The Psuedoscience Thread

[Golgo 14]

Stuff like Britta filters (actually do nothing and can grow bacteria if not changed out regularly). my sister in law got really angry for me explaining it. In the case of my co-worker it was an urban legend he'd been told since he was a kid - the thing about dandy long-legs being poisonous. Certainly not a response I expected for such a small thing.

Brita filters reduce chlorine which affects the smell and taste of water. That may not be necessary for your tap water to be generally safe, but it's not nothing. As for the bacteria problem, it's not Brita's fault if people don't maintain their product correctly.

Also, I'm don't want to insult anyone's father, but it's Daddy Long-legs.

[oxymoron]

There are a lot of things in this world that cannot be explained and for some psuedoscience is a logical answer. Personally, I don't believe in psuedoscience. I'm fine with not have an answer for everything. I guess as humans sometimes our abstract thoughts get the most of us. I have a different stance on conspiracy theories though. For example, I think there is more to the JFK assassination than meets the eye. I'm not going to hit you with some bullshit "proof" but I will say that I accept the possibility of inside job.

[Anapan]

A popular spelling in my region is "dandy" tho I guess I should have used the other one online. In any case, there's a large population of the ones known as harvestmen here and they have no venom.

Gaseous chlorine is added to public water systems to kill any bacteria that might be introduced from the treatment plant to your tap, but filtration can not remove it. A small amount that you would smell is more rapidly dissipated but the rest is still there. The majority of the chlorine will precipitate as an oxidized gas naturally over a few hours sitting out whether there's a filter or not. I took a water quality technology course and this was the first thing our teacher told us before even learning our names. Tho I am open to the possibility that my teacher was wrong. "It'll give you a glass full of charcoal dust - It's been proven to reduce flatulence."

For things which have no way to be tested or measured it can be fun to discuss possibilities, but passing bad science off as fact really bothers me for some reason.

[Luke]

Some people react very strongly against being told what they've thought for years was wrong.

Which you can use to your advantage. Many a bar bet have I won with "There is no 'd' in refrigerator".

[Key-Glyph]

I don't know the context here, but I'll ask anyway: what's wrong with them keeping their misconceptions? Why is it necessary to "correct" them? Sure, you may not agree, but why's it matter if that's just what they believe?

The problem with letting people keep their misconceptions -- however whimsical and innocent they may be -- is that they will directly apply these misconceptions to future decisions, which will influence their actions. Some of this can harmless. We can't prove that wishing on a star works, but since sending out some hopeful thoughts into the ether is positive at best, neutral at worst, a "why not, just in case?" attitude in this instance is benign. The harm comes when someone decides that since wishing on star might work, it's worth relying on it as if it truly does. This causes them to miss real-world opportunities for becoming agents of positive change in their lives (or others') because they either can't recognize, or don't take, the actions available to them to make a tangible difference.

Why do so many people prefer a fantastical explanation to a scientific one? Why do people lose interest in amazing things once they can be understood?

I think people are often more attached to the romantic notions associated with something wondrous than they are with the thing itself. Just because you can have a Bluetooth like Uhura doesn't mean the conversations you'll be having with it will be as important or cool as a Starfleet officer's. I think when people yearn for fictional technology, or magic, or whatever, sometimes what they're really yearning for is the power, prestige, interesting lives, or other qualities of the characters they imagine would be involved with these objects, not for the functions of the objects themselves.

[samsonlonghair]

I am at the opposite end of the spectrum. I am the ultra-skeptic. Not only do I not believe in superstition, religion, or psuedoscience, I'm even more skeptical than that. I am skeptical of a number of things modern science theorizes. Some have called me crazy for my over-skepticism. For instance, I don't believe in "Dark Matter" in cosmology. I do believe in blackholes, but I don't believe in wormholes. I don't believe in statistics.

I also don't believe anything a salesman, a politician, a clergyman, or a marketer tells me.

Basically, I don't believe in anything that can't be proven (without statistics) and reliably replicated.

[MrPopo]

For instance, I don't believe in "Dark Matter" in cosmology.

Placeholder to explain current observations.

but I don't believe in wormholes.

