Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

help me make them believe we are stardust


turbotim

Recommended Posts

People who know very little tend not to want to learn more but to pretend to themselves and others that there is very little to know and that they already know it.

Like many teachers I spent a large part of my life trying to unpick this attitude so as to demonstrate that the more you know the more there is to know and the less of it you really do yourself know.

Olly

Definitely! At work I'm surrounded by co-workers who are 'experts' on football and the latest episode of Celebrity Chef Dog Swap. Talking to these people is a complete waste of time. Example: having been asked what I was doing at the weekend I said I was attending a star party. One of my colleagues asked if I could get George Clooney's autograph (yes, she was being serious). :)

I prefer to spend my evening looking at real stars!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him...". George Bernard Shaw (I had to look that up though!) :)

Intellectual snobbery is (at least) balanced by the snobbery of ignorance? :)

Amateur Astronomy has the potential to be a great leveler, where we can all forget (maybe even celebrate?) our "differences". Maybe one day I'll even believe in such stuff... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him...". George Bernard Shaw (I had to look that up though!) :)

Intellectual snobbery is (at least) balanced by the snobbery of ignorance? :)

Amateur Astronomy has the potential to be a great leveler, where we can all forget (maybe even celebrate?) our "differences". Maybe one day I'll even believe in such stuff... :)

Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with the ignorant, I just find those that are proud of their ignorance tiresome. My main "problem" in life is that I tend to be fascinated by everything, with the possible exceptions of football and accountancy, and I am perfectly happy with people who are interested in those subjects. What can get up my nose is an attitude which combines indifference to everything, combined with contempt of those who are interested in something in the world around them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Threathen ones worldveiw, often risks making that worldview come crashing down. Which will lead to anger and resentment. some are just not ready for the truth, it can depend how someone was raised. it can depend on schooling, and personal experiances, it can depend on a whole host of reasons, why people belive certain things that others do not. Like J Allen hynek ( a astronomer for the american airforce look him up ) for example beliving there is somthing to some, ( and he would urge SOME ) ufo reports over the years since the 40s. Thats another topic that can threaten a persons worldveiw, and like religion versuses science, it can create devides so great, it can actually lead to hate. its one reason i refuse to discuss such topics when they arise on here, closed minded goes both ways, belivers and skeptics alike. Untill that changes whats the point. I would likely steer clear, you might shake the can of worms more than human emotion is prepared for. we like our safe worlds im afraid, anyone who threathens to take that away, can often be seen as the enemy. Hynek for example lost many friends ( he also gained many ) for daring to go over to the silly forbidden side. such the idiot he was. or am i being sarcastic. well im not telling. so dont ask

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not your job to convince anyone of anything if they are not willing to listen. Unfortunately it sounds like it will have to be the price of admission for you to just let her be naive about where we come from....but as long as she isn't stoning cats or punching children then I don't see there being too much harm.......she is hot right? if she's hot then its ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, CN has a different tenor to it than SGL. I think it's because the community is larger and because there are more people there with a lot invested in the hobby (both money and time). Particularly for those lucky sods out west, who get >200 clear nights a year, no dew, and relatively easy access to dark skies. It's easier for it to become "your life" when you're observing 100 nights a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Threathen ones worldveiw, often risks making that worldview come crashing down. Which will lead to anger and resentment. some are just not ready for the truth, it can depend how someone was raised. it can depend on schooling, and personal experiances, it can depend on a whole host of reasons, why people belive certain things that others do not. Like J Allen hynek ( a astronomer for the american airforce look him up ) for example beliving there is somthing to some, ( and he would urge SOME ) ufo reports over the years since the 40s. Thats another topic that can threaten a persons worldveiw, and like religion versuses science, it can create devides so great, it can actually lead to hate. its one reason i refuse to discuss such topics when they arise on here, closed minded goes both ways, belivers and skeptics alike. Untill that changes whats the point. I would likely steer clear, you might shake the can of worms more than human emotion is prepared for. we like our safe worlds im afraid, anyone who threathens to take that away, can often be seen as the enemy. Hynek for example lost many friends ( he also gained many ) for daring to go over to the silly forbidden side. such the idiot he was. or am i being sarcastic. well im not telling. so dont ask

Good points, but I often cannot resist getting into arguments on more controversial issues. This was encouraged at my school by the Jesuit priests who taught religious education. One of them explicitly invited me to an extracurricular class, saying he would like to have an atheist with good arguments in the group. If you really take time to listen to the arguments of the others (and not seeing them as an enemy) you can learn a lot. Even if you remain unconvinced of their point of view, you can better understand them, and gain deeper insight in why you hold your own belief. With mutual respect there is no need to avoid difficult topics.

