any particular study.

Understanding human behavior is a tremendously valuable tool in ones life. It allows one to be at cause, in ones own life, rather than at effect. This view is something that Buddhists understand very well, and understanding it is a very powerful tool.

04-24-2013, 03:54 PM
Human behaviour iz important -- but it aint science. The best place to find bias iz inside a psychologysts head. I woz blown away by a science dogma paper which i karnt find right now. But here iz a tidbit i found on ethix.
Ethics and the Scientific Worldview

Strictly speaking, the terms “good” and “bad” used to describe ethics are purely subjective and have no place in scientific discourse. What is good for the fox is bad for the rabbit and vice versa. Scientists, on the other hand, are often thought to have the highest ethical standards. Why is that? Our standards are high for a very practical reason: our only mistress is truth. In science, we define truth as the relative agreement with observation and experiment. Good scientists try to be aware of the truths discovered by their predecessors and followers. We constantly are looking over our shoulders, making sure that unwarranted subjectivity does not enter our analyses and interpretations. We are to discover the truth and tell no lies. Any failure in that department gets around. Fudging data can result in disbarment from the scientific community. That gets to the guts of what ethics really are.

Ethics, as I define them, are maps that we use to negotiate the environment. Ethics tell us what is allowed and what is not allowed—based on historical knowledge. Most of us could use some help with this. At the same time, each ethical decision is an experiment performed on an ever-changing environment. Like all maps, these are humanly derived and not without errors and dead-ends. Despite the claims of indeterminists, ethics are never absolute, for they are always changing with the changes in the environment. Thus, under feudalism stoning an adulteress was considered ethical and necessary for enforcing marital loyalty in the community. Now we do it in more subtle and more complicated ways, although sometimes with a similarly unfortunate result.

Ethics also are used to control human behavior for subjective ends. In my opinion, those who shout the loudest about ethics should receive the most scrutiny by the rest of us. Whether scientists, guided by their definition of “truth,” should receive special attention is questionable. The truth is that ethics are determined by everyone. Your ethics are as good as mine (unless you have served jail time for actions I deem inappropriate). Of course, some folks are more influential than others—it is now considered, for instance, to be ethical to lower taxes for the rich and wages for the poor. Some poor folks may not think that is ethical. So you see how it works: ethics are purely subjective. On the other hand, we will see how certain ethical principles work out. Ethics ultimately involves the age-old political question suited to every economic system: Should we do it together or do it apart? Every answer to that question amounts to an experiment. With an environment that increasingly contains more people, what do you think the answer to that question will be in the current period? You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

04-24-2013, 03:59 PM
Mr. Puetz,
Thank you so much! This couldn't have come at a better moment, I literally just finished watching a fractal zoom on the order of e.214 [ http://vimeo.com/1908224?hd=1 ]. From the author's description, "a magnification of e.12 would increase the size of a particle to the same as the earths orbit! e.21 would make a particle look the same size as the milky way and e.42 would be equal to the universe." I was struck by the immensity of what e.214 could represent, and then your message arrived, and I saw it: the local mega-vortex!

Of course, this moment is not the ideal for that reason alone. I'm a student of physics and mathematics that recently changed major studies to philosophy. Forgive the boring details, but I'm compelled to express my disappointment and regret towards the scientific culture. I'm amazed at the level of dogma in physics today, which is in no doubt due to the complete blackout of education in philosophy for physicists (and I suspect, science in general). It's an intellectual death sentence to march forward without at least an awareness of the premises under which one works. Your mentioning of Kuhn's work, which I am familiar with, is a breath of fresh air. Truly, paradigm shifts are defined in large part by the premises (or scientific assumptions, ch.3) that get overturned, be they epistemological, metaphysical, etc. I had many conversations with professors and grad students; my anecdotal impression is that science is not simply ignorant of these things, science looks upon them with contempt.

