That doesn't make it right, though.

Hard Science deals with the best descriptions available for reality.

Someone elses fears, even if they are a taxpayer, can be just as unfounded and irrelevant to science.

Halting scientific progress over an absurd claim made by folks ignorant about the physics - is Utter Nonsense.

Eh, what? I quoted the chain of comments and replies to show full context. Warren was pulling a number out of the air, and I'm asking for references. Are you saying that when somebody pulls a number out of the air, I'm just supposed to be happy and not ask where they got it?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I never said it did.

I'll go along with that. However, describers include poets, journalists, technical writers and teachers. It seems to me, maybe more misinformation on my part, but it seems to me, that scientists like to set themselves apart from other professions. If true, then, I think scientists err. They're still part of the human race, equation and/or experience. And, they do have to answer to the rest of us. Yes, there's lay social pressure just as important as scientist peer pressure. Since we foot the bill, maybe more important.

Well, sir, fear stands as the key word, here.

Unfounded or not, they better become very relevant, important and significant to wannabee scientists, scientists, undergraduates and other hangers on to the science professions. That's what I mean, scientists seem to seperate themselve from other people.
I respectfully submit, that such separation can be an illusion. Scientists are not separate from the rest of humanity.
Scientists should have to answer to the populations' fears.

No, it's not "...Utter Nonsense."; it's a fact of life. Neverfly, I am not anti-science. I'm trying to write a like-it-is and helpful post here. Life is neither a laboratory nor a clinic. Life includes those, as well as military, politics, economics, religion, education, legal types, street people, sales people, engineers who make theories happen, commerce and all kinds of other little professional, marketing, industrial and addict; as well as emotional and spiritual; worlds. All this a part of the ecology of this planet. And solar system, etc.

I repeat respectfully, scientists err to think that they can emotionally operate apart from the rest of the people on this planet. Science does not have and should not have, authority over the people of this planet. Science works best as an humble servant, aware of social, political, emotional and economic limitations put upon them, and not fight those limitations. Remain servant and science will not be feared; try to rule and science initiates fear in other people. Power play between Religion, politics and science plays into this.

And don't tell me, we'd still be eating raw food, if science didn't have control. Balderdash. I'm saying science should progress: slowly and carefully and with a care to human emotions and other limitations. I say, if scientists did that, we'd still be in the 1980's. And, there's nothing wrong with that, because this old man thinks science and technology has been progressing too far, too much and too fast. Too fast, even for scientists to have time to reliably process and consolidate all the new information which has been found, since the 1980's.

People have a choice, or can make a choice if there's not one given, of whom rules them. Science should recognize rather than debate that choice.

Imh lay o, that's where it's at. Just one of those little facts of life.

__________________
Salty
"...with God, all things are possible..." Even evolution

I'll tell you folks one thing. The best odds for unpleasant occurence from running LHC up to full power,

is blowing out the electrical grid in Switzerland, France and other sundry nations.

__________________
Salty
"...with God, all things are possible..." Even evolution

I like the way you kept it in context.

No, there's just no scientific study required, to be a source. He could have gotten those odds from his bookie. Big grin.

Seriously, I think an actuary could be a better source for an odds quote on this subject, than a scientific paper: as long as it's an informed actuary.

Aren't we talking about calming the public's fears?

__________________
Salty
"...with God, all things are possible..." Even evolution

Really?
I would say artists do that.
In fact, name a profession in which folks don't?
Fortunately, they check, double check, and recheck and they accept when they are in error. Especially, before they place the world in danger...
How?
When the taxpayers, frankly, don't understand the math?

Nibiru?
2003- later 2012...
Planet X

Tu24

There's a lot of ignorance promoting fear out there...
Are scientists supposed to drop their work everytime some uninformed person gets goofy ideas?
See my commentary above.
See my commentary above.

