posted
Apparently science has debunked vampires, ghosts and zombies with its swift hand of observation. I don't know if I should laugh or get angry at the presumtion. Are these people complete anti-social freaks? I mean, one of them even said:
quote:"There are things that we need to point out that are crap," Park said.
It's gotten so bad, Park has a hard time watching movies these days. . .
Now, I admit that I am not sure if the above quote's context is the amount of non-scientific representations or social acceptance of the supernatural. Even so, I think this is more of a sad commentary of elitist attitudes of scientists than a negative of the debunked subjects.
It isn't because I actually believe in Vampires or Zombies (although I do believe in ghosts). Rather, if the scientific evaluations are true than they are picking on straw men. It is obvious to those who study such things that the quoted scientists have no concept of the actual myths. They have looked at the most obvious and surface ideas about the subjects and debunked them. However, for those who know a lot more about the myths than what is shown in movies realize they haven't even touched them.
My point is, I suppose, that I am tired of scientists taking pot shots at things they don't actually understand. They make the most basic and rudementary scientific evaluations and act as if the cases are solved. Yet, anyone who is at all familiar with those things they are so quick to disregard know there is more to it than the simple conclusions. More importantly (even if they are right) they need to get a life and get over themselves. It is reports like this and people like the quoted that gives scientists a bad name in "public" society.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought you only became a vampire if you drank the vampire's blood. That blood in your veins kills you, then gives you fangs so you can keep living a half-life. At least that's the way Amelia Atwater-Rhodes portrays it.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was ok with it until it brought up Medium and Ghost Whisperer being popular, alluding that it proves how gullible we all are. I like Ender's Game but I'm not worried about a Bugger invasion.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I thought you only became a vampire if you drank the vampire's blood. That blood in your veins kills you, then gives you fangs so you can keep living a half-life. At least that's the way Amelia Atwater-Rhodes portrays it.
Just like religions. Everyone who tells the story, tells it a little differently.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, it depends whom you ask. Some sources say that yes, all Vampire bitten victims become Vampires. Mathematically, if each Vampire bites but 1 person a night, and they each bite 1, we would have long ago become totally Vampiric, and probably starved to death.
Some argue that it takes three bites (Stroker's Dracula) for the definitive transformation to occur, or that all blood must be drained.
In either case the new vampires become the slaves, almost the living zombies of the master who bit them.
Others argue that a trading of blood must take place. The victim must be drained, but then must drink the blood of the vampire that bit them. This occurs only at the behest of the vampire. (Hambly and Rice) This, according to Hambly at least, offers a viral/biological explanation to Vampirism.
Finally others argue that another element must exist, the damnation of the soul being Vampirised--by that soul's fear of death. They are so scared to die they live as death instead.
What is the truth? Take your pick.
And keep the Garlic close at hand.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I thought you only became a vampire if you drank the vampire's blood. That blood in your veins kills you, then gives you fangs so you can keep living a half-life. At least that's the way Amelia Atwater-Rhodes portrays it.
That's how Buffy does it as well, or close to. You have to have your blood drained and then drink some of theirs.
According to the Historian, you have to be bitten three times, each time makes you progressively more vampire.
I don't know what Dracula has to say about it, I'm too chicken to read it.
I agree with the first post, though. The first thought I had when I read those articles was "Boy, are they getting paid waaaaay too much."
EDT: Darn, beat several times over.
MPH- IS Buffy really an offspring of Anne Rice? I've never heard that before.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to scare anyone or anything, but I think we all know wayyyyyy to much about vampires on this site.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to debunk the pop-culture, obvious surface beliefs on these topics, since those are the only ones people are actually fretting over. If they debunked the original myths, (by the way, you call them myths yourself, which kind of implies that you don't believe in them) then what would they prove to modern people who believe in modern versions of the myths?