What is needed is the (ideal) scientist's belief that changing your mind when presented with new evidence or arguments is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much agree with your ideals Micheal. the response is sadly, ideals can be presented at face, but behind closed doors, lots of sniggering and laughter can be the order of the day. Not for one min suggesting you. But im talking generally here.

I could write for days why this is actually so, from the way we are raised as children, Schooling, to peer pressure from freinds family, work collegues. Goverments presenting evidence in a certain way. On the one side.

And the guy who claims to be talking to people from venus on a daily basis on the other.

Its not hard to see why, we, meaning you and me Micheal, are discussing this in such a way.

Either there really is no evidence of ufos ( and when i say ufos, im saying Alien spacecraft ) And God whatever, Nessie. ( Ill talk on the subject of ufos ) Or Actually such evidence does exist, and for the most part is being witheld. ( not in the case of God of course ) Or the evidence that is allowed in the public domain, will always be argued in such a way, that no matter how compelling the evidence actually becomes, a way around it can often be found, which satifies those whos worldview, will just not allow such a possibillty, that they could be wrong, that they could have been wrong all there lives.

It will mean conceding to those that were universally laughed at in unison with other respected collegues. A way will always be found to avoid accepting such evidence.

Even if the alternative theory is as unlikely or as absurd, as the original one being debated Micheal. So theres the rub.

Even if a ufo landed outside the whitehouse. Im sure there would be many, who would eventually suggest ( once they recovered from the shock of course ) That it had to be some kind of Goverment experiment on the masses, to see if new technology of 3d holograms created by the military ( and ill bet a whole load of programs on millitary hologram technology would be found to bolster there argument ) could be used to truly fool thousands of people. For what ever military purpose they would see fit. Rather than belive Aliens could exist ( many here belive aliens can exist on other worlds not a problem with that )

And that over billions of years they have learned to break the laws of physics as we know it ( many on here would have a deep problem with this one, suggesting our understanding of the laws of physics, says it just can not be ) And if it can not be.Then the evidence of the ufo landing outside the whitehouse, will have to find a alternative theory.

One that restores the status quo, Regardless if the theory is absurd as the original problem, ( problem is a good word here ) whats easier to belive a ufo actually landed outside the whitehouse. Or a experiment of unparalleled proportions was tried on the public to see if very expensive important millitary hologram technology actually worked. Which one would you belive ? if scientists gave you a way out, the day after you was shocked into slience, with a little resentment. knowing you had to face all those silly ufo belivers on SGL, with them now laughing at you. Im sure what would be easier to choose. im sure what would be preferable for the intellect, and the ego. Im not saying for one moment i belive in any of this. Im interested in a kind social Sciences. And i belive most of my comments are correct. So how do we really move foward Micheal. Not just saying we can move foward, thats easy. But really really move forward. I would suggest for many it is impossible. And even the responses to this call for social understanding ( and what happened to Allen Hynek ) will likely prove it.

I think this is one of the most bizarre threads I have ever read.

Fun............but bizarre

It is now ps Although im straying off topic, what im suggesting is central to what was suggested right at the beggining i belive. Especially the girlfreinds comments. Different subject being used to highlight social indifference. But thats what is the central problem here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First teach them how Hydrogen is converted to Helium in the sun. Since we started out as hydrogen we had to start building up the "heavier" bits at some time.

In the most simple terms we have:

4H --> He + E.

Hydrogen atom consists of a single proton, Helium atom

consists of 2 protons and 2 neutrons.

So the reaction can also be looked on as: 4P --> (2P+2N) + E.