You keep claiming over and over that scientists are separate.
Why?
Scientists ARE part of the system.
But if your doctor discussed cancer with you- you would listen.
If your math instructor taught you calculus- you would listen
Why is it when a scientist says something, people feel they have to accuse and fight with the scientist?
Maybe you should Listen and learn!
Scientists do not owe some duty to pander to every Tom Dick and Harry that comes along.
That IS what scientists already have to do and they do it.
Yet, your claim of authority stems ONLY from the claim that the LHC is a threat.
So let me help you out:
It's Not A threat.
See?
Authority problem resolved.
So hold on- Is this not about the LHC, but your OWN personal fears about progress?
Guess what: You're not the authority either.

I vote in direct contradiction and say let's progress forward.
Yeah, I find some of the new technology disturbing, like Microsoft spying on me etc.
Like Iphones and all that other hogwash.
I like simple phones that ONLY operate as a telephone.
I'm a bit of a Luddite myself and I'm still disagreeing with your, frankly, inaccurate and biased claims.

Going by your last two posts- is that really what you want?

Hard to calm the public's fears when they flat out refuse to be calmed- and say half of what you just said in your previous posts.
They don't want to be calmed.

Oh, ok.

No.

__________________
Salty
"...with God, all things are possible..." Even evolution

Medical.

That doesn't change that science remains responsible for initiating fear. I think some scientists are real poor at PR.
It seems to me, that LHC PR thinks there's no danger, in which to put the world. I'm not arguing that.



If they care about both their work and the public, yes.

I know that and you know that; a lot of scientists know that; some of the public knows that. Nevertheless, science as a body comes across as detached from emotional realities.

I cannot and do not claim to speak for other lay people; nevertheless, I'd wager that a lot of other lay people share my concerns.

To answer this part of your post: I pay my doctor and math instructor to talk to me; I don't ask for volunteer professional speakers. When I want that, I go look in the newspaper or appropriate science journal.

I listen in accordance to my priorities, just like you and everybody else. I learn what I want to learn first, then what somebody else wants me to learn; just like you and everybody else. My priorities determine what I want to learn. Just like you and everybody else.

Maybe not, but they owe themselves the duty to listen to whomsoever may grab their lapels and speak into their faces. If they want to keep their funding, anyway.

It seems that they don't do that very well.


What claim to authority? I make no claim to authority.

I already knew that. I was referring to other people's fears.


No. I don't fear progress. I just get tired of so much of it, so fast.

Didn't say I was. How about you don't put words in my mouth? OK?

Me, too.


Well, I allow that I'm an opinionated man, and those are my opinions. And, bluntly, I disagree that these opinions are either inaccurate or biased.

You and I merely have different priorities, on what comes first. I have at least five other priorities, ahead of science.
I'll wager that science stands among your top three priorities.

And, that listing of priorities, sir, not my accuracy nor bias, is the cause of our disagreements.

I will not allow others to change my first four (which in the contemporary vernacular I would express as my ROM) priorities, since they date from my first five years of life on this weary old planet. And they are mine, and no one elses' business, whether or not to change them.

So, how about we agree to disagree?
I already posted my bottom line unpleasant consequence to LHC going full power on line.

__________________
Salty
"...with God, all things are possible..." Even evolution

Yes.

Is that observation from your experience, or do you have annotated reference to support that statement? I will accept either.


Do other people's freedom of speech so disturb you? Sometimes, that's a trait shared by a lot of professionals: annoyance at other people's freedom of speech. People say all kinds of things, get over it.



'Way down deep, they do. That's why they go to religion or politics: those two professions seem to show more interest in people's emotions, than other professions, except medical.

__________________
Salty
"...with God, all things are possible..." Even evolution

I've always enjoyed your posts in the past Salty, but frankly I don't see how you're surprised at the reaction you're getting. When you post on a forum full of scientists and science enthusiasts that scientists are out of touch with the world and need to pay more attention to the layman, it seems more than obvious that you are going to get flamed.

