PDA

View Full Version : Podcast: Astrology and UFOs



Fraser
2007-Jun-04, 09:44 PM
While Pamela's away at the American Astronomical Society meeting, we brought in a special guest to help debunk some of the pseudoscience that people mistake for astronomy. ...

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/06/04/podcast-astrology-and-ufos/)

Berek Halfhand
2007-Jun-05, 12:42 AM
Thank you Fraser for the excellent Podcast. I just wish everyone out there was as open minded and logical about these things. Unfortunately many people base judgement largely on emotions, which as was mentioned in the podcast is something we are hard-wired to do.

Sometimes this can be a good thing, such as for survival in general, but not so much for modern scientific research. It is hard to see past one's emotions and the "ease" of your feelings, and it is hardest of all to say "I'm wrong".

John Mendenhall
2007-Jun-05, 05:08 PM
Thank you Fraser for the excellent Podcast. I just wish everyone out there was as open minded and logical about these things (SNIP), and it is hardest of all to say "I'm wrong".

Oh, the last is too true. An excellent podcast.

Jerry
2007-Jun-05, 07:55 PM
Good show, Frazer, even without Pamala (and her very sexy voice).

The unfortunate paradox, is the inability of scientific methology to discern the significance of one-time events: We can only know if the tree fell, if someone is in the forest.

If an alien did pay a visit to some obsure place on earth, and left no obvious evidence other than the eyewitness accounts of a very few individuals, the scientific community would almost certainly conclude the event did not occur.

It is interesting that Carl Sagan was a very good debunker of ET events, at the same time he was a strong advocate of searching for alien signals in space.

There is a similar problem with one-shot scientific data: How significant is it that the Deep Impact probe found lots of dust and little water when it collided with the comet Tempel 1? Should the prevailing theory, that comets consistent primarily of primal Kuiper belt materials (water), remain the most likely explanation for the origin of comets?

And finally, there is the scientific no-show:

At what point - what level of probability - does the lack of observation of any gravity waves or Higgs bosons become a compelling case for rejecting theoretical arguments that they should exist?

Should the true skeptic be skeptical or optimistic about 'scientific' theories?