Even More Unscientific Science

After discussing the many flaws of String Theory, the Big Bang, and nutrition, there are a couple of other fields to mention that have the audacity to place themselves under the umbrella of science.

In the realm of quantum physics, there are some strange things that occur. The results of the experiments defy explanation, although they do not defy prediction. Let it be known that I am not attacking quantum physics. It is a science with predictive power. Some of the greatest thoughts and inventions have come from quantum physics. The beauty of Schrodinger's equation for the wavefunction, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or the Pauli exclusion principle cannot be denied. All of these things have helped to make great strides in science.

However, when we get into some of the experiments and results, the explanations become a mess. The famous double slit experiment is often used as an example of quantum weirdness. Basically, subatomic particles are fired through a screen with two slits while a piece of film on the other side reflects where the particles wound up. When this is done, an interference pattern forms that is analogous to the interference pattern of waves. When some detector is used to figure out which slit the particles went through, the interference pattern disappears and the particles behave like particles rather than waves. This is all good and well (even if it's inexplicable). But then some of the explanations for such behavior kicks in, and these so-called scientists go off to fantasy land.

One of the most disgusting is the multiple universe explanation (a.k.a. the many worlds interpretation). This states that the universe actually splits into a whole plethora of worlds and universes as the particle is shot through the double slits and the particle travels in a separate direction in each universe forming the interference pattern. When we observe which slit the particle goes through, all of these universes condense back into one and the particle chooses a single route to follow. This is complete and utter nonsense! There is zero evidence for multiple universes. In an attempt to explain a baffling phenomenon, a bunch of retards came up with this explanation that causes more confusion than the actual phenomenon. It is simply disgusting that such explanations are able to exist in scientific literature.

Another field of "science" that should be eliminated is astrobiology. This is the study of extraterrestrial life. This would be noble, except for one thing: we haven't discovered any extraterrestrial life yet! What the hell are these people studying? I'll tell you-- nothing! They study absolutely nothing! They sit around and speculate on what life on other planets might possibly look like. They draw pictures to describe these made-up life forms or use computer graphics to generate images.

They may be wonderful fiction writers and perhaps good artists as well. But they are certainly not scientists. Sitting around making up stories can be an occupation. But it should not be considered science. If and when we ever do discover life on other planets, then the field of astrobiology will become valid. Until that day, they are simply bullshitting to everyone.

Furthermore, they search desolate planets in search of evidence that life once existed there. This search is completely futile. When we observe the various forms of life that exist we see archaebacteria that live in black smokers, fish that can move across hot sulphur, and nematodes that can survive in the extreme cold of the arctic and antarctic. Life is versatile and built to survive. Individual species may come and go, but life itself will always go on. If life ever existed on a desolate planet, I can guarantee that it would still be there today. Life itself cannot be eradicated from a planet. If there is no life there now, there never was. Give up the search.

So to all astrobiologists, your title is currently meaningless. And as far as the quantum physicists go, stop coming up with ridiculous explanations! And when someone else in the field suggests something that is clearly nonsense, don't be afraid to announce to everyone how asinine the suggestion truly is. Let's keep science scientific.

More Unscientific Science

In my previous rant on unscientific science, I focused on the downfalls of both the Big Bang theory and string theory. Although these are the most detrimental (due to such large followings) there are a number of other so-called scientific disciplines that should not be classified as science.

Nutrition has been grouped in with the biological sciences over the years without applying any scientific methods. In any fundamental statistics class, it is taught that correlations merely show a relationship between two variables. A cause and effect relationship cannot be inferred from any correlation. This is well-known throughout the scientific community. Yet when it comes to nutrition, this tabiya gets thrown out the window.

Nutritionists are constantly using correlational data to conclude some type of cause and effect. A negative correlation between some food item and some disease always gets reported as "This food item prevents this disease." If that were true, then the correlation could be explained. But no true scientist should ever arrive at such a conclusion based on a mere correlation.

Furthermore, scientists often use jargon in order to communicate. When it comes to various units of measurement all scientists should agree. Units such as a meter, kilogram, or second do not change as we jump from one scientific discipline to another. This allows all of the scientists to communicate with one another, as various sciences tend to overlap on a number of topics.

Then we come to nutrition. There is a unit of energy known in science as the calorie. It contains 4.184 joules of energy. A calorie in all areas of science is known to be 4.184 joules of energy...all except one. Nutritionists have decided that a calorie consists of 4,184 joules-- a thousand times greater than the true value! Any other scientist would refer to this quantity as a kilocalorie, but not the nutritionists. After all, what does it matter if no other scientist defines a calorie as containing that much energy. It's not like a nutritionist would ever be interested in conversing with a physicist or chemist anyway. That would be too scientific.

Finally, science should be falsifiable. This philosophy of falsificationism has already been discussed in a previous rant. I will try to sum it up in a single sentence here. When it comes to science, there should be a hypothetical scenario in which a particular theory could be proven wrong. In other words, there should be some form of data that would either support or refute any scientific idea. When it comes to nutrition, this is not the case.

If a particular food product is said to cause people to die early, the nutritionists always create a tautology. They have an answer for every possible outcome, and this is not how science should be. Someone may offer an example of a person that ate the food product every day, yet lived to age 95. Rather than admitting defeat, the nutritionist will reply "Well maybe if that person didn't eat the food product, they would live to age 110." Perhaps it is a clever retort. But whatever the nutritionists are doing, it cannot be considered science.

Next week I will mention more unscientific areas and ideas that are falsely classified as science.

On Gossip

In our daily lives we have many encounters with other individuals. In some cases we have something in common that can be discussed. But most of the time, we must use what is referred to as "small talk." In such conversations, categories are chosen that are very broad and general. Topics such as the weather or the news are typical. But there is one other topic that many people like to use. It involves mutual acquaintances, and it annoys the hell out of me.

Gossip is widespread and, when it comes to those that live for it, almost no one is left out. These people will go on and on about the lives of others. Furthermore, they never want to convey good news about a person. It always has to be something negative. Basically, they are talking trash about others and loving it.

I have two problems with this. First off, I rarely talk behind someone's back. I do say negative things about people, but it is usually something I have already openly revealed in front of the person. Perhaps it was said in a joking manner to lighten the blow, but chances are it was said to that person's face nonetheless. Exceptions do exist where I truly am talking behind someone's back, but those exceptions are few and far between. For the most part it is something I don't do, and when someone is going on and on about someone else it feels like I'm involved. I know full well that I'm not, but there is still a sense of discomfort that arises when someone talks smack on someone else. It feels as though he or, more typically, she is trying to get you involved.

My second and major problem with this is simple: I don't care! Honestly, I couldn't care less about some girl I hardly know that's having trouble with her marriage, some guy I hardly know that filed for bankruptcy, or how many mistresses Tiger Woods had. Of course that last one isn't the typical gossip told in confidence, but it is gossip. This can only mean that the media can be viewed as a larger, more widespread version of one of these gossip mongers. News should not contain gossip about celebrities. Such stories are not news.

In closing, I would just like to say something to those who love gossip. Leave me the hell alone! I don't care! Whatever stupid inconsequential thing you are going to tell me about someone else can be kept to yourself. It has no bearing on my life and, chances are, the person being talked about has no bearing on my life either. Go bother someone else with this nonsense. I have no time for it.