__________________

I don't see how.
No.
Doomssayers initiate the fear.
Like TU24.org and countless other fear-mongering websites.
You say this now- yet later say:
Which is it?
Think about this one.
If scientists dropped their work every time some doomsayer made a fear mongering website or some person went off the handle- they would NEVER get any work done.
The LHC issue has been covered- repeatedly. Most lay people don't understand it all- but that isn't the scientists fault either.
When you have a crowd of doomsayers making wild claims, you will NOT convince them otherwise anyway.
Define reality?
You don't ask for it but you have something to say about it when doomsayers promote fear- but because you don't PAY those scientists you don't have to listen?
Half your posts complains that they need to drop everything and pander to the whining public and now you claim that even if they do- you won't listen because you don't hand them a personal check?
What about your whole taxpayer argument?!
When you are arguing the case that you think the LHC will destroy the world, you have made it your first priority for that conversation.
So for the sake of that conversation, you can either learn so you can know what you're talking about- or leave the conversation and focus on other priorities.
But claiming priorities is not an excuse for ignorance when you chose to partake in the conversation.
Not when there is always a throng of wackos trying to grab their lapels.

Buzz Aldrin handled one of those with his fist.

What makes you think so?
Because there's some wackos that just refuse to listen?
Your claim was that science was trying to act as an authority over the human race.
You seem to be talking about your own. As I mentioned at the beginning of this reply.
I agree!
That was not me putting words in your mouth.
I was addressing how you argued that scientists are not our authority and therefor don't have the right to experiment with the LHC.
My point was that you are not their authority to tell them not to either.
I'm not following you here...
Your posts seem to make the claim that:
-The LHC is a dangerous experiment
-Scientists are endangering us without our approval
and- Progress should be slow and careful.

Apollo was NOT slow and careful. And I LOVE IT!
It just is NOT human nature to take it easy- we get out there and face danger. It's one of our finer qualities.
Whatever personal priorities you have in your private life- are irrelevant to the position you have supplied in this discussion that you chose to take part in.
Or are you saying that these priorities account for you not understanding if the LHC is a true threat or not?
Are you saying your priorities outweigh the LHC results under the assumption that it even IS a threat?
I don't get it.
What does your personal priority list have to do with this conversation?

Pretty much- yeah...

But I still like Salty
I hope he bears it in mind.
Both really.
First- for references, check out right here on BAUT.
Read a great many threads about Nibiru.
01101001 can supply a large list.
This is simply the psychology behind fearmongering.
Given sufficient time- if I remember to do so- I can look up Psychology references- you may need to drop reminders occasionally though... Embarrassingly- I move on to other topics and forget...
Not at all. But what they SAY might disturb me
No.
Why should I?
How about this: When people express themselves, they do so fully aware that someone else may hold them accountable for what they said.
Do you have annotated references for this?
Salty, in case you haven't noticed- they don't.
They may GO to those people- but they are never satisfied!
The difference is that those types will continue to pander to their neediness.
If scientists don't want to pander to peoples quibbles- So what?
I don't blame them.
I do Not Pander to such nonsense myself- and as a matter of fact- I did not pander to it when I was in the Ministry either.

No, science does not initiate fear. It are the thoughts of uninformed people, who decide that something could be wrong, and are insensitive to counter arguments, that initiate fear in the masses, by spreading the word that "the world is going to end."

THIS IT NOT GOING TO BE A PLANET X THREAD - THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE

The best example for this is the Planet X/Nibiru fear mongering by Nancy Lieder and cohorts, who predicted that this planet/brown dwarf was going to pass by the Earth, flip the Earth over, destroying 90% of mankind etc. etc. May 2003 came and went, with no Planet X passing by the Earth, but do these fear mongerers admit that they were wrong? NO, of course not, the aliens from Zeta Reticuli have most likely diverted Nibiru from its path and now it suddenly will happen in 2012 when the Mayan calender "ends."

Let's face it, a big part of the world population is dumb (if not stupid) when people start to believe stuff like "the Earth is already rotating faster, a day only has 16 hours nowadays" or "Nibiru is already pulling magnetically at the Earth, you can see that the Sun is in a different position than it should be." And lots and lots more of that nonsense.

