/sci/ - Science & Math

Bump because I know you guys are watching it and trying to come up with feeble refutations.

>>3577539
Yes it can:

"Utter horseshit."

lol@"Spirit 'Science'"

>>3577555

>Ad hominem attack instead of an actual argument
>Exactly what I would expect from someone insecure about his own knowledge.

I've sure been told!

"electromagnetic null zone" lol WUT

>>3577562
>baseless response
>exactly what I'd expect from someone blinded by ego

/r/ing actual sources other than someone stating myths as facts.

>>3577562
They've not backed themselves up sufficiently.
Furthermore, they call what they do "science".

FUCK. THAT. NOISE.

At least most religious people don't have the audacity to call their claims "scientific" in any way!
I think if you make retarded-ass claims, don't back them up sufficiently, and claim them to be science, you should be laughed at. Just like New Age medicine and Feng Shui.
I'm not against you believing it at all, just don't say it's "science".

>>3577571

That's the whole point, you dolt. As spirit scientists we try to explain things that science hasn't had an explanation for yet. We're trying to CREATE sources.

>>3577562

there is nothing there to refute. There are no empirical statements in that Word Salad.

>>3577583

"Spirit Scientists"

Sounds like Christfags to me bro.

>>3577583
I know you're trolling but...

Where are your experiments? Where are your studies? Where are your dissertations, your philosophers? Your reasoning?

is this some kind of joke?

what an elaborate troll
15/10

>>3577596

How can you test history? These are events that happened when we weren't totally disrupted, using abilities we no longer have on a general basis. The point is that we used to have them; we can't test what we don't currently have.

Comprehension.

>>3577577

Since when are you the authority on what is allowed and unallowed to be called Science?
Your pretentiousness wont increase credibility of your arguments you know.

oh shit bro animations must be a fact.

>>3577610

Not me, but thank you.

>>3577602
Fair enough.

But what about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buQzRtkAMN8

This isn't about history. These are claims that're being made now. How is a scientific claim made without reason, experiments, studies? It isn't.

Come on, son. You've got the ancestor of the clinical trial in the Bible. That's science. You've got Democritus speculating about the atom. That's science. You've got Avicenna and Omar Khayyam doing math stuff. That's science. You've got Newton INVENTING CALCULUS and doing a bunch of physics. That's science. You've got people using reason and doing tests. That's science. "Spirit Science" is none of this.

I'll at least be nice and say I was trolling. I don't believe any of the OP video... in fact, when I saw it I had to go sleep for a while to clear my head of the idea that some people believe this garbage to the death and claim it to be science.

As someone who graduated college with a degree in Psychology (real psychology, i.e. behaviorism; not the other 90% of garbage thought up since the cognitive revolution in the 70s), when someone says something is science and it clearly isn't, I want to shoot myself.

where do i learn these facts from the video

>>3577646
Are you the same guy I was talking to?

Nice troll.

Of course, we all knew it all along. I know that there are religious people on /sci/, but no one is this bad. At least, I hope not.

watch 12:3 its even worse
>Thoth created tablets through alchemical transmutation to tell us about the christ consciousness grid.

>>3577646
>a psychfag
>trolling
as if that isn't new

>>3577662

These spirit scientist guys are embarrassing to the entire human race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfzwJwPIOO0&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

IT HAS ALIENS TAKING OVER THE EARTH OH GOD

also
ancient aliens

>>3577682
Hey, don't discount ancient aliens entirely.

I mean, yeah, it's filled with total retards who've no idea what they're talking about... and it's 99.99% certain that we've never encountered any extraterrestrials... but... some of their ideas make sense.

>>3577539

.... I fucking love this. This could be awesome inspiration for a fantasy show.

Not science, though.

I used to live with someone that believed stupid shit like this

>OMG ALCHEMY IS REAL
>OMG NIBIRIU IS GOING TO HIT EARTH
>OMG I CAN ASTRAL PROJECT
>OMG SCIENCE IS CORRUPT AND WRONG
>OMG CHEMTRAILS
>OMG NWO
Needless to say, he was good facepalm fodder.

