Science > Physics > problem of "pseudo-science" and its followers on internet
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Dani" |
| Date: |
26 Nov 2004 12:41:21 PM |
| Object: |
problem of "pseudo-science" and its followers on internet |
hello, I've happened somehow to find some website
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ which is a very peculiar website,
having "princeton.edu" in its address it seems to be part of
princeton's website, but with "nooshpere" in the address, might it be
actually some other website? It's excessively suspicious in many ways.
not that I mind considering its content, but it actually is very
disturbing if the large following of discussion on usegroups about
this site is anything but satirical.
the subtitle is "registering coherence and resonance in the world",
which seems to be a ridiculous mish-mash of scientific terminology,
almost as if they were tossed from a hat of scientific terms, as is
the rest of the site. And in the "about" page it explains how it is
"an international effort involving researchers from several
institutions and countries" although finding some concrete examples of
these was apparently as mysterious as their claims - I didn't find it.
I might be wrong, since I don't know much about physics or
statistsics. But its reek seems to be exponentially exacerbated with
each additional line of garbage that is added (for a very short
duration) to my prefrontal cortex.
Can anyone knowledgable in physics verify my suspicion? If I had time
and the will I would trace down some obvious fraud, and examine how
widely it is believed in the internet, as it is interesting, and
rather frightening.
But it is remarkably hillarious, and should be examined carefully with
some coffe and muffins. Another example, running out of "donors and
sponsors" - the only place where any specific names are given, they
add that they have recieved contributions to their research from Dell,
in the form of a "substantial discount" on a server (a coupon?).
And who would have taken their time and why to compile such a thing,
which must have taken... several hours?
.
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: no thanks spammer |
26 Nov 2004 01:15:23 PM |
|
|
Dani wrote:
hello, I've happened somehow to find some website
.. .. .. which is a very peculiar website,
No way! A perculiar website on the internet??!?!?! Gasp!
Can anyone knowledgable in physics verify my suspicion? If I had time
Why? Are you just trying to get people to go to your website?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: no thanks spammer |
19 Dec 2004 11:46:38 AM |
|
|
I greatly thank Morituri-Max for his profound elucidatation. If only
Morituri-Max will be of such benign disposition as to divulge the basis
to his suspicions.
Morituri-Max wrote:
Dani wrote:
hello, I've happened somehow to find some website
.. .. .. which is a very peculiar website,
No way! A perculiar website on the internet??!?!?! Gasp!
Can anyone knowledgable in physics verify my suspicion? If I had
time
Why? Are you just trying to get people to go to your website?
The content of that website might be suitable only as an idea for a
science fiction story. Whether I have contributed in any way, beyond
increasing their website viewer count by 1, I think it should be clear
by reading the entirety of my posting, and the other topic/posting I
made (shortly after starting this topic) regarding that website, which
should take about 1 minute to do.
The problem with the analysis in
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html
and
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html#variance
seems to me
(a) that the data might be fraudulent. It would then ben necessary to
understand who is responsible for this, and for what purpose, as it
seems to be an academic project. It is also a rather big website.
(b) that the the the statistical tools used in the analysis have been
misused, or don't meaningfully model correlation in random number
sequences.
either way, I would definitely like to know the answer to these
problems. there is an article
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/16.4_scargle.pdf
by NASA scientist Jeffrey Scargle, which addresses problem (b).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: no thanks spammer |
19 Dec 2004 12:59:55 PM |
|
|
Dani wrote:
I greatly thank Morituri-Max for his profound elucidatation. If only
Morituri-Max will be of such benign disposition as to divulge the basis
to his suspicions.
I would if you had quoted anything so I knew what you meant...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
