Science Like No Other

[freeztar]

I'm just a little curious why the suggested test was not discussed as something to "put to the test?" To subject it to scientific method?

 

I think I can help clear this up for you, Jway. The reason no one here has run the test and subjected it to the scientific method is because it is complete hogwash. The predictions it makes are false from the very beginning. For example, it is claimed that people will see you in a more positive way if you are wearing white, rather than black. This might be true for a doctor, but would it be true for someone in the KKK?

 

Furthermore, the rant in the OP deteriorates into a money making scheme. It sounds like the testing has already been done and it's time to start making the big bucks by being positive role models by wearing all white.

 

Jway, I agree that there's no need for insults, but surely you agree, having read the OP, that the idea is ludicrous. If not, feel free to perform the experiment yourself and report back.

 

The OP claims strike me as outlandish, but as I reread OP, it is calling forth test. Sure it's saying other things, but seems like respondents on this thread are playing a game other than "scientific reasoning."

Again, it's just ludicrous to begin with. Let me quote the experiment:

here's a simple scientific test you can experiement

with.

 

wear black clothes and go to a busy mall

you will notice your mind really hurts, this

is because black colors ( or dark colors )

are pulling other humans imagination and bringing

them to close to you and you read it.

 

this causes stress especially when you are

surrounded by religious people or something.

 

but when you WEAR WHITE CLOTHES..

the opposite is true, you reject everyones idealogy

and you get to feel free with your own science.

 

your own imagination is not disturbed.

 

I have worn black clothes in the mall and my head did not hurt. I also did not feel like my clothing was "pulling other humans imagination and bringing them close". How would you even test such a thing? What instruments would you use to quantify the amount of imagination your black clothing was pulling close to you? :)

 

In other words, the reason this idea is not being investigated scientifically is because it is not scientific.

[Jway]

Jway, I agree that there's no need for insults, but surely you agree, having read the OP, that the idea is ludicrous. If not, feel free to perform the experiment yourself and report back.

 

Thanks. That's the point I was raising and asking about. I think I saw this thread when it was 4 posts old and thought it ludicrous. The 2nd posts brings this out. But in my infancy on the forum, I thought scientists would have, how you say, less emotional reaction to the claims, and if refutation occurred, it would a) be no more than 3 posts and/or :hihi: it would be based on grounds of scientific method. I didn't really really think people on this site would test the claim, but did think this thread would not go past page one. And didn't think it would gather such venom.

 

I have worn black clothes in the mall and my head did not hurt. I also did not feel like my clothing was "pulling other humans imagination and bringing them close". How would you even test such a thing? What instruments would you use to quantify the amount of imagination your black clothing was pulling close to you?

 

In other words, the reason this idea is not being investigated scientifically is because it is not scientific.

 

Hmmmm, that last claim is interesting. It strikes me as the stuff dogmas are made of.

 

I'm familiar with scientific method, but can we go with Wikipedia and 4 steps it cites for the method? Those are:

1 - Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2

2 - Form a conjecture

3 - Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

4 -Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2.

 

And are you suggesting this method could not apply to the experiment, as you have quoted it?

 

At any rate, my larger point was, why not just move on if you have nothing nice to say about the claim? Moreover, I didn't think this was type of site that would generate disparaging remarks about posters. I didn't think it was forbidden, but this thread seems like it could be more par for the course.

 

Calling people, openly, "a bunch of wussies."

Is there a place on this site where there is "no holds barred?" Lemme know as someone could be taught a thing or two about a thing or two.

 

:)

 

(We could rename that the Obama smiley)

[freeztar]

Hmmmm, that last claim is interesting. It strikes me as the stuff dogmas are made of.

 

I'm familiar with scientific method, but can we go with Wikipedia and 4 steps it cites for the method? Those are:

1 - Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2

2 - Form a conjecture

3 - Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

4 -Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2.

 

And are you suggesting this method could not apply to the experiment, as you have quoted it?

 

It *could* apply to the OP "experiment", but it can not currently. It needs a methodology! How many participants in the experiment? What defines a "crowded mall"? Should we use robes or dresses? Most importantly, how do we verify the imagination sucking ability of the black clothing?