In the past I was a computer science (engineering) student at a top 5 university. I went on to do software at a major laboratory, where I was exposed to all kinds of research, a lot of cool machines and a lot of very smart people from all around the world. I thought it was 'engineering culture' that bothered me, the focus on tangible results, ends over means, and so on. I quit my job after 3 years and returned to school, thinking physics (pure science) is what I was looking for. Unfortunately, upon my return, it was never clearer to me that our universities are recruiting grounds for these large entities like the national labs and military contractors. I don't mean to stir up political topics - but, seriously, how are we to pursue truth if our universities are infected by these kinds of interests?

04-24-2013, 04:19 PM
The Aging “Crisis” in Physics
The silliness of relativity and the Big Bang Theory (BBT) has been plaguing thinkers for over a century. Some consider this a “crisis” in physics. If so, this crisis is certainly quite elderly. I imagine the flat-earth and the geocentric theories also overstayed their heyday as well. Once established, traditional mythology tends to stick around—with the various religions being among the better examples. In science, however, bad theories are supposed to get the boot even before they can be published. So we ask the question: How can regressive physics survive, producing much of the remarkable results of the 20th and 21st centuries without its flawed foundations being discarded as ineffective?

This is one of the tougher questions. A proper answer would involve a lot of detailed work that surely would be worth a Ph.D. or two. I guess the short answer would be the usual one: Any theory will do. As I explained in one of my most popular blogs, “Theory Formulation,” even a grossly incorrect theory can get us out of the office, interacting with the external world. Recent exponential growth in these interactions has led to corresponding growth in data accumulation. Most of our observations and experiments have nothing whatsoever to do with relativity or the BBT. The ones that do, invariably are interpreted from the indeterministic viewpoint. All the same, the ever-widening, progressive exploration of the universe nonetheless impinges upon both theories. The one characteristic of the theories—aether denial—is being inundated by rapidly accumulating data to the contrary. Regressive physicists not looking for aether have found it anyway. This cannot be openly admitted, of course, because use of the word is grounds for academic dismissal. Physicists necessarily working under the old paradigm have learned to handle these findings adroitly, as Kemp (2012) says so well:

“Various models of the aether are being published in current scientific journals under different names: Quintessence, Higgs Field, Vacuum Expectation Value Energy, Zero Point Energy, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), and Ground State Energy. All are Aether Theories at their core, each with their own twist, but Aether theories never-the-less!”

All these are signs of the aging crisis in physics, which might have been averted altogether if Einstein’s (1920) public relations slip-up had not been swept under the rug: “There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." It is not quite that simple, of course. Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light actually requires the absence of aether. Once aether is reinstated as the medium for the wave motion of light, both relativity and the BBT will be but museum curiosities. In the meantime, physics will remain retarded, spending vast sums on all sorts of dead ends that nonetheless wrest huge amounts of data from the universe. The main difference between an incorrect theory and a correct one is the efficiency with which that is accomplished.

Indeterminists, of course, would not agree that there is a “crisis in physics.” It is what was desired all along. The foundational assumptions of regressive physics and of the greater society are similar. For instance, Big Bang theorists and most folks on the planet believe in creation, in opposition to the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Many have tried to ameliorate this by proposing mathematical singularities, parallel universes, multiverses, or other embellishments. These only serve to highlight their desperation. As scientists, they know they should believe in conservation, but they just cannot. It is an assumption after all. There can be no proof that conservation holds at all times and in all places. Besides, they have been told to avoid assumptions. Better to stick with what you believe to be empiricism. At least you won’t get fired for sticking your nose into philosophy, which mostly is defunct anyway.

04-24-2013, 04:36 PM
Censorship in Regressive Physics
As expected, we have had some recent negative critiques by various modern physicists on the Amazon website where UCT (see below for acronyms) is sold. So far, none has been substantial—mostly just complaints about TTAOS. These exchanges remind me of the one that was related by John Chappell as #3 in the founding principles of the NPA:


The reason it has not been is that almost everyone with a sufficiently bold and critical view of the subject to develop sound arguments against SR has not been allowed to flourish within the establishment. Great numbers of reliable accounts of such intolerance have been told.