A more detailed version is:

Step 1:

H + H --> (D) + (e+) (n )+ 0.42MeV

D = Deuterium = (Proton+Neutron)

e+ = Positron (e+ + e-) = 1.02MeV

(n = Neutrino)

The positron will annihilate immediately with an electron and releases 1.02MeV

Step 2:

D + H --> He3 + γ+1.02MeV

He3 = Helium 3 isotope, 2 protons and one neutron.

γ= Gamma ray.

Step 3:

He3 + He3 --> He + 2H + 12.86MeV

After that get them to work out themselves the fusion reactions to get to Fe (Iron)

Then they should understand how things other then Hydrogen came about.

Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr god made man on the 6th day so not sure where man came from stardust comes from :)

This was pretty much the similar outcome/statement Richard Dawkins came up against when he went to the US and tried educating people in the bible belt.:) - look on you tube where he speaks with a creationist.....(try not to pee pants with laughter)

I don't want to fall foul of the mods - as to stray this into religious debate. (if this post is not suitable please remove)

But to demonstrate how people can be forced down a certain path and be blinkered into not accepting anything that we see as reason as it conflicts with their beliefs.

It seems your girlfriend is along the same lines.....challenging this doesn't seem worthwhile...let it be and enjoy your hobby and let her stay in her world....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with the ignorant, I just find those that are proud of their ignorance tiresome.
No disagreement here. :)

Eventually had to ask one of my "DIY expert" neighbours to STOP coming around to *watch* me building my observatory - There were other (stalking?) reasons too: But mostly, he would just SNEER (subtly and not-so subtly!) at *anything* I did, that he (probably) couldn't understand. I'll have a good go at "football & cars" (I'm a good audience). LOL. But he seemed to have *no* (positive) interests in anything at all! And frankly, I've heared all the "boffin" (astronomer?) jokes too MANY times now. Some "friends" - partners even, can simply be toxic to the psyche. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toxic to the psyche is excellent. Another nice one I heard refers to someone who excelled at stopping people from doing things by his negative attitude as "having the paralytic touch". I tend to just get on with it and enjoy myself. If someone wants to debate life, the universe and everything, I am happy to do so, if they do not want to listen, not my problem. Just save your precious time on earth for interesting people, and projects you feel in your heart are worthwhile. That is a good way to make life better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its surprising how much i dont debate life the universe and everything else. Its not that i dont ponder these things (everybody does occasionaly ) many do on here, and there are some deep discussions about many things on here that i would like to join in with.

But the opposing view is not just a opposing view. Not when certain subjects are breached the two biggies are religion and ufos.

Its very difficult to debate with most, that will present themselves as a friend in the open. But will ridicule behind closed doors.

And because i know thats how it is, and even why it is. The actual very positive act of debate, will ultimately always become a negative. Not that i dont think thats a shame. But it is what it is.

Theres nothing anyone can do about that, its just human, nature. Like the posters girlfreind. In many ways astronomers are just like her. Saying to people dont be so gullable. She can be condemmed for that.

But When it may be something that they feel uncomftable debating in a positive way. Then its fine to have that attitude, why ? well of course, the im wrong your right mentality. Under those circustances its socially acceptable isnt it.

But of course why should one debate fairies thats ridiculouse. Allen Hynek for example may debate there really is more evidence for ufos than fairies, no need to be so condeming, and so self assured.

Yet that particular subject gets so much derision on sgl its as if we might as well discuss if faries exist ?

Im sure Hynek would refute hes gullable enough to belive in fairies If he was alive. But hes background, and scientific understanding. would suddenly mean nothing, to those that feel we might as well debate fairies, rather than say God Or Aliens being able to breach our understanding of physics, and actually reach us, from far far away. Or another dimension

when i see that kind of thinking and behaviour, ( i see it all the time on sgl ) it rather reminds me of a superior smug school bully, who is so sure of himself and life and the universe, that anything outside of that is not just ridiculose.

But also deserving of derision.

No body will be spared that derision im afraid. Not even a scientist. Or astronomer. Or some one of sound mind and reason.

The derision itself is unavoidable. And Astronomers of the like of Allen hynek. highlight this fact so strongly. That the social science reasoning behind this phenomena. Tells us we are bound by own own beliefs, so strongly, that to challenge those beliefs, is to challenge our very own self. outside of emotion, and ego, and worldview.