>>3577539
sure it can, it's a triforce
  ▲
▲ ▲

At the risk of sounding FULL RETARD, is there ANY evidence for global consciousness?

That second video that was linked said something about a scientific experiment being done about showing a closed circuit TV show for face-finding in a picture, and then it was shown to people in another continent and all of a sudden they performed better.

Wow this is some scientology level bullshit. Actually no I take it back scientology isn't this bad.

>Thoth
>Land of (phlegm)
>Atlantis
>Nakals
>Murkaba
>The Great Void
>Emerald tablets
>Troano Document
>electromagnetic null zone
>magical memory loss
>higher dimensions
>900 year life spans
>Island of the Sun
>Thoth, Ra, and the Ascended Masters
>Flood of Noah
>Indigo and Crystal Children
>Super-psychics
>Consciousness grid
>Giant humans
>Metatron
>Archangel
>The Power of the Gods
>Secret underground city
>Tat Brotherhood
>Protectors and Keepers of the Sacred Temples
>Very little proof for what I'm about to say (no kidding.)
>The Flower of Life
>Sacred Geometry
>Magical bullet-proof wall


Thankfully, science doesn't have to disprove all the bullshit some kid spews.

>>3577539
>>3577562

I'm honestly not mad at people being a bit confused about what constitutes rigorous science, since what constitutes sufficient evidence varies based on context. However, there's a difference between calling merely mysticism-inspired design principles a science and .doing so while also saying it does things science cannot. Presuming any part of this is legit*, I suggest taking the more subtle approach of taking your ideas as being metaphorical principals used to aid in design, like is done with Feng shui, only making bolder claims after developing technology that works reliably despite requiring your theories to be correct to function, and still being rather conservative of how much you claim is verified.

One problem with the culture currently surrounding science is a tendency to presume there is only one context something may be evaluated in. Thus, we are recommended to avoid categorizing organisms by traits other than genotype, using the word organic to mean anything it meant before organic molecules were named for a trait they later proved not to have, and treating animals as though they had more intelligence than the absolute minimum that even has a the slightest change of explaining their behavior, despite the fact that such things are only problematic within specific fields of research. Thus, be very careful how you describe your claims when making them formally.

*And I do so for the sake of argument, mad science, and love of well animated cartoons. Speaking of which, please please please try to get that guy to make some regular cartoons again, I liked the one where he got in trouble for messing with his sister's toys.

>>3577662
He seriously gets into that kind of stuff? I only watched a bit of the earlier ones with chakra and energy stuff, but really, going through a ton of alchemy just to make some tablets? Not just drawing some shaped in clay or stone? Not even making scratch holograms? Unless those "tablets" were something along the lines of what we call tablet computers, that's just rubbish. If they are, then I don't see a reason not to think it's just an archaic way of saying "we used chemistry to make computers for using the internet". But then I don't think they could have made that without leaving better evidence behind of such technology.

>>3577912
>since what constitutes sufficient evidence varies based on context
I'd say sufficient evidence backs up a previously made falsifiable claim. 99% pseudoscience does not make a falsifiable claim.

>>3577709
Dude, alchemy is real. It's just called "chemistry" now.

>>3577967
99.99% of humans don't make falsifiable claims.

>>3577984
That leaves 600k rational people.

>none on 4chan.

>>3577967

This is true. I suppose what I meant to say was that what is considered a useful concept depends on context. That is, in fields where making mistakes is sufficiently acceptable, it's fine to use ideas based on guesswork first and form a solid theory later. Thank you for making the correction.

>>3577984
>>3578004

You would sound more impressive if your tripcode didn't give away your samefagging.

>>3578119
You mean if I tried to lie to you?

Doesn't sound very impressive.

>>3578134

It was just that the way you said it made it look like you were refuting yourself or something? Though now it looks more like you were just continuing your sentence, Even if you were, that's not a bad thing to correct yourself. Sorry.for the poor accusation.