One of the most recent comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since. I ran into it in 1985, when I read a paper arguing for absolute simultaneity at that year’s International Congress on the History of Science. After I finished, the Danish chairman made some courteous remarks about dissidents he had learned about in Scandinavia, and then turned to the audience for questions. The first speaker was one of a group of about 4 young physics students in the back. He launched immediately into a horrible tirade of verbal abuse, accusing me of being entirely wrong in my analysis, a simplification of the Melbourne Evans analysis–”Evans is wrong; you are wrong,” he shouted. He accused me of being way out of line to present my “faulty” arguments on his prestigious campus. When I started to ask him “Then how would you explain…”, he loudly interrupted me with “I don’t have to explain anything.” The rest of the audience felt so disturbed by all this, that the question session was essentially destroyed."

The complete list of principles is at: http://www.worldnpa.org/site/principals/. They are still good advice 20 years later.

04-24-2013, 04:40 PM
The complete list of principles is at: http://www.worldnpa.org/site/principals/. They are still good advice 20 years later.

As far as I can tell, the story above still is an accurate reflection on the deplorable state of physics at UC Berkeley, "the world's greatest public university." This hits me pretty hard since I was a visiting prof there in 1990, founded PSI in Berkeley, used UC libraries for researching TSW, and announced its publication there on March 13, 2007. That was the day Hawking gave his talk on his briefer history of time. All 3,800 freshmen were given free copies of the book by some kindly benefactor. They were supposed to read it during the holidays and get ready for the great man himself. A splendid gang of suits from the university guided him into Dwinelle Hall. Unfortunately, due to the deplorable state of his health, the entire presentation was just a recording--I didn't see him move more than a centimeter. To his credit, the recording did spend some time stumbling over what came before the Big Bang. About the only thing I got out of the whole thing was his quote from Woody Allen: "Infinity is a very long time, especially near the end." The questions and answers were also canned, so I never got a chance to ask him about the contradiction between the BBT and the First Law of Thermodynamics. He was quickly hustled out of the auditorium, surrounded by guards, so I never got the chance to give him my signed copy of TSW either.

I think the key to all this is John's implication that, like Woodward and Bernstein, all we need to do is "follow the money." One does not simply go to a Congress of indeterminists with hat in hand along with opposing assumptions that eventually will destroy their cherished, mutually agreed upon cosmogony. We should not kid ourselves. The monetary corruption in the electoral system also extends to our great universities. It is all bought and paid for.

What is to be done? We must realize that the revolution proposed by TSW and UCT requires great macrocosmic changes in society, which will come about very slowly. My prediction is that the BBT will be viable for at least another 30 years (TSW, p. 290). Our logic and their logic are founded on opposing assumptions. To the indeterminist, our assumptions make no sense; they are "delusional," "unbelievable," "crazy," "pseudoscience," and still to come: "crackpot." Regressive physicists have already conquered the intellectual (and financial) territory; now they only have to defend it. That's why they commonly say such things as "I don't have to explain it!" and "I don't have to read your unbelievable book!" Most are just repeating what Berkeley stuffed in their heads. What we must do is to continually point out the contradictions:

1. How could the universe explode out of nothing?
2. How could there be more than 3 dimensions?
3. How can a thing or a motion be both a particle and a wave?
4. How can a photon be massless?
5. If time is not an object, how can it be said to dilate?
6. Add more here.

There will always be a few extremely curious, especially young physicists who are working on these contradictions. Like the graduate students who switched majors to something more believable, they will be the ones most likely to seek solutions outside the Ivory Tower.