Second, I think it's kind of ridiculous to state that scientists don't understand the things at which they're "taking pot shots." Personally, I think anybody who believes in the supernatural while disregarding the fact that nothing else in our world functions that way is the one who doesn't understand. But that's just me. I mean, if you understand how the world around you works better than the average citizen does, which must be said about most scientists, then how are you unqualified to comment on these phenomena? And if all that's needed is a rudimentary scientific evaluation to prove that the "phenomenon" isn't really happening, then why go further?
Scientists love to explore, and love to figure out mysteries. If there were a SHRED of *actual* evidence for any of these phenomena, they'd be *all over it* until they had something workable figured out. There isn't any real evidence. Most of the "evidence" presented by believers is a bunch of hooey, scientifically speaking - the rest is misunderstood and misapplied. If that weren't the case, we'd all be hearing about Harvard's latest ghost theory or the ongoing research project on the vampires of Boston.
"Get a life and get over themselves?" Even if they are correct? Sheesh!
I wish I could stick around and participate in this thread, as skepticism and the study of the supernatural are one of my absolutely favorite topics - but I have to split for my trip to California. I'll leave with the message that there is a whole lot more measurable evidence that most "supernatural" phenomena are either not supernatural at all, or are just figments of the imagination or effects of the brain in a non-waking state. I wish I had the time to take a picture of my two book shelves crammed with books on the supernatural and the weird. Even though I am a skeptic, I love to read about such things. Usually to try to debunk them in my own head, but more often because I *want* to believe in a "magical" world. However, I haven't found any evidence to support supernatural phenomena yet, in all my years of reading and studying. And believe me, I've looked for it.
Also, this article is obviously a fluff piece written for Halloween. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:MPH- IS Buffy really an offspring of Anne Rice? I've never heard that before.
I've never heard it before either, but I think it is so. A fair amount of the vampire lore in Buffy, especially that pertaining to siring, is copied from Rice or somebody that copied from her.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to debunk the pop-culture, obvious surface beliefs on these topics, since those are the only ones people are actually fretting over.
No, they are not. Your own reading should tell you that much. Yes, I do call them myths because I don't believe in them (other than ghosts). However, my main argument isn't if they are true or not. Its that skeptical scientists are too easily persuaded by their own self-congratulatory observations. They become presenters of "truth" and then think they become worthy of worship.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of agree with that, Occassional. Mostly because I think, you never know. There's a lot of odd stuff that happens, to odd to say that it's "crap." There's a lot science hasn't discovered yet, but it's good that folks don't really bloodlet people anymore or practice galvinism too.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: It isn't because I actually believe in Vampires or Zombies (although I do believe in ghosts). Rather, if the scientific evaluations are true than they are picking on straw men. It is obvious to those who study such things that the quoted scientists have no concept of the actual myths. They have looked at the most obvious and surface ideas about the subjects and debunked them.
Do you really believe that this is how science is done? Any scientists that only "looked at the most obvious and surface ideas" about any object of study would be torn to shreds by his or her own fellow scientists. The whole point of "skepticism" is that you don't presume to conclude anything without some pretty good evidence in your favor. The professor in this case is not saying that vampires and zombies don't exist, QED, only that there is absolutely no rational reason to believe that they do. And he's right about that.
That said, the article is obviously a fluff piece written because Halloween is just around the corner. I doubt the professor spent more than five minutes doing the math for this, which is all that was necessary considering it's a textook example of exponentially increasing population, and I certainly don't think he's patting himself on the back for being the Skeptical Hero Who Disproved the Vampyre. He's making a broader point that we live in a culture that often chooses to believe in the irrational, for better or for worse.
Edit: At second glance, I see that Efthimiou wrote a short paper on the subject. Even that, though, is pretty obviously only semi-serious. His evidence is dead serious (albeit nothing particularly original), but the tone of the paper is as playful as that of the news article. I get the feeling that he and his grad student coauthor got bored one night and wrote up some possible physical explanations for what are often claimed to be supernatural phenomena, possibly over a beer or two. As a form of recreation, doing physics problems is pretty unbelievably nerdy, but it's hardly "elitist," nor part of some evil skeptic conspiracy to make folks who believe in myths feel bad.
posted
Tarrsk, I would agree with you if it wasn't for the quote by Park. Not to mention the article's "slant" was that the general American population is gullible and superstitious. It all seems to add up that this research is more than a lark.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I always figured ghosts just appeared to be walking. But probably some Casper cartoons have Casper at some times falling off a shelf and smacking into the floor and at other times passing through walls, in which case it's clear that at any moment Casper obeys the physical laws that make for the funniest scene.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Omega M, hold on tight. What I have to say may come as a shock.