How difficult is that ? i suggest its difficult for me, you. everyone on here.

Even the posters girlfreind. which got me thinking about social belief systems. and peoples reactions to them. Untill we are no longer pawns to our own way of reacting to beliefs, that do not intellectually coincide with our own. There can be no debate. I often see people try to debate God and ufos on here.

And i cant help but think of everything i have said here, will make it so futile.

As to be completely and utterly pointless. Not because there isnt evidence. But because just like the ufo landing outside the whitehouse problem. If a explanation was given to the newspapers the nexday. That it was a goverment experiment, a hologram test if you will. Then most would rather choose to belive that, than accept they have been wrong all there lives. This not just debate, its our emotions our childhoods, our egos. our worldview, and our toxic psyches lol.

Dont mess with my psyche or there will be trouble. For the most part its safer and a easier life not to. Its not important if one actually belives in ufos or god. when one discusses it. Whats important is how strong a particular belief is to ourselfs. and how we react and interact with those with a opposing view.

Be it beliver or skeptic, is irrelevant. The out come is always the same. For a species of such intelligence, im often amazed how slaves to own self belief we actually are. Even if evidence ever comes along to contradict that belief. it just hurts too much to concede doesnt it. Even if conceding may even be the sensible. or scientific thing to do. It just would never go down well, no matter what side of the fence we all sit. regarding the two biggies GOD AND UFOS. The real idiot is the one who after ive said all this, says, show me the evidence for God or the ufos coming to earth. ( hitting a nerve reverts us back to emotional responses ) Talk about miss a hundred points. And is exactly the kind of social slave i am refering too. I hope at least some deep thinkers out there will think about this. And dont worry im a social slave too. you should see what my missus makes me do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure i follow your point, are you saying we shouldn't seriously debate the big questions because people are so entrenched in their own opinions that it makes no difference, even when presented with evidence to the contrary?

I'd change my opinion on UFOs or gods were i shown compelling evidence, although it's true there are many who don't or won't budge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure i follow your point, are you saying we shouldn't seriously debate the big questions because people are so entrenched in their own opinions that it makes no difference, even when presented with evidence to the contrary?

I'd change my opinion on UFOs or gods were i shown compelling evidence, although it's true there are many who don't or won't budge

Yes effectively im saying theres little point for most people to debate. When really it just becomes a fight. I think its very telling that no matter what side some one is on. It really always becomes a fight, and a case of scoring points against one another, rather like a boxing match, and that even when a face of being open minded is presented. quite often, behind closed doors the ridicule still holds.

You can not debate with those that have, and forever will have made up there mind. The interesting thing i think, is that many with the strongest negative views, know far less direct information of the likes that Allen hynek knew. yet somehow they feel there expertise or understanding, is somehow greater or more complete to judge better than him ?

Clearly thats also exactly what im saying, i can see what im saying in things that are being said already lol.

It doesnt take long. It wont take long for the anger to kick in. I suspect im irritating a few people already.

suggesting our social beleif system itself is flawed and biased, before we could even begin to have a proper debate about any subject that is controversial, including religion

Like trying to convince the jews that jesus might be the saviour. it just isnt going to happen.

surely you all know that by now. when we see the snobby comments directed against those with different beliefs. There are many fools in this world true, but should everyone be tainted with that brush? should Hynek have ? my question is, im not sure he should be ridiculed. Or as easily dismissed.

Even if i dont agree with him. Because he was not some fly by night beginer asking did i see a satellite last night, or was it something else.

Thats ridiclouse. But many will taint him with the same brush, that some body will little experiance of astronomy will be tainted with.

Not because Hynek was inexperianced, or some kind of fool. But because he dared question the worldview that most on astronomy forums will hold dear.

If others choose to dismiss him so easily thats ok, but i suspect they are doing that for the same reason others not experianced will be dismissd. Because there knowledge is greater, only in the case of Hynek for example it most likely is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's very telling that the hard-core UFO crowd label themselves as "believers."

