« Email exchange with Victor Senchenko | Main | Bingo Tonight? »

June 30, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

W-o-w.

From the point of view of classifying nutters, there are a couple of other interesting little memes I spotted in his mails. Firstly, the repeated use of your first name, which I always find quite creepy. Secondly, the use of rhetorical devices to try and establish "superiority", like "I shall indulge you">

Anyway Victor, feel free to send your views in to The Lay Scientist. Hell, send me an e-mail less than 1,500 words and I'll dedicate a post to you.

He clearly doesn't really understand relativity. If you accelerate to near the speed of light, time doesn't slow down at all, since you're always motionless in your own reference frame. Instead, everyone else's clock will slow down.

It also amuses me how he thinks his pseudophysics is directly connected to broad and questionable generations about the "Human age".

What, no email for me, Victor? That David Mabus or whatever his name was troll had time for me; I'm hurt.

Since he's annoyed that we haven't read his book, I've published a review of the pages he's posted online over here.

Oh, and guess what - Victor is an Intelligent Design believer! Only, with an unusual twist.

Victor Senchenko - brought to you today by the words 'Physical' and 'Physically'.

As has often been stated, this is what happens when you remove all the math from what is essentially a mathematical theory--all you get is wordplay and nonsense.

Just a remark: The name of the publishing company "Lulu" is the german word for "wee-wee", "piss", "urine"...

Another remark: Why do all the cool cranks only publish in english? We german bloggers do also want our share of crank mails! ;)

@Florian (and others looking for German cranks): Try this: https://www.gtodoroff.de/

Rails against Relativity and Evolution (and garbles both). Have fun!

stay at the same speed. (Well, with no measurable difference, anyway.)


hey! Crookes would be very mad at you for that statment!

I call Time Cube.

Just FYI, he didn't have to find a publisher - LuLu is a vanity publisher, meaning that Mr Senchencko will have had to pay them for the privilege of seeing his random outpourings in print. I imagine that explains why he's so desperate to drum up sales.

Thanks for this post - I was seriously considering getting hold of this book (from a library!) after hearing about its craziness - now I don't have to, since it's clearly bunkum.

A few weeks ago, I got another e-mail from Mr. Senchenko, who had either finally discovered my post or had finally worked up the gumption to reply to it. (I'm honestly not sure which is more likely: he does not seem like an inhibited fellow, but he almost certainly got my e-mail address from my blag, and it's not like I went to any trouble to hide my post on his crankery.) He was not pleased. He went to great length to say that I was not as funny as I thought I was, but he didn't address any of the science I had brought up.

In retrospect, I should have said something else about his "why don't electrons repel each other and make atoms fly apart" business. Yes, like charges repel, so electrons are not inclined to favor one another's company. In quantum-mechanical terms, the lobes of their wavefunctions try to be as far apart from each other as possible, while still being bound to the atomic nucleus by electrical attraction. This rule-of-thumb lets you predict the shape of a molecule. Hooray for freshman chemistry!

Victor, dear, you're doing it wrong. If you want prove yourself, don't treat the debater like a 2nd grader. It just gives us less reason to want to look into it at all. Unless he's going for 'Bad press is better than no press,' but I think we're smarter than that.

Thanks for the tips on how to defeat cranks! ;-) I'm sure they'll come in handy . . .

Intersting.

I haven't finished perusing the whole exchange, but Vicci is already up to 375.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Mr. Baez's index is most helpful and amusing.

-Random

I find a good rule of thumb is this:

If the author of some "revolutionary" theory uses either relativity or quantum physics to prove various kinds of metaphysical phenomena, like God or the meaning of life, you should give it a miss (or investigate further, depending on your sense of humor).

*laughs*

How in the world did this fellow manage to come up with his conceptions?

I think he would be very surprised to learn that, by Special Relativity, an object traveling near the speed of light, within its own frame of reference, experiences time in exactly the same manner as it would if it were "standing still." Standing in that frame, you would still measure one second as one second. Relativity only becomes meaningful when one is observing objects in different frames of reference from one's self (at different velocities, or at different gravitational potentials).

Amusing.

They pretend to be knowledgeable and shrewd, but in fact they are just like those of other humans: intellectual cowards.

I kinda like how he's talking about humans, sounds sort of like he doesn't actually consider himself a human. That plus the ""I shall indulge you" style makes me hear his screed in the voice of this fictional character.

Random:

I don't have time to figure it, and since you are already doing so, please post the final tally.

Thanks.

Citizen Z,

That kind of language always makes me think more of this fictional character.

Well,

Victor weighed in at a hefty 920 points on the crackpot index. This gave him an average of 85 points a paragraph.

Admitedly I had to skew this slightly, since there was no entry for claiming the Nobel was "A result of religious doctrine" (paraphrased, actually. He makes an analogy that compares science as another indoctonation like religeon. ALL HAIL THE TEST TUBE).

Sorry, went a little off there. OK so I'm not stable and admit it. So its rather telling when *I* think some one is out of his mind.

Ah well, at least he's an entertaining moron. Perhaps he can be useful to society. He can stand as a warning as to why we tell children not to do drugs.

If I get bored later, I might scope his sight and count the Doggrels. Who says OCD's can be constructive?

Random
\/\/

Loved it, Richard. All those responses. Keep it up. I’m impressed that together we provided some commotion on your site.

Now then, am I upset that your visitors – with no exceptions – bayed and ridiculed what I claim? Not in the least. I expect it. I know who and what humans are, and exactly why they behave as they do.