 

No scientist in the world would be able to get past the experiment stage as the experiment is ill-defined.

 

At any rate, my larger point was, why not just move on if you have nothing nice to say about the claim? Moreover, I didn't think this was type of site that would generate disparaging remarks about posters. I didn't think it was forbidden, but this thread seems like it could be more par for the course.

 

Actually, it is against the rules to insult other members. If you ever see this happening, you should report the post.

Calling people, openly, "a bunch of wussies."

Is there a place on this site where there is "no holds barred?" Lemme know as someone could be taught a thing or two about a thing or two.

I'm quite sure that comment was meant as a joke and not directed at you personally. Though, I do agree it was rude.

 

There is no "no-holds-bar" area at hypography. We expect all members to behave as civilized humans and obey the simple rules of the site, anywhere on the site. Again, if you find a post offensive it is best to report it and let the moderators handle it.

 

(We could rename that the Obama smiley)

:)

[Turtle]

...

Calling people, openly, "a bunch of wussies."

Is there a place on this site where there is "no holds barred?" Lemme know as someone could be taught a thing or two about a thing or two.

 

:hihi:

 

(We could rename that the Obama smiley)

 

:hihi: you're a caution wayj. i think i scorched my shorts laughing over your last couple posts. i'm reminded of being a little whelp and fighting all day with my little buddy 'til Mom had enough of us two, grabbed us by the scruffs of our necks, dragged us face to face, and commanded us to fight. we just stood there with our eyes locked, panting and blowing spume like draft horses under load and absolutely no idea what to do next.

 

but i digress. to answer your question, yes we have a place for cage matches but it's as quiet as a tomb over there. >> PostMagnet - Index

 

welcome to the menagerie jster; where men are men and the sheep run scared. :) . :ud:

[Jway]

Thanks freeztar for heads up on report a post. I generally shy away from that, but it is good to know, and is a decent tool for dealing with venomous postings.

 

It *could* apply to the OP "experiment", but it can not currently. It needs a methodology! How many participants in the experiment? What defines a "crowded mall"? Should we use robes or dresses? Most importantly, how do we verify the imagination sucking ability of the black clothing?

 

No scientist in the world would be able to get past the experiment stage as the experiment is ill-defined.

 

I can see what you are saying. I think the questions you raise are good, rational questions. I often raise similar type of questions when considering any other experiment. And I often find responses lacking. It's more like, "try this experiment as I've set it up, or don't."

 

I think the experiment cited in OP is testable. Essentially, wearing black clothes, going to busy mall, and noticing if mind hurts, strikes me as something that could be tested. Doing same thing with white clothes, seems also testable. Reaching similar conclusions as that of OP, strikes me at onset as unlikely. But I'd consider it and feel likely I would consider other points, but really only if I noticed "head hurting."

 

Will I perform this experiment?

I'd say unlikely.

Would I dismiss it outright as hogwash?

Generally no. And mainly because THAT doesn't seem to be scientific. Not utilizing any scientific method to arrive at such a claim.

 

And blasting the person who makes such claims (really any claim) seems to me the stuff that gives (good) science a bad rep. Like how the decision to hurt other people in crusading type of way seems to me the stuff that gives (good) spirituality a bad rep.

 

Perhaps this is just me.

[freeztar]

It is hogwash because there is no known mechanism for sucking imagination through color choice in clothing. There's no way to measure it and no method proposed by the experiment. Hence, it is unscientific. If we confine it simply to head hurting (for whatever reason), then I agree that it can be tested scientifically. Though I still find it ludicrous and would not bother wasting the time running the experiment.

 

I certainly understand and appreciate your call for open-mindedness in science, but we can't be so open-minded that our brains fall out. :)

 

Having a filter is very useful. If we all spent time performing trivial experiments, we'd never advance in real science. We can use this filter to help us decide where to allocate money and time.