04-24-2013, 05:16 PM
Next week, about a hundred dissidents will be meeting at the University of Maryland to discuss the crisis in modern physics. This will be the 18th annual meeting of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, which is composed of retired physicists, engineers, and other independent thinkers who are not financially dependent on mainstream physics. Most simply cannot stomach claims that the universe exploded out of nothing, that there are more than three dimensions, that time dilates, and that we should believe much of the other nonsense promulgated by Einstein and his academic cohorts. Speakers range from the usual positivists and solipsists to a few univironmental determinists. There is little censorship of ideas, so everyone gets a chance to propose alternatives for getting out of what I call “Regressive Physics.” The NPA presents a smorgasbord of the philosophy of science. There is no party line, although about 80% of the members assume that there must be an ether. The quality of the papers varies from totally confusing to absolutely brilliant. This year, Steve Bryant and I are trying for the latter category with the following:

04-24-2013, 05:33 PM
From Rick Dutkiewicz:
Dr. Glenn,
I couldn't help but think of you when I read this quote.
It made me smile a bit, and I thought that I should share it with you.
Thanks so much for your great insights and down-to-earth revelations.
"These scientisms, as I shall call them, are clusters of scientific ideas which come together and almost surprise themselves into creeds of belief, scientific mythologies…. And they share with religions many of their most obvious characteristics: a rational splendor that explains everything, a charismatic leader or succession of leaders who are highly visible and beyond criticism, certain gestures of idea and rituals of interpretation, and a requirement of total commitment. In return the adherent receives what the religions had once given him more universally: a world view, a hierarchy of importances, and an auguring place where he may find out what to do and think, in short, a total explanation of man. And this totality is obtained not by actually explaining everything, but by an encasement of its activity, a severe and absolute restriction of attention, such that everything that is not explained is not in view."
—Jaynes, J., The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Mariner Books

04-24-2013, 05:36 PM
Why do you use the term "scientific philosophy" instead of "philosophy of science"?
Traditionally, the philosophy of science is studied and taught by philosophers, not working scientists. I know hundreds of scientists, but few admit to having studied the philosophy of science. Although mistaken, some of them claim to have no philosophy at all. All of them recognize that science can advance only by interacting with the external world through observation and experiment. They seem to view philosophy as too mixed up with religion and thus irrelevant for their work.

However, in view of the numerous silly so-called "scientific" hypotheses we suffer today (time as a dimension, banging universes, etc.), it is obvious that working scientists need to improve their theoretical foundations. Today's philosophy of science is a mishmash of conflicting presuppositions that have been of little help in cleaning up the theoretical mess left over from the 20th century. Perhaps by using the less popular term "scientific philosophy" we can at least put science first literally if not actually.

04-24-2013, 06:23 PM
In this article it has been claimed by the astronomers Stefan Gillessen, Reinhard Genzel, and Frank Eisenhaur of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, in Germany, that there is a black hole at Sagittarius A*.

I wrote to the trio of astronomers, challenging them on their claim for a black hole. Gillessen, spokesman for the trio, replied in two subsequent emails, and admitted the following:

1) that not only did he and his co-authors not find a black hole at Sagittarius A*, but that nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the many claims made by astrophysical scientists for black holes being found all over the place;

2) that although the astrophysical community routinely claims that the alleged black hole has an escape velocity equal to that of light in vacuum, the notion of black holes having an escape velocity is meaningless - because black holes have no escape velocity;

3) that the alleged infinitely dense point-mass singularity at the heart of a black hole is nonsense;

4) that he and his co-authors were, until my communication, entirely ignorant of the fact that the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution, and that Schwarzschild's actual solution does not pedict black holes.

Notwithstanding these admissions, Gillessen, Genzel and Eisenhaur published a paper claiming a black hole at Sagittarius A*, and black holes elsewhere.

Gillessen and his co-authors have now resorted to a veil of silence in the face of the scientific facts, which completely invalidate all claims for the existence of black holes and for their prediction by General Relativity. Since these admissions by professional astronomers are of great significance, and since he and his co-authors have failed to acknowledge the facts publicly in a true and honest scientific fashion, and since they have by their silence implicity condoned the suppression of the truth, I make the Gillessen et al communications public. The transcript of the communications are here.

Gayle in MD
04-25-2013, 12:33 PM
"Human behaviour iz important -- but it aint science."

You just told me that you paid no attention to anything I wrote to you with that one sentence.

As I tried to explain, it isn't the subject of study which defines what is or isn't Science. Psychological Science is the STUDY of mental life.

