DEEP in the basement of a dusty university library in Edinburgh lies a small black box, roughly the size of two cigarette packets side by side, that churns out random numbers in an endless stream.My favorite quote from the article:
At first glance it is an unremarkable piece of equipment. Encased in metal, it contains at its heart a microchip no more complex than the ones found in modern pocket calculators.
But, according to a growing band of top scientists, this box has quite extraordinary powers. It is, they claim, the 'eye' of a machine that appears capable of peering into the future and predicting major world events.
The machine apparently sensed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre four hours before they happened - but in the fevered mood of conspiracy theories of the time, the claims were swiftly knocked back by sceptics. But last December, it also appeared to forewarn of the Asian tsunami just before the deep sea earthquake that precipitated the epic tragedy.
Now, even the doubters are acknowledging that here is a small box with apparently inexplicable powers.
Dr John Hartwell, working at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, was the first to uncover evidence that people could sense the future.Okay, ignoring how fanboyish this article is, and how ridiculous its claims...what would happen if we "unlocked our potential" and started seeing the future? How would society change? God, there is a great science fiction book here somewhere.
Edit 2005/02/13 11:29 am: The BoingBoing article has been revised with a link from a reader to this investigation into the Global Consciousness Project. One of the best parts:
Another serious problem with the September 11 result was that during the days before the attacks, there were several instances of the eggs picking up data that showed the same fluctuation as on September 11th. When I asked [Dean] Radin what had happened on those days, the answer was:
"I don't know."
I then asked him - and I'll admit that I was a bit flabbergasted - why on earth he hadn't gone back to see if similar "global events" had happened there since he got the same fluctuations. He answered that it would be "shoe-horning" - fitting the data to the result.
Checking your hypothesis against seemingly contradictory data is "shoe-horning"?
For once, I was speechless.
2 comments:
Can someone please tell me why debunkers like Claus Larsen (skepticreport.com - posted by Heather Meadows ? sorry Heather) get so much exposure by pretending to practice science through innuendo and character assassination when they don't know a Z Score from a Chi Square?
The debunkers are like the creationist crowd: the scientific evidence contradicts their belief system, but they lack the skills to directly refute the science, and so must resort to pseudoscience and innuendo. These guys are on a mission to convince the public that the universe is a certain way. Their intentional manipulation of public opinion is not science; it is propaganda with an agenda.
Unfortunately, most people lack the math and science skills that are required to read and understand a scientific journal article. They too readily accept pseudo-science as truth when it is written in ordinary language dressed up as science, especially when it reinforces their belief system.
If debunkers are serious about questioning Dean Radin's science, they need to use appropriate scientific tools to demonstrate something like: 'based on our detailed analysis of the data (fig. 1), the variation in randomness preceding 911 had a likelihood of occurring by chance >.05,’ or some such.
Instead, Larsen calls some of Radin’s statements, “well known swill” and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Radin’s precognition methodology and how it applies to the spike in the data preceding the 911 event.
Think about it: are phrases like “well known swill” ever acceptable in scientific discourse to characterize the opinions of a researcher with whom one disagrees?
If the debunkers really have the goods and want to expose bad science, they should publish their findings in the scientific literature like real scientists.
Instead, debunkers like Claus Larsen and the Amazing Randy, who as far as I know lack any scientific credentials or training whatever, continue to practice their crackpot science with an agenda.
The debunkers are in the business of propaganda, not hard science. Don't be misled.
Thanks for the comment. This reads like a blog post--would you let me know where it's posted, so I can check out your stuff?
Also, while I don't mind whatever traffic your post might send me, it might be more fair to link BoingBoing, as I got my information from them.
Thanks again!
Post a Comment