Not really something that has anything more than a theoretical basis IF some theories about higher dimensions beyond 3 space and 1 time actually pan out. Pretty much in the same category as magnetic monopoles.

I don't believe in statistics.

Explain this. Do you not believe in addition or multiplication either?

[samsonlonghair]

I don't believe in statistics.

Explain this. Do you not believe in addition or multiplication either?

This is the one that always get's people. How can it be untrue if you were taught this in math class? First of all, I will say there's no need to suggest that I don't believe in arithmetic. The basic laws of humble arithmetic are hard and fast. Let's not insult one another here.

Statistics are another matter. Often times statistics rely on circular reasoning. People who use statistics for proof forget that correlation is not cause. The data collection methods are often sketchy (if reported at all). Statisticians have methods of manipulating data.

In defense of statistics, sometimes statistics can (within some degree of accuracy) predict outcomes in large populations, but the statistics fall apart when you try to apply those predictions at the individual level.

I have made this argument several times, but I never manage to convince anyone. I suppose I need to work on my persuasion skills. Instead of rambling on about my own skepticism, I'll simply borrow a quote from Twain (who claimed to be borrowing it from Disraeli, but that's another matter).

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Golgo 14]

A popular spelling in my region is "dandy" tho I guess I should have used the other one online. In any case, there's a large population of the ones known as harvestmen here and they have no venom.

Gaseous chlorine is added to public water systems to kill any bacteria that might be introduced from the treatment plant to your tap, but filtration can not remove it. A small amount that you would smell is more rapidly dissipated but the rest is still there. The majority of the chlorine will precipitate as an oxidized gas naturally over a few hours sitting out whether there's a filter or not. I took a water quality technology course and this was the first thing our teacher told us before even learning our names. Tho I am open to the possibility that my teacher was wrong. "It'll give you a glass full of charcoal dust - It's been proven to reduce flatulence."

For things which have no way to be tested or measured it can be fun to discuss possibilities, but passing bad science off as fact really bothers me for some reason.

I figured it was a variation, but to be correct, a Dandy Long-legs is a homosexual spider.

I know leaving tap water to sit for a few hours will take the chlorine out, but that doesn't sound like a lot of fun. I don't see why a Brita filter couldn't reduce chlorine. It's their main claim and I don't see any evidence (in an admittedly brief search) to prove otherwise. Brita filters don't take out some of the more nasty stuff that could be in water (you can get more extensive filters), but I don't think they claim to. Btw, I don't have anything for or against Brita. Just making conversation.

[samsonlonghair]

A popular spelling in my region is "dandy" tho I guess I should have used the other one online. In any case, there's a large population of the ones known as harvestmen here and they have no venom.

Gaseous chlorine is added to public water systems to kill any bacteria that might be introduced from the treatment plant to your tap, but filtration can not remove it. A small amount that you would smell is more rapidly dissipated but the rest is still there. The majority of the chlorine will precipitate as an oxidized gas naturally over a few hours sitting out whether there's a filter or not. I took a water quality technology course and this was the first thing our teacher told us before even learning our names. Tho I am open to the possibility that my teacher was wrong. "It'll give you a glass full of charcoal dust - It's been proven to reduce flatulence."

For things which have no way to be tested or measured it can be fun to discuss possibilities, but passing bad science off as fact really bothers me for some reason.

I figured it was a variation, but to be correct, a Dandy Long-legs is a homosexual spider.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/62/62f538b ... f538f8.jpg

I know leaving tap water to sit for a few hours will take the chlorine out, but that doesn't sound like a lot of fun. I don't see why a Brita filter couldn't reduce chlorine. It's their main claim and I don't see any evidence (in an admittedly brief search) to prove otherwise. Brita filters don't take out some of the more nasty stuff that could be in water (you can get more extensive filters), but I don't think they claim to. Btw, I don't have anything for or against Brita. Just making conversation.

Why don't we just put it to a simple test? Fill up a brita pitcher with tap water. Then fill up a regular pitcher with tap water. Place the two pitchers next to each other. Come back tomorrow and taste the water from each.