Instead, I’m chuckling to myself, as I had done throughout our correspondence. That’s because you – and now your site visitors – do amuse me: typical human ignoramuses who are afraid to learn all that they claims to want to know, due to lack of spunk – lack of intellectual courage. Not for you (and your visitors) is the INFORMED demolition of the information provided in the book. You much rather use the usual “ignorance strategy” of intellectual cowards: attack, ridicule, and dismiss the information provided without having read and digested it for yourselves, while making lame excuses to your supporters: “oh, I don’t have the time to waste on some rubbish, as I know better”. Were you and other humans to actually know better, then this planet, just like all human societies, wouldn’t be in the sorry predicament they are now. Such attitude is so much like those of theists: stick your head in the sand, so that you hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, and replace logic and reasoning with invented notions, such as that of god and ‘time’.

But will your and your visitor’s ignorance alter the physical fact that physical ‘time’ does not exist? No, it shall not. Will any amount of howling from ignorant masses alter the physical process of change – which actually is physically responsible for all physical change, and which needs no notion of ‘time’? No, it shall not. Physical change shall always be responsible for all physical change, irrespective of what it may be called and classified.

What you and your visitors may appreciate, Richard, is that this is your first-hand experience of being involved in an examination of current human delusions, not unlike those experienced by humans when Copernicus claimed that Earth was not the centre of the Universe, but a minor planet, and Columbus claimed that he could sail westwards from the west coast of Europe, and not plummet from the end of the Earth. The difference being is that the information contained in the book attacks all of human delusions, making no exceptions for any of them, be they of religion or flaws in science. This means that you all can either learn what I know, and either make INFORMED challenges to ANY of it, or sleep on it, or accept it as being the physical truth. OR, you can all behave as those who initially ridiculed Copernicus, Columbus and Galileo. Whichever attitude you display is up to you. Irrespective of human attitudes, it shall remain a historical pivoting point for humans, irrespective of whether this eventuates sooner or later.

As to the question of my book, what I would care to point out is that it is not the book – or how or where it is published – that’s of any significance, but what’s contained in those pages. Those of little intellect, and with nasty dispositions of envy, malice, hatred, and love of bullying and belittlement can show their disdain to the book’s publishers: Lulu Publishing. I’m quite proud of the book and where and how it is published. Lulu provides an outlet for notions that otherwise are to be stymied. It is a company like Lulu that provides the physical testimony to what United States of America – or rather, those who would govern it – proclaim as one of their fundamental freedoms: the freedom of speech: meaning the freedom to publish. Unfortunately, in physical reality, it is virtually impossible to publish that which publishers fear, or unwilling to publish due to their unfamiliarity with subject matter, as their main endeavor is to make money and not to cause controversy. I, therefore, am grateful to Lulu, for providing me with an ability to publish a book that otherwise would take years in search of publishers. For that reason, I had included the Lulu logo on the spine, and a credit of publisher on the inside. In fact – though it is not as simplistic as Lulu would have you believe – I have no hesitations of recommending Lulu to anyone who would consider having a book published, as there is the latest digital technology of on demand publishing that eliminates the waste that is associated with pulping of millions of unsold books (read that as trees) every year. Furthermore, the book is of good design (mine) and layout (mine), for which I taught myself desktop publishing programs of InDesigh, Illustrator, Photoshop, and many others.

In finality, allow me to pose a question to you Richard, and all others who may care to learn. It is very possible that you are familiar with Hans Christian Anderson’s tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes. In this tale, an emperor is duped by fraudsters to presume that he is wearing a sheer garment of exquisite fabric fashioned into a superb garment, which he is parading before his subjects, when that illusion is shattered by a child who pipes up that the emperor is naked. My question is this: while we often use this tale as an example of other’s delusions, what is the real outcome to the tale of the emperor’s new clothes, which the author never included, but which is a never ending factuality to this tale?

Shall I tell you? Oh, why not. After all, it occurs constantly all around us, even with you.

What occurs is this. When the child exclaims that the emperor is naked, the parents are thrown into panic. “Hush!” they whisper to their child, “ Don’t say anything to embarrass us before the Emperor. He may become upset and punish us! After all, he is more wise than we, he knows what he is doing!”

Other spectators are no less chilling to the child. “What an uncouth, ignorant child!” they decry. “What insolence!” “ Does not that child understand the esoteric of the sublime and the unseen!” “How dare he ridicule whom we revere!”

“He is stupid for challenging the known principles of nothing, which states that nothingness of vacuum space is something that can cause that vacuum to form physical shape of ‘black holes’, and that the nothingness of time can physically influence a moment for the nothingness of space to swallow you up into those ‘black holes.’” “That child should keep quiet! He is challenging our intelligence to view any indulgence of any scientific principle, no matter how trivial and absurd, as an expression of those who know better!”

One can substitute any kind of clap-trap bullshit humans have been using as devise of shutting up those who try to expose their delusions, because most inane believe those delusions to be true, and therefore, never question them. Others, the highly astute, don’t bother to rock-the-boat: they get on with making money, be it in science as any other endeavor. Most others simply don’t care because they are more concerned with personal survival (or indulgences) to worry about flaws in science. Just give them god.

I have a perception, however, that there may be those who were attracted by the online noise we’ve produced, who would be more knowing and more inquisitive than you and your vocal detractors, capable of choosing to examine my information prior to voicing their opinions. (As a matter of fact, I’ve already been contacted by one such person, who had simply enquired that after reading of my book would I be willing to explain all that may remain not understood – which I would.) These quite visitors are not obnoxious debasers, the kind one meets on most forums that allow articulation of personal opinions – as on your site – who voice their lowest esteem on any subject, as if that should gain them the reward of happiness, which it shall not. Quite the contrary, apart from temporary instant of self-satisfaction of being maliciously and unjustly hurtful, only the emptiness of venom remains.

TTFN – ta ta for now.


Kind regards,
Victor Senchenko

Now then, am I upset that your visitors – with no exceptions – bayed and ridiculed what I claim? Not in the least. I expect it