>you will never be a Crystal Child or Super Psychic

>spirit science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tim5nU3DwIE&feature=related

Sounds like a mix of all the religions, its an entertaining story, but none the less just a bunch of "coincidental" things patched together to seem true, just like this 5 consciences and 5 statues in Egypt

>>3577583
"Wow, thats so interesting. But honestly, I'm having trouble believing it, any reliable sources I could take a look at?"

"Sure dude, me! I created it."

Spirit science, fuck yea.

reminds me of listening to tool while on ambien for a couple months

very wishful thinking

>>3577634
>NEWTON INVENTED CALCULUS
>nope.jpg
>newton discovered the laws and systems that were already present
>semantics i kno but just grinds my gears

>>3578474
What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you fucking stupid or something? Calculus is a type of mathematics. Newton invented them. Do you even into calculus?

>>3578567
>Believes Newton didnt steal calc
<IShYDDT

>>3578598
Pic related

Two things:

-Why is it that a hokey psychic channeler was able to predict the appearance of a polar shift?

-Why do these bullshit sacred geometries show up everywhere and why did people start drawing them?

Those are some of the only things this guy has said that make me wonder. Like, a staggering 90% of everything else is bullshit.

>>3578567
>>3578633
You two are idiots. There is no one person who "discovered" calculus. Leibniz and Newton get the credit usually. Why? They made largeish contributions, and, more significantly, because physicists, philosphers and mathemeticians (in that order) are credit whores. Archimedes basically did calculus almost 2000 (two thousand) years before wither of those.

OP's video is 0% believable, but it's very entertaining and creative. I'm actually surprised at how clean and organized the information was presented, given its ridiculous claim.

It would certainly make our existence a lot more colorful and lively if it were all true. Very imaginative.

What the fuck am I watching?

>>3578749

>OP's video is 0% believable
[citation needed]
Unfortunately it is much higher than that (and you look foolish for making baseless claims, btw) because many people buy into this bullshit due to the promises and good feelings it provides... just read some of the comments.

That was a better explanation than religion. But still completely unverifiable.

Guys. What if we took the claims about chakras and shit that can actually be tested...

...and tested them? You know, experimented to see if exposure to different wavelengths of light affected a person or somesuch.

i'm pretty sure that video was made by nargles.

>big statues
>must be in 1:1 scale
>statue of liberty? level 5

>>3579390
Because the data can be written down to a massive multitude of reasons for why people react in such a way.

>>3580051

Even if that is the case, it'd be worth investigating. If people did indeed react in a certain way, you could test it experimentally and find what the key component(s) are. Maybe provide mankind with a benefit somewhere, if you isolate its effects chemically.

Or it could all be bullshit and the data will show as much.

>Hurr durr i'm gonna make some horseshit up and call it "spirit science"
>Hurr who are you to say what is and isn't science
>hurr what's peer review?
>Hurr what's empirical date?
>HUURRRRR DURRRR

Fuck you, you fucking faggot.

>>3580078
Then do it. If the experiments done in the past on mind control, electromagnetic fields and so on don't suffice, go investigate.

I'll just say that the people who appear to dedicate their lives to practising this kind of crap don't seem to have any success with it. Beyond creating money from gullible people and promoting themselves with videos, that is.
There's a lot more promising things to research, if you're clever and dedicated enough...

>>3580099

I don't disagree that people like this are either deluded or charlatans, typically, but I've never been one to tut at folk medicine.

Not because I believe it possesses special powers, of course, but because it's the result of accidental trial and error testing of people over the centuries. For example, at least two civilizations discovered urine was an excellent shampoo because of the ammonia it contains (with no way of knowing the latter, or even the former at first glance). Foxglove has been used to make herbal teas for ages and, it turns out, it does have medicinal properties. Aspirin was developed from chemicals found in willow bark, which had been known as a curative for headaches as far back as the ancient Greeks.

Investigating this stuff, when something testable is provided, is a worthwhile endeavour.

This stuff may be bullshit, but when it provides a test, testing it leads to benefits, either by debunking it or finding something new.