The SUBJECT of Scientific study can be anything, and everything.

You tend to make these broad sweeping statements, Max, throwing out everything including terms and definitions. OF course, psychology is the subject of scientific study. The only way you can insist that is isn't is to prove that no one is studying it, which isn't true, of course.

It reminds me of our other terminal disagreement, about what is or isn't a Nobel Prize. You expect your view of the subject, which references the past view, which has changed, to cancel out the current view of those who determine who gets one and who doesn't.

That of course is not the current reality of what is a Nobel Prize. It is now rewarded for a number of studies, and accomplishments. Not the views of a dead man.

04-25-2013, 04:54 PM
I woz pointing out that science in mainstream physics iz dogma -- the 10 or 11 laws of scientifyk enquiry are not followed -- high-priests control the gates -- einstein the bigbang blackmatter blackenergy blackflow cosmogony and the standardmodel rule.

For sure psychology iz (shood be) very important -- and for sure there iz some good science being dunn.
[IDEA] What we need iz a psyientyfyk study into dogma in science.

One good thing about psyience -- it aint got any dogma yet (that i know of) -- and no high-priests and gatekeepers. No, hang on a sec, i woz reading only last month that Noam Chomsky iz a high-priest and gatekeeper -- i kan send u the details of the problems he haz caused -- sociology here, anyhow one of the ologys.

So, anyhow, there iz little chance of there being good science in psychology etc -- az the earlyest (Dutch) stuff i posted pointed out.

And there aint never been aint and aint never gonna be a Nobel Prize for Krappynomix.

Alfred Nobel had the unpleasant surprise of reading his own obituary, titled The merchant of death is dead, in a French newspaper.
Alfred Nobel ( listen (help·info)) was born on 21 October 1833 in Stockholm, Sweden, into a family of engineers.[5] He was a chemist, engineer, and inventor. In 1894, Nobel purchased the Bofors iron and steel mill, which he made into a major armaments manufacturer. Nobel also invented ballistite, a precursor to many smokeless military explosives, especially the British smokeless powder cordite. Nobel was even involved in a patent infringement lawsuit over cordite. Nobel amassed a fortune during his lifetime, with most of his wealth from his 355 inventions, of which dynamite is the most famous.[6]

In 1888, Nobel was astonished to read his own obituary, titled The merchant of death is dead, in a French newspaper. As it was Alfred's brother Ludvig who had died, the obituary was eight years premature. The article disconcerted Nobel and made him apprehensive about how he would be remembered. This inspired him to change his will.[7] On 10 December 1896, Alfred Nobel died in his villa in San Remo, Italy, from a cerebral haemorrhage. He was 63 years old.[8]

Nobel wrote several wills during his lifetime. The last was written over a year before he died, signed at the Swedish–Norwegian Club in Paris on 27 November 1895.[9][10] To widespread astonishment, Nobel's last will specified that his fortune be used to create a series of prizes for those who confer the "greatest benefit on mankind" in physics, chemistry, peace, physiology or medicine, and literature.[11] Nobel bequeathed 94% of his total assets, 31 million SEK (c. US$186 million, €150 million in 2008), to establish the five Nobel Prizes.[12] Because of scepticism surrounding the will, it was not until 26 April 1897 that it was approved by the Storting in Norway.[13] The executors of Nobel's will, Ragnar Sohlman and Rudolf Lilljequist, formed the Nobel Foundation to take care of Nobel's fortune and organise the award of prizes.[14]

Nobel's instructions named a Norwegian Nobel Committee to award the Peace Prize, the members of whom were appointed shortly after the will was approved in April 1897. Soon thereafter, the other prize-awarding organisations were designated or established. These were the Karolinska Institutet on 7 June, the Swedish Academy on 9 June, and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences on 11 June.[15] The Nobel Foundation reached an agreement on guidelines for how the prizes should be awarded; and, in 1900, the Nobel Foundation's newly created statutes were promulgated by King Oscar II.[11] In 1905, the personal union between Sweden and Norway was dissolved. Thereafter, Norway's Nobel Committee was responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize and the Swedish institutions retained responsibility for the other prizes.[13]

