Is it the Moon?

[Shambling Shaman]

I reckon that all that's wrong is that some people weren't out there enjoying the moon, sitting round a fire, with good company in a beautiful place so the stress takes over and the frustration gets spread around.

Well, that's my theory

cheers,
Toddy

A very sound theory, hoping to get out this week for an over nighter.

Get Out More thats the answer.

 

[British Red]

Although interestingly I suggest that many and indeed most people don't require science to validate their beliefs. So many things that "science" has held to be true (from a flat earth to the safety of Thalidamide) have subsequently been proven to be false that there is some argument to say that accepted scientific theory is a belief system the same as any other - with schisms and sects and camps that contradict one another. And like many other belief systems it feels the need to seek converts and preach its "one true way".

Believe whatever you wish is my view - provided it hurts no-one else. We all have our mantras (E=MC2), our high priests (Nobel Laureats) our heretics (climate change deniers, string theorists etc.) and our catherdals (Cern). Unless you have repeated all scientific research personally, at days end it is still an act of faith that what it reports is true. Indeed there have been some notable reported cases where research results have been "de-bunked".

So whatever you believe - science, superstition, or religion, ultimately you are putting your faith in something else that you personally believe to be true but cannot, ultimately, know to be true.

Red

 

[Shambling Shaman]

Although interestingly I suggest that many and indeed most people don't require science to validate their beliefs. So many things that "science" has held to be true (from a flat earth to the safety of Thalidamide) have subsequently been proven to be false that there is some argument to say that accepted scientific theory is a belief system the same as any other - with schisms and sects and camps that contradict one another. And like many other belief systems it feels the need to seek converts and preach its "one true way".

Believe whatever you wish is my view - provided it hurts no-one else. We all have our mantras (E=MC2), our high priests (Nobel Laureats) our heretics (climate change deniers, string theorists etc.) and our catherdals (Cern). Unless you have repeated all scientific research personally, at days end it is still an act of faith that what it reports is true. Indeed there have been some notable reported cases where research results have been "de-bunked".

So whatever you believe - science, superstition, or religion, ultimately you are putting your faith in something else that you personally believe to be true but cannot, ultimately, know to be true.

Red

Well I can only say :You_Rock_

 

[Wallenstein]

Well no as the local forces somewhat smother them out.

Gravitation being an inverse square force means that the computer next to you is probably affecting you more, gravity wise, than the moon.

If Wayland and Aaron were to give each other a lovely big bushcrafty hug, they would exert over 12 million times the gravitational force of the moon.

The whole "moon makes people mad" vibe is a classic example of confirmation bias - we look for patterns we're expecting, but don't notice them when they're not around.

There's truckloads of research that shows 1) the moon physically can't have an effect, and 2) even if it could, our behaviour doesn't change at full moon anyway.

But if a non-scientific weltanschauung helps people get through another crazy day on planet earth then fair play to 'em.

 

[gregorach]

Although interestingly I suggest that many and indeed most people don't require science to validate their beliefs. So many things that "science" has held to be true (from a flat earth to the safety of Thalidamide) have subsequently been proven to be false that there is some argument to say that accepted scientific theory is a belief system the same as any other - with schisms and sects and camps that contradict one another. And like many other belief systems it feels the need to seek converts and preach its "one true way".

Believe whatever you wish is my view - provided it hurts no-one else. We all have our mantras (E=MC2), our high priests (Nobel Laureats) our heretics (climate change deniers, string theorists etc.) and our catherdals (Cern). Unless you have repeated all scientific research personally, at days end it is still an act of faith that what it reports is true. Indeed there have been some notable reported cases where research results have been "de-bunked".

So whatever you believe - science, superstition, or religion, ultimately you are putting your faith in something else that you personally believe to be true but cannot, ultimately, know to be true.

Red

Well, scientists never believed the Earth was flat. Eratosthenes calculated its circumference to a remarkable degree of accuracy in the 3rd century BCE.