Caspar is actually a Cartoon, not a real ghost. Cartoons use an entirely different type of physics, particulary whatever would be the funniest thing to happen--happens. (Check "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" to see this in action.)
Now, if these scientists come out and say Cartoon Characters are not real, well then my friends, "I hope you know, this means war."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rather than trying to convince us ghosts don't make us cold -- and haven't you felt cold every time you've met a ghost personally? (I almost said "in the flesh") -- he'd do bette to peruse the Journal of Irreproducible Results: http://www.jir.com/ . They can explain _everything_.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Vampire The Masquerade: Redemption you had to be killed from the bite of a vampire in order to become one. As in he would have to drink you to death, or else open up a wound large enough for the blood lose to kill you.
There were several societies of vampires and some were actually nobel. They worked with humans and drank only enough to satisfy their thirst but never for pleasure.
Apparently if ignored the thirst for blood would turn the vampire into a type of monster that would kill and drink blood purely for sport, and the thirst could never be quenched. I actually really enjoyed the story within the game, as well as the lore. Unfortunately my copy was not created properly and it wouldnt let me past a certain point.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm only kidding a little bit. It's one of the few chinks in science's armor.
I'm sitting in a laboratory right now, and all I can see are scientists working their asses off, often for months, just to demonstrate very minor points in whatever study they happen to be doing. They're all eager to publish, sure (in fact, most are graduate students and postdocs, the ones with the most to gain from publishing), but not a single one would sacrifice scientific integrity just to get their names out. As someone who is working on a career in the field, I have say that your generalization is both inaccurate and pretty freakin' insulting.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Tarrsk, get used to people not liking you. There are many that find scientists questionable. That is fine, because I have known plenty of scientists that find other people questionable who aren't scientists.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a question of people not liking me personally, although I'll admit to some bruised feelings. It's that I have very rarely seen anyone actually substantiate a distrust of scientists. There are a few bad apples in the scientific community, to be sure, but that doesn't negate the fact that most scientists are careful, thorough, and as objective as possible in their research. The few scientists who publish false data, or take money from corporate interests, are inevitably ripped to shreds by other scientists. To say that "science" in general is untrustworthy is a verifiable claim in itself, and one that I have seen little evidence for.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:not a single one would sacrifice scientific integrity just to get their names out.
Of course they wouldn't. Because if they did, then other scientists would pounce on them and debunk their theories (and get themselves published in the process). And then the first scientists would look like fools to the scientific community and have a harder time getting published in the future.
Edit: Seems you argued that point for me.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we all know how untrustworthy scientists are in telling the truth, especially compared to so many of their detractors--politicians, cult leaders, fiction writers, and those who worship superstition (as compared to those who have faith.)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:not a single one would sacrifice scientific integrity just to get their names out.
Of course they wouldn't. Because if they did, then other scientists would pounce on them and debunk their theories (and get themselves published in the process). And then the first scientists would look like fools to the scientific community and have a harder time getting published in the future.
Edit: Seems you argued that point for me.
Right. So what's your point? Seems to me like the system is self-correcting.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tarrsk, it isn't for what scientists do. Its for how scientists act and feel toward others' who don't believe like they do in the scientific method or their findings. Basically, scientists call others who don't agree with them names: Idiots, uneducated, plebian, fanatics, and worst of all "psuedo-scientists" as if they didn't use their brains.
Well, when you are getting called names all the time people are not going to appriciate the group. Perhaps that is unfair. But, there are enough scientists that treat others negatively who don't agree with their findings that it causes bad feelings all around (see Dan_Raven comments as example).