This does not come from science, because science tries to explain stuff to the people, this comes from people who get a kick out of doomsday scenarios.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

I've seen quotes that we are 100% doomed.
So; what is that chance based on (or who said it)? And; what exactly is "something really bad". I assume it means mass destruction, but I have seen many sweeping doom comments include some mundane easily correctable comments to inflate the number.
To use the analogy of the lottery, the odds of winning of 1 in 3 includes mostly free tickets.

Even if I can accept those chances as a valid chance of doom, I still don't see the powerball analogy to fit very well.
Yes there are winners every day, but there are also tens or hundreds of million players every day. How many LHC's are there?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

So an actuary who's informed about the science . . . who would do that informing, do you think?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

As someone else mentioned, I've seen the same argument used about artists deciding on the use of public money for the arts (artists deciding what is art), as just one example.

But I don't think that is the case here.

First, I think that CERN has done a lot to try to answer all these questions for the general public. I'm too lazy to find the particular links, but I know they are in this thread. Other scientists, including some of us right here on BAUT, have also done their part to facilitate communications.

And it is not like CERN just decided last week to build the LHC and "crank this baby up and see what happens". They, and the holders of their purse strings have had many, many years to examine this project and these questions.

Lastly, I really don't think there is any huge public outcry on this issue, that there are waves of fear sweeping over the Earth about what those crazy scientists are doing. Frankly, I have had many more questions from non-scientists about the annual August "Mars as big as the Moon" e-mail and similar nonsense, than about the LHC.

I don't think this is a question of "Science" ignoring the majority opinion of concern. IMHO, I think this is a case of a few crackpots trying to make much ado about nothing and trying to use the US court system to do so. And a Press too enamored of the Silly and the Sensational trying to milk it for all it is worth.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

The Daily Mail has published this article today by Michael Hanlon

Sounds quite dire

Later he goes through the argument about cosmic radiation but ruins it by stating



What I was wondering now, will the court actually grant the injunction against CERN, (It would annoy the BBC as they have been planning a whole day of programmes about it).

If the court did grant an injunction what would be the next step for CERN?

If not, I expect that there may be some individuals who may attempt what we call in the UK, "Direct Action", and with the beliefs such that some think this will cause the end of the world, they could turn really nasty if they believe they have nothing to loose.


Will those operating the LHC be given bullet proof vests?

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Talk about a shovel load of nonsense!!

Hanlon's spouting only reveals his utter and total ignorance about physics.

Is he even a science writer?

He did give the dooms day scenario then said how those in the scientific community do not think it is a problem, but comes back with that last line.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I admire your restraint.

He's a Journalist! Being ignorant about the subject of his writings is the only way to address it intelligently. Why, if he knew anything about it, he would be constrained to write factually.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Even if the 2 scenarios were plausible, I'd take number 2 over number 1 anyway... The first scenario is way more frightening. Number 2 is quick and painless.

I don't understand why people would think that is more terrifying.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

For sake of balance, The LHC Safety Assessment Group report

(Adobe document)

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I hope you're serious

Because believe it or not- that truly was very restrained


That wasn't journalism. That was Science Fiction.
Bad Science Fiction at that.

Hanlon's article isn't even bad science fiction. It's typing!

(Thanx and a tip o' the Hatlo hat to Truman Capote. )

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I don't usually quote myself, but I think the Michael Hanlon article proved my last point very nicely.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Yes, it very much does.

I love how he took a black hole the size of a proton one moment and had it instantaneously 'hoovering' up the solar system moments later.

Such a glaring misconception can only spring from the mind of someone uniquely uninformed

My thoughts exactly. Disappearing along with a rip in the fabric of the universe, without ever knowing what happened, seems like one of the most pleasant ways I can think to go. Plus there would be no mess, nor anybody left to clean up any mess! It's much less terrifying than earthquakes.

__________________
As above, so below