It's true that science is far from perfect, and doesn't always get things right first time. The difference between science and all the other approaches is that science has an in-built mechanism for finding out when things go wrong and correcting them. Which is how we now know that thalidomide has serious side-effects...

You cannot ultimately know anything to be absolutely true, ever. The best you can manage is to know what seems to be true, given the best currently available information and understanding. Truth is a moving target. But only science even bothers to ask whether we're getting closer to it - all the alternatives simply assert their version of the "truth" and then change the subject.

And of course, the other great thing about science is that it can produce useful results. For example, did you know that GPS only works because we understand the General Theory of Relativity? So given that it clearly does work, the theory can't be too far wrong.

 

[spiritofold]

The closer you are to the earth, the more you notice how symbiotic it and everything else is. Take the moon away and what will happen? Will it affect us?

 

[gregorach]

Well, having a large, close moon stabilises the Earth's axial tilt. Take the Moon away, and it starts wobbling all over the place, causing serious climactic instability. You probably wouldn't notice it on the scale of a single human lifetime, but long term, it could make the Earth virtually uninhabitable for all but the simplest organisms,

 

[sam_acw]

Air pressure affects mood too, as does the quantity of sunlight.

 

[Tadpole]

The closer you are to the earth, the more you notice how symbiotic it and everything else is. Take the moon away and what will happen? Will it affect us?

No tides, and no light to go poac.... walking by. Also little to rhyme with june and spoon

 

[spiritofold]

Its one of those things thats so kind of kooky to some people, but in the minds of others is quite rational! My personal belief is that when theres a full moon i become a moody beer swilling sod, unless of course im in good company to "channel" my moods!!!

Andy >>>>>--------------------------------<>

 

[British Red]

Well, scientists never believed the Earth was flat. Eratosthenes calculated its circumference to a remarkable degree of accuracy in the 3rd century BCE.

Surely that one person believed the earth to be round does not prove that all people or indeed the subset of people who are, or claim to be, scientists did not believe it? I venture to suggest that I could quote another name who subsequently DID claim the earth was flat

The difference between science and all the other approaches is that science has an in-built mechanism for finding out when things go wrong and correcting them. Which is how we now know that thalidomide has serious side-effects...
.

Well firstly I rather suspect that the side effects of thalidomide were detected due to a failure of scientific observation rather than because of it. Secondly of course other belief systems believe that they have a mechanism for knowing when things go wrong - indeed they have a variety of names for it - most of them omnipresent. I don't think that asserting something is safe up to the points the facts prove you wrong is a particularly strong validation of a belief system.

And of course, the other great thing about science is that it can produce useful results. For example, did you know that GPS only works because we understand the General Theory of Relativity? So given that it clearly does work, the theory can't be too far wrong.

An apple tree can produce a useful result too. Not in a scientific way but the result is useful none the less. Indeed the creationist viewpoint would argue that all useful things came to exist entirely becasue they are useful

You cannot ultimately know anything to be absolutely true, ever

Fantastic - we agree. We all have faith for a variety of reasons in a variety of belief systems - scientific, religous or personal. Given we accept that none of them can be known to be true, they all have equal validity which is nice.

Red

 

[Wallenstein]

Given we accept that none of them can be known to be true, they all have equal validity which is nice.

Red

A farmer who uses astrology to predict the weather may think his beliefs are as "valid" as his neighbour who uses the local meterological station, but the crop yields at harvest will suggest a different story.

Where it becomes more serious, of course, is when e.g. homeopaths claim their belief in the anti-malarial powers of H2O is as "valid" as a dose of mefloquine. There has to be a point where we are able to say (to all intents and purposes) "that view is wrong". Otherwise people get hurt and sometimes die, which is rather sub-optimal.