Prize in Economic Sciences
Main article: Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank celebrated its 300th anniversary by donating a large sum of money to the Nobel Foundation to be used to set up a prize in honor of Nobel. The following year, the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded for the first time. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences became responsible for selecting laureates. The first laureates for the Economics Prize were Jan Tinbergen and Ragnar Frisch "for having developed and applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic processes."[40][41]
Although not a Nobel Prize,
it is intimately identified with the other awards; the laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize recipients, and the Prize in Economic Sciences is presented at the Swedish Nobel Prize Award Ceremony.[42] The Board of the Nobel Foundation decided that after this addition, it would allow no further new prizes.[43]

04-25-2013, 06:45 PM
That of course is not the current reality of what is a Nobel Prize.
It is now rewarded for a number of studies, and accomplishments.
Not the views of a dead man.
Nobel died in 1896.
The Foundling Farters are interesting -- they were all born in the same year, 1916 -- the lastest died in 1836.
Muhammed died in 632.
Jesus Christ of the The Holey Bible never existed -- scholars estimate that He woznt born in 6BC and didnt die in 33AD.

So, the Foundling Farters views died longer ago than Nobel's views, but not az long ago az Muhammed's views.
And Jesus's views were born in about 200BC to 325AD -- and up to praps 1700AD -- and havnt yet died.

Gayle in MD
04-26-2013, 02:34 PM
That of course is not the current reality of what is a Nobel Prize.
It is now rewarded for a number of studies, and accomplishments.
Not the views of a dead man.

Nobel died in 1896.
The Foundling Farters are interesting -- they were all born in the same year, 1916 -- the lastest died in 1836.
Muhammed died in 632.
Jesus Christ of the The Holey Bible never existed -- scholars estimate that He woznt born in 6BC and didnt die in 33AD.

So, the Foundling Farters views died longer ago than Nobel's views, but not az long ago az Muhammed's views.
And Jesus's views were born in about 200BC to 325AD -- and up to praps 1700AD -- and havnt yet died.

Max, WTF does Jesus, the Founding Fathers, or Muhammed, have to do with this subject?

Let's make a deal, OK?

When you and I have our debates, don't bring up religion, or any of the famous Gods. I don't find any of that stuff worthy of my attention in anny debate on any subject whatsoever.

Also, If some people are being rewarded NOBEL prizes, then they are NOBEL prizes, period.

If they weren't NOBEL prizes, the organization would sue the claimants for saying they had been awarded NOBEL prizes. They were and are, Nobel Prizes, awarded by that Foundation, or representatives of the Foundation, period.

Another favor.

Lets try to use current information in these discussions. You remind me of the Republicans, draggin' up a boatload of BS from over a hundred years ago, that has nothing to do with modern realities.

Nothing at all, whatsoever, is ever meaningful, nor relevant to me, if it involves references to Religious teachings and dogma.

Did you know the word gossip, is a root word for Gospel?

I don't believe anything that came from the mouths of a bunch of racist, misogynistic, mentally disturbed men, who blamed Eve for everything wrong that they say Adam did! Particularly when they are so called men dressed up in long dresses, LOL.

I can see right now today, what religious men dressed up like women, while degrading and oppressing women, are all about.

Nothing could make me have any respect whatsoever, for men like that.

Using them in your arguments, is just a waste of time for both of us because I'm not readng that religious BS, since my brain shuts right down when organized religion is brought into any discussion. I already went through my studies on all of that before I ever grew up! I was raised a Catholic. I went to Catholic schools, and belonged to both an Irish/American & Italian/American family, chock full of Catholics on both sides. The last thing I want included into any reasonable dicussion or debate, is anything that is culled from organized religion. OK?

Would you use a damn Ox and a plow to plant a field today, or a damn tractor!

Take care friend.

I hope our next debate will be a bit more "ON TIME" if you know what I mean.