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. It's very ingenious. But it still all boils down to getting published. It's not some noble pursuit of truth. And I'm sure Science would be the first to admit that. I'm essentially agreeing with you. Chalk anything insulting or inaccurate I said up to sarcasm. I was just responding to the ridiculous nature of the thread topic.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jehovoid: Yes. It's very ingenious. But it still all boils down to getting published. It's not some noble pursuit of truth. And I'm sure Science would be the first to admit that.
I'd argue that it's both. Certainly, a "noble pursuit of truth" is what got me (and, I'd wager, most of my fellow labrats) interested in science in the first place, and part of the excitement of my work comes from the daily realization that I'm learning things that nobody else has ever known before. That said, I'll certainly grant that publication is a major motivating factor as well.
quote:Tarrsk, it isn't for what scientists do. Its for how scientists act and feel toward others' who don't believe like they do in the scientific method or their findings. Basically, scientists call others who don't agree with them names: Idiots, uneducated, plebian, fanatics, and worst of all "psuedo-scientists" as if they didn't use their brains.
Sigh. Nobody in this thread (or, for that matter, in the article you're so upset about) has called anyone any of those names. Methinks you might just have an axe to grind.
Also, "pseudo-scientist" is an accurate descriptor for folks like this, who couch their ideas in the language of science, and claim scientific validity, without providing a shred of empirical evidence. It's not applied to religion, myth, or any other element of the supernatural that is strictly defined as supernatural, only unsubstantiated theories that claim to be based in science.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a lot of odd stuff that happens, to odd to say that it's "crap."
Like...?
-------
quote:Tarrsk, it isn't for what scientists do. Its for how scientists act and feel toward others' who don't believe like they do in the scientific method or their findings. Basically, scientists call others who don't agree with them names: Idiots, uneducated, plebian, fanatics, and worst of all "psuedo-scientists" as if they didn't use their brains.
Okay, what evidence do you have for the assertion that people who don't "believe" in the scientific method are using their brains?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly, a "noble pursuit of truth" is what got me (and, I'd wager, most of my fellow labrats) interested in science in the first place
This is a fine feeling to have. But I'd argue that it's the human in you and not the scientist in you that feels this way. Science is pragmatic and petty (try not to take pejoratively). That's what gives it its value. It has moments of elegance, but it really takes a lot of imagination to feel deeply about it.
So what if Science wants to crush peoples' silly superstitions under its arrogant heel of theory and evidence. It's like saying that a joke doesn't make any sense. Who cares if it doesn't make any sense? I still enjoyed laughing at it.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jehovoid: This is a fine feeling to have. But I'd argue that it's the human in you and not the scientist in you that feels this way. Science is pragmatic and petty (try not to take pejoratively). That's what gives it its value. It has moments of elegance, but it really takes a lot of imagination to feel deeply about it.
Fair enough. I think, at this point, we're pretty much saying the same thing. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, "pseudo-scientist" is an accurate descriptor for folks like this, who couch their ideas in the language of science, and claim scientific validity, without providing a shred of empirical evidence.
I call folks like that philosophers.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, "pseudo-scientist" is an accurate descriptor for folks like this, who couch their ideas in the language of science, and claim scientific validity, without providing a shred of empirical evidence.
I call folks like that philosophers.
Then you're still messing up terminology. Philosophers do not claim to be scientists, whereas pseudo-scientists do.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
To say that every idea is equal means that we have so many equal ideas we can not choose which is correct. Some must have greater value, of truth, of fact, of usefulness, than others.
To say "Man can fly by thinking really hard about it." is an idea. To say it has equal validity to the idea, "No matter how hard you try thinking about it, man can not fly on his own." is nice and pleasant, unless you find yourself at the edge of a cliff. The man who believes he can fly if he jumps and realllllly thinks hard about flying, is going to suffer much worse than the man who thinks, "I can not fly on my own. I think I'll walk the other way."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