 

[Tadpole]

Surely that one person believed the earth to be round does not prove that all people or indeed the subset of people who are, or claim to be, scientists did not believe it? I venture to suggest that I could quote another name who subsequently DID claim the earth was flat

It was Washington Irving who wrote a fictional account of the voyages of Columbus that promoted the falsely held belief that the people of Columbus time thought that the world was flat.
Prior to that only a few people rejected the knowledge of a round earth, mostly religious zealots who actually went against both church and eminent scholars teachings. People like Eratosthenes, Strabo, Ptolemy, even the teaching of the church said that the world was round.

Well firstly I rather suspect that the side effects of thalidomide were detected due to a failure of scientific observation rather than because of it. Secondly of course other belief systems believe that they have a mechanism for knowing when things go wrong - indeed they have a variety of names for it - most of them omnipresent. I don't think that asserting something is safe up to the points the facts prove you wrong is a particularly strong validation of a belief system.

Thalidomide was developed as an antihistamine drug and uses mainly as a tranquilliser and painkiller. When first it came on the market, it was thought of as the wonder drug in the treatment of insomnia, coughs, colds and headaches. It was not until two years later that it came to be prescribed by doctors for morning sickness. It was never tested as an anti-emetic. Just marketed and prescribed as one, when it was found to have that affect on pregnant women. The fact it was withdrawn within a 4 years of it’s change of use, kind of says, to me, at least, that the scientific community was watching the results.

 

[gregorach]

Only going to tackle one point in this, as I'm getting way too obsessive...

Given we accept that none of them can be known to be true, they all have equal validity which is nice.

Red

So you're saying that the "belief system" which produced the computer you typed that message on is of exactly as valid as the TimeCube? Is that really what you're saying? Remind me never to ask you to wire a plug.

The fact that you can never be absolutely certain of an idea does not mean that all ideas are of equal validity, any more than the fact that you can't measure the length of a piece of string with perfect accuracy means that all pieces of string are the same length. For a more thorough philosophical treatment of the question, you might be interested in Is Science Just Another Dogma? and Yes, Virginia, There is a Real World!. I've had enough of philosophy club for today.

 

[spiritofold]

I can just picture you lot sat round a campfire "talking" about this one Of course, i would have nothing to say and definately would not argue!!

 

[Dan1982]

pops head in.......... :theyareon

 

[British Red]

The fact that you can never be absolutely certain of an idea does not mean that all ideas are of equal validity

Agreed but I suggest that the criterion or criteria by which the validity of an idea is judged is, at best, subjective to the inherant sympathies and beliefs of the assesor. Therefore the validity is inherantly subjective.

Many believe that science is utterly obsessed by the ability to achieve without being restrained by an moral framework. Too caring about "can I" and not enough about "should I" for example. They would argue that the validity of a belief system that created biological weapons, ecological destruction and mass extinction compared to, for example, a belief system that embraced a concept of absolute morality may be seen to infinitely flawed - subject to the individual values of the observer naturally.

Always fun to discuss

Red

 

[dommyracer]

absolute morality

As defined by....?

re: Thalidomide, there is a fairly simple reason that some of Thalidomide's side effects were not known prior to their manifestation - there was no onus on the company manufacturing the drug to test for them in order to get the drug into market.

Unfortunately, drug companies are businesses, and so won't go spending money on stuff they don't need to do to get their product to market.

Therefore it wasn't a failing of science, more a failing of the framework surrounding the testing necessary for commercial pharmaceuticals.

The testing and trialling that drugs have to undergo before approval these days is far far more rigourous, and side effects are much more widely publicised.

 

[Shambling Shaman]

Too caring about "can I" and not enough about "should I" for example.

This it only my personal opinion - There are some areas of research that should be left well alone.

And like the above quote some times Should I/We do this should really be applied against the "am I doing this for my own curiosity or for the good of all"??

This is again only my opinion.

 

[Wayland]

Snip>You cannot ultimately know anything to be absolutely true, ever. <Snip

Cogito, ergo sum ?