[sanctus]

I also have to say that black clothes can have an influence on how you feel, but not if you are wearing balck, but if all the others are. I have lived that at the G8 in Geneva, I was in a group against violence and we did most of the demonstrations next to the black block discussing with them. Then towards the end we knew that there are gas stations and so we went ahead of the black block to save at least one gas station (we were few, but playing Diabolo attracted a crowd and so it worked). I remember that I got a big feeling of relief and joy when after leaving the black block the demonstration suddenly got colored (and I had good discussions with the black block people it was not an almost fight).

 

Can this be used as a proof? Not really, did I feel better because the atmosphere of violence was no more there and it was merrier or for the colors? I tend to think both....

[freeztar]

Emotional response to color is certainly a scientific phenomena. Yet, I don't think it has anything to do with "imagination pull". :)

 

Relationship between color and emotion: a study of college students | College Student Journal | Find Articles at BNET

[Pyrotex]

...blasting the person who makes such claims (really any claim) seems to me the stuff that gives (good) science a bad rep. Like how the decision to hurt other people in crusading type of way seems to me the stuff that gives (good) spirituality a bad rep. Perhaps this is just me.

Hello Jway,

 

you know, there's blasting and then there's blasting.

I've been here at Hypography for over two years and have read the OP posts of perhaps 200-300 newbies. Many are curious. Many are very knowledgeable and want to teach and explain and enjoy having this forum to do that in. Some are cynical about Science for one reason or another and want to discuss that. Then there are those few who are thumpers, whackos or trolls. It takes a while to recognize them.

 

Thumpers come here to save our souls and persuade us that Science is a delusion.

Whackos come here to reveal their astounding idea for a fusion powered, anti-gravity time machine, or a proof that Einstein was wrong.

Trolls come here to create trouble, discord, pointless arguments and waste our time.

 

Typically, we deal with them with a certain amount of tolerance and patience. Then we give them a warning and a second chance, and a third chance, and then we blast 'em.

 

And sometimes, some raving loony comes screaming in from the tall weeds, obsessed with white, and well... it just becomes a turkey shoot. :) "All weapons on automatic! Fire for effect! First member to hit him with a grenade wins a toaster!" :)

 

What can I say? :) It was just one of those days.

[InfiniteNow]

Will I perform this experiment?

I'd say unlikely.

Would I dismiss it outright as hogwash?

Generally no. And mainly because THAT doesn't seem to be scientific. Not utilizing any scientific method to arrive at such a claim.

I think much of the behavior to which you're trying to call attention is a function of how many countless silly claims many of us have seen on boards like this. You seriously have no idea just how many stupid ideas based on broad misunderstandings of science, and which present concepts which are ill defined (and, like this one, tests which couldn't be run without said definition) that come up from random passersby at sites like this every single day.

 

After a while, you develop a better filter. It's much more simple to pick out the ones which seem to have merit, and the ones which you can tell are based on silly nonsense. If the OP had instead come here to share real data... "Hey all... I ran a curious experiment... here's what I did... here's how I defined my terms... Here's what the results show... let's discuss... can you replicate?" ... That sort of thing, then I can tell you they'd have been treated much much differently.

 

 

Perhaps an analogy (my apologies in advance... analogies are not my strong suit) is a parent with their child. Maybe the child loves rocks, and everywhere they go they pick up some random rock to show the parent. "Look mommy... another one!" While the mother cares, and wants to foster her childs curiositiy, at some point and for some rocks she's just gonna say, "yes, that's nice dear. now, go get your coat so we can go to the store and pickup dinner."

 

Most of us are lke that mother. Not all rocks are diamonds or gems, and not all rocks demand we run down to the jeweler for an appraisal, but we do try to remain open and available for those few rare nuggets which are. However, the vast majority of the time, it's just another meaningless rock without any value or worth... just like the last one was.

 

 

 

EDIT: Cross posted with Ptex who pretty much said the same thing, just with much more humor and clarity. That guy's good. He's real good. :)

[Jway]

IMO, some of your (recent) posts on this thread are attempting to justify bad behavior. It is tit for tat logic. "They thumped first, this is why they got thumped."

 

If you've seen a billion persons come to this site and post poorly worded experiments, I see no basis for "turkey shooting" other than prejudice and subtle forms of fanaticism.

