How to be an internet HB

[Chemist]

I don't think I've seen this link metioned here before (but I may stand corrected). I'm a big fan of these types of lists and thought it categorizes the Apollo HB's pretty well. Enjoy!

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

[gethen]

Very complete list, with one possible additon:

42. Find some way to make money from your internet woo-woo project. After people have spent good money on your book, tape, poster, etc., they will be more likely to believe that it has some value. And better yet, you'll make money while spreading ignorance!

[Moose]

Very complete list, with one possible additon:

42. Find some way to make money from your internet woo-woo project. After people have spent good money on your book, tape, poster, etc., they will be more likely to believe that it has some value. And better yet, you'll make money while spreading ignorance!

I'd suggest it's as much the fact that nobody wants to feel like they got ripped off, it's just easier to go with it. And the more expensive it is, the more they'll resist that feeling.

[CJSF]

I don't think I've seen this link metioned here before (but I may stand corrected). I'm a big fan of these types of lists and thought it categorizes the Apollo HB's pretty well. Enjoy!

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

The site mentions Occam's Razor, of course. We "use" it here on the BABB often enough, with good effect. But something has always bothered me about the Razor.
I don't think it's meant to say that "only the simplest explanation is the most likely."

A number of years ago, on the TIGHAR (The International Group of Historic Aircraft Recovery) e-mail forum, we debated the meaning of Occam's Razor in relation to the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan.

Here's what John Marks of TIGHAR had to say:

The context [of the Razor] was Scholastic theology, the attempt to reconcile Scriptural revelation with rational knowledge such as Aristotle's discoveries. What Ockham proposed was a methodology, not an all-purpose reality test.
...

Ockham proposed a methodology that posited a rational agenda for investigation, not a substitute for it.

The misunderstood core of the Razor is that what Ockham really propsed was: if there is a universe of possible causes or explanations, as a matter of efficient methodology, it made sense to investigate __by other means__ the most simple first, NOT because it was more likely to be true, but because it would be easier to disprove!

Let me repeat that. Ockham NEVER posited that a simple explanation was more likely to be correct. He posited that it would be easier to analyze...

Just food for thought.

CJSF

[JayUtah]

When you study the nature of falsification you understand why Occam's Razor indeed extends beyond its original boundaries. "Simplicity" in Occam's world is not necessarily having few premises as opposed to many. The number of premises is not a problem so long as they are individually testable. The nature of the premises is what separates a "simple" hypothesis from a "complex" one. If the premises are not testable, or they are testable but remain untested, then the hypothesis which embodies them and their conclusion is a "complex" hypothesis and ranked lower according to Occam.

To be sure, the Apollo project as history traditionally tells it is a highly complex proposition. However, the premises upon which it was built -- chiefly engineering and scientific prowess -- are testable and have been tested. The hoax conspiracy theory is also highly complex, but relies on fundamentally untestable and untested questions. Whereas we can discover and test how certain engineering problems, for example, were solved, and in many cases speak to the people who solved them, the conspiracy theorists cannot produce a conspirator. Nor can they speak with any assurance greater than conjecture about how their hypothesized conspirators went about their business.

"Simplicity" and "complexity" according to Occam refer to nothing more prosaic than loose ends. The hypothesis with the fewest loose ends is more likely to be correct than a hypothesis with many loose ends because the chances of all those loose ends working out in your favor are remote. Obviously a hypothesis with no loose ends, but which is ultimately falsified, is dropped from the running. It no longer becomes a worthy hypothesis.

[Chemist]

Good food for thought in both cases. Applying Occam's razor, by nature, entails analyzing or testing various hypothesis. This is something the conspiracist can't or won't do. It still seems that the first point in the list still holds true. The HB will avoid it like a plague.

[darkhunter]

Use Occam's Razor at work all the time. Something comes in broke, I check the quick and easy stuff first. Only when all the easy stuff checks good do I go and start meathodically troubleshooting. The steps for troubleshooting a fault in a peice of equipment are very close to the scientific meathod....

[JayUtah]

The original meaning of Occam's Razor still holds true for conspiracy theories. The value in a conspiracy theory is not in its resolution, but in its perpetuation. You can't sell books discussing questions which have been conclusively settled one way or the other. So it's in the conspiracists' best interest to propose theories which are as untestable as possible. Thus they will, in fact, avoid Occam's Razor like the plague.

Untestability does not deter the conspiracy theorist, because reasons for untestability can be easily woven back into the theory itself. "Whistle-blowers" can't be produced because, "naturally," they will need to protect themselves by remaining anonymous. You can go on and on like this. Since most of the Apollo projects occured long ago in places far too remote for casual visits, there is a lot which remains untestable.

The other thing about that list that bugs me is "intertial dampeners". The proper term is "damper," which you hear occasionally. This is a long standing issue I've had with Star Trek writers, and occasionally with upstart engineers.

"Damp" as an adjective refers to moisture. "To dampen" is to moisten, and an agent which accomplishes this is a "dampener".

"Damp" as a verb has a precise engineering meaning -- to attenuate or to reduce in magnitude or amplitude. It is in this sense that Starfleet vessels are supposed to deal with inertia while under Newtonian (i.e., impulse) propulsion. "To damp" means to so attenuate, and an agent which produces this effect is a "damper". The state of having received this treatment is "damped," not "dampened".

"Damp out" is a phrase engineers commonly use. This is usually in the context of some unwanted vibration or oscillation which they have labored long and hard to remove, proclaiming their success saying, "Yeah, we finally got that flutter to damp out."

[Irishman]

So how does one get his inertia wet?

I just love "Heisenberg Compensators" on the transporters.