I hate to sound ignorant, but I can perhaps explain the layman side of things.

Before I even heard of HBers and BABBers, all I had was a limited education on reality. I was very naïve. I actually believed a lot of what I read in the newspapers or viewed on TV.

I thought the paranormal was real. I don’t anymore. I thought people claiming to be psychic were really psychics. I don’t anymore. It was just easier to believe these things were true, because no one in the ‘mainstream’ ever said they were not.

It’s like there is a bigger conspiracy to keep the majority of the population ignorant (non-scientific side). I guess because this makes more money for big businesses. For example, my mother bought Earthquake Insurance. She lives in Indiana. Odds of her ever needing to collect are slim to none. Yet, when the news aired such a story after the minor tremble a few years back, people jumped all over it.

I would like to see a magazine, like the tabloids out now, with folks like the BA debunking the woo woo’s. It would seriously have to be filled with the same gaudy photos and headlines to catch the layman’s attention at the newsstand.

Same for some sort of TV program starring George Clooney, for example, debunking the stories that seem believable.

Gee, after 6 months of being deprogrammed, I am starting to understand what I am writing. I hope you do.

After I saw the BA’s talk, I was amazed why I never saw this prior to the BABB. The BABB is really opening my eyes to the misleading stories I see everyday.

I now question everything I hear (at work and school) that has the ring of woo woo to it. It’s sometimes a daily event. I'm making enemies by making others have to think. For example, when I ask questions like where did you get your information from or can you explain in detail what you specifically mean? If they can't answer me with legitimate responses, I reply with "Well, I can't quite agree with you, until you can site me a reference." I haven't got to the point where I have to say credible reference, since, the conversation never goes any further.

Even my co-worker's son, 18, doesn’t believe we landed on the Moon. I bought him a copy of the BA’s book, but I can’t make him read it.

Congratulations on your progress! You've come a lot farther than most people do in their lifetimes.

What you wrote makes me think back a few years.

When I was raising my son, there were a number of things that I considered important for him to know.

Three come to mind at this moment:

1. Always question authority, even your father.

2. There's no substitute for reality.

3. If you ignore reality, it will bite you in the...butt.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Don't forget, you were and still are one of my BABB mentors!

It was just easier to believe these things were true, because no one in the ‘mainstream’ ever said they were not.

There is a movement in the mainstream that says if we just don't pay attention to pseudoscience it will go away. This presumes two things that I've observed not to be true. First, it presumes that laymen will "naturally" see the folly in the pseudoscience. Sometimes this is true, but often -- especially when specialized technology is involved -- it is not. And often the pseudoscientists will take steps to head off one's natural skepticism.

Second, it presumes that pseudoscientists will be deterred by a lack of some certain extent of publicity. True, they do tend to ride the crest of the buzz they generate, but they also tend simply to create a lot of the publicity they need. And often the lack of response from their expected critics becomes a bullet point to convince others that they must be on the right track.

I do not subscribe to the theory that improper science -- especially that done unscrupulously for profit -- will simply "go away" if left alone. It falls to those with appropriate understanding to make use of it by sharing it with others.

It would seriously have to be filled with the same gaudy photos and headlines to catch the layman’s attention at the newsstand.

Here you run up against one of the points of appeal in conspiracy theories. They're flashy and entertaining, while science and the real world often are not. Dressing up real science just doesn't have a lasting effect because the reader can always see right through it. Real science and pseudoscience attract different kinds of people. Often people seek out pseudoscience for no better reason that it isn't mainstream science.

I'm making enemies by making others have to think.

But you're also making friends; they just may not be as apparent to you right now.

I question my junior engineers all the time. At first it intimidates them, but when they understand that I'm not accusing them of incompetence or subterfuge, they get over it. What I'm doing is knowing for myself just how well or poorly they know what they're recommending. Let's face it: we never have all the information we need to make a decision. But there's a difference between making an information-poor decision, and making one that's dressed up to look like it's well-supported. Soon my engineers realize that it's okay to say to me that a certain conclusion is based on anecdotal evidence and not a statistical analysis. We might decide to go with the conclusion anyway on that basis, but we'll know where we stand.

People may hate straight-shooters, but they also admire them because they always know where they stand with you.

Even my co-worker's son, 18, doesn’t believe we landed on the Moon. I bought him a copy of the BA’s book, but I can’t make him read it.

You can lead a man to education but you can't make him think. There's one thing about life, though. You can't avoid education, you can only choose which form it takes. People who didn't learn about heat transfer in school will learn about it from their insurance companies. And people who don't learn to think critically in school will learn to think critically after being bilked by unscrupulous people. There is the kind of education that comes easily and with relatively benign consequences for failure, and then there is the school of hard knocks.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

And often the lack of response from their expected critics becomes a bullet point to convince others that they must be on the right track.

But if you do respond, then they conclude that they must be on to something, else you wouldn't have bothered. Just recently I saw somebody in a Usenet group confront you, Jay, with this claim. The attention they draw, even negative attention, validates their theories in their minds.

But if you do respond, then they conclude that they must be on to something, else you wouldn't have bothered.

Sadly true. You usually can't win that particular point. You can always point out the futility of the reasoning: where silence and response both equate to one being "on to something". But silence can have many motives, whereas response can generally only have two: genuine objection, or knee-jerk objection out of fear. Action is usually easier to explain than inaction.

And besides, all other things being held equal, at least you've gotten the objection and the rationale for it out on the table.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Thanks ... I have been reading threads here trying to figure out what HB meant ... finally a translation.

Unfortunately, the public also seems to give real science the same "ho-hum" reaction. It's nuts to believe the moon landings were faked, thinks the majority, but it's silly to care too much about how they were done. Dispite the fact that they will operate heavy machinery at high speeds, ingest toxic substances daily, and vote for science-related policies, they feel that it "isn't really important" to know anything about science. In fact, it is geekish and even in bad taste to study it or to know too much about it.

Sorry if I'm blathering more than usual. Worked a long shift and I'm a little out of it.

) You've left out "If you think that the American flag isn't supposed to flutter in the wind in an enviroment with no air........"

__________________
~Anna~