 

You no longer play in the domain of science, but instead play the game of hatred. And could just as well, let it go and/or allow forum moderation to be sole facilitators of what works around here and what doesn't.

 

Of the forums I participate on, there is one where I observe what I would call drive-by orthodox Christian thumpers. I would say more often than not, they are met with reverse-thumping and cynicism, as far as those who choose to post in relation to these OP's. As someone with over 10,000 posts on that site, I believe that I tend to address head on (given parameters of the site) what they are saying, even while I feel astute enough to realize a) this is probably a drive by posting and :) they are unlikely there for discussion, and are likely there to proselytize.

 

IMO, regulars on any site, are wise to realize they do their own (subtle variations) of thumping and trolling, unless they clearly do not. Feel free to ask fellow regulars if they have ever seen you thump (preach) or troll on the site.

 

On this thread the first and second posts were 'blasting.' I feel okay with that. And feel I am making an observation. I also recognize, within myself, that I am judging.

 

Anyway, I do feel this comes back to applying scientific method, as desired, or moving on if have nothing nice to say. That's my opinion, and I do see some posts on this thread that were more in vein of honest discussion. I think my thoughts on this matter are now well noted, and am compelled to move on, especially if posts are further justifications for turkey shooting and scapegoating responsibility.

[Pyrotex]

IMO, some of your (recent) posts on this thread are attempting to justify bad behavior. It is tit for tat logic. ... Anyway, I do feel this comes back to applying scientific method, as desired, or moving on if have nothing nice to say. That's my opinion, and I do see some posts on this thread that were more in vein of honest discussion. I think my thoughts on this matter are now well noted, and am compelled to move on...

Jway,

your points are noted. And thank you for the courage of your convictions.

 

You should have no fear that we will 'blast' you. The reason is simple. You are rational. You have stated your conclusions and reasoning with clarity. Even though you risked disagreement, you stated your case with a degree of intellectual integrity and honesty.

 

We at Hypography admire the **** out of that stuff. Yeah, I can't fully agree with your point, but I can "see" it. And I can see that your heart's in the right place, and I for one would like to see you continue hanging out here. Who knows, you might eventually change my mind.

 

But please don't bet the family farm on it. :hihi:

[enorbet2]

re: Science Truth Bwahahhahahah ! Ah! So many Trolls.... So little time

 

 

 

PS: JWay check out the threads/posts on "openmindedness" and it's place in science

[lemit]

Yes, we have engaged in the electronic version of tarring, feathering, and escorting out of town on a rail. Why would we gang up on somebody the way we have here?

 

The original post was just kind of sad and silly until it got to this part:

 

"please feel free to ask me for more information

i am on youtube right now

 

youtube.com/summertimedancings

post comments on my channel i'll respond 24/7

to every question you have.

 

on my youtube page i found david's video wow

i really want to give this guy all the secrets i have

he can put it into media, become a billionaire

and spark a revolution that can save us all."

 

That looks to me like a sales pitch for a chain-letter scheme and makes me question everything in the post in a new way. I just don't trust the motives of the poster and don't feel bad about treating the thing the way it's been treated here.

 

The slickness of a normal sales pitch is, for those of you unfamiliar with the English language, not found in that post. I think the sales pitch is still there and opens the thing up so we can have a little cruel fun with it.

 

After all, doesn't a lot of scientific curiosity start with pulling legs off bugs?

 

--lemit

[Turtle]

i put on a grey wrap to be mean with the OP, walked around the poop-deck, and immediately noticed that none of you douche-bags noticed, that it's not "wussies" it's "woosies". argh! 50 well laid on all 'round for me boys sayeth Graybeard! :hihi: There is no other science like that of the whip. :lol:

[InfiniteNow]

i put on a grey wrap to be mean with the OP, walked around the poop-deck, and immediately noticed that none of you douche-bags noticed, that it's not "wussies" it's "woosies". argh!

 

When I originally typed it, that "w" was a "p." :hihi:

[Turtle]

When I originally typed it, that "w" was a "p." :hihi:

 

so when push came to shove, ya wimped out. :lol:

 

better keep this scientifical like before everyone is seeing red: >> Urban Dictionary: woosy