Actually, if they say they believe, they allow others to believe otherwise, based on the same evidence. If they said "we know they exist", they are implicitly denying the other position is worthy of consideration.

In this particular issue I would state I am open to the existence of UFOs and acknowledge some sightings do not have a satisfactory, mundane explanation. I do not at this point believe there is enough evidence to support the theory that these sightings are the result of alien spacecraft, but any such judgment contains an element of subjectivity, hence the use of the word believe.

Three things in particular tend to poison this particular debate: (i) some proponents keep on trotting out the same sightings again and again, even if they have been explained in a perfectly mundane way, (ii) people claiming to have alien fathers, despite the astronomical odds against aliens even having the same genetic triplet code (conversion table from base triplets to amino acids) as we do (roughly 1 over 64!/44!, or 2.1E-35), let alone the same genes, and similar patently wrong claims, and (iii) people on the other side using emotive words as "debunking" rather than far more neutral "explaining," resulting in equally acrimonious responses.

The first is just tiresome, the second gives ammunition for skeptics to ridicule serious sightings, and the third is just plain bad manners. This is a real shame, as the question of life elsewhere is one of the greatest and most exciting out there.

Regarding the other biggie Neil mentioned: I had hoped that through many bitter religious conflicts we learned (in Europe at least), that these conflicts were futile. Religious tolerance is a great good, and indeed a great necessity. I am afraid too many have not got this message. The SGL rules acknowledge Neil's point about that kind of debate.

(Note to mods: I trust a brief note on tolerance to other beliefs is within the rules, otherwise feel free to remove).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't even aware of: J. Allen Hynek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Good bloke? :)

Dunno about UFOs though. (How did we get there?) LOL. This struck a chord with me:

"Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is".

I can't get into this "new age" (astrology, whatever) bashing and shouting "nobber". <sigh> I think science is it's own best advocate - Albeit it may require a modicum of assistance sometimes. LOL. I cannot recall discussing "religion" with most physicists. They seemed hard enough to divert from their ONE all-consuming passion... [teasing] :)

"Critical thinking" is proof against most things? I occasionally think I'm getting somewhere on that one! <G> But such was not without a modicum of *reading* on the subject. (I still find) It's easy to get seduced by ideas of others - These days everyone (popular astronomers) has LOUD [internet] opinions on "stuff". Some perhaps not particularly WISE... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure ridicule should be excluded from scientific endeavours...

As long as it doesn't become discourteous or unpleasent.

Wasn't Einstein ridiculed :)

I could mention others but - I think it is almost paramount to have ridicule to spur people on with their own convictions - rather than give up and conform....

Lets face it possibly no America - if it weren't for ridicule and Columbus setting out to disprove doubters that he could sail west and end up in china seas....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from critical thinking (and that critical attitude should include a critical attitude towards your own dearest ideas (critically :))), you need to teach people that winning is not the point of debating, learning is. When you "lose" a debate you often gain more insight than if you win it.

This I think chimes in with the observed difference between SGL and CN. I have many American friends who seem to be far more focused on winning than is typical of the attitude here in Europe (though seeing some parent "cheering" their children on at sports events over here can be thoroughly embarrassing :)).

My wife was an exchange student in the US for a year. She played tennis for her school there and on one occasion had to face a girl who was simply a much better player. Two things can happen when you are outclassed by your opponent: (i) your own game goes to bits, or (ii) you raise your level of play. In my wife's case the latter happened, and though she lost, she was thoroughly pleased with her own performance. In her own words, she had never played so well, and did things with the ball she did not know she could. Her American friends and the people she stayed with (great people BTW) were totally confused. They expected her to be in tears for having lost. To say you enjoyed the game when you were beaten was new for them.

I am not trying to bash the US, but there is more of a focus on winning in their culture than there is in the Netherlands at least. Being competitive is fine, but there are areas in which winning (or even defining what constitutes a win) is totally missing the point. I think a more relaxed attitude to debating can be learned, and should be taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice quote from Niels Bohr:

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough. "

Ridicule is part of human intercourse, and sometimes just constitutes pointing out the ridiculous conclusion you obtain by a certain argument. Ridicule is an essential spice of a lively debate, but too much can leave a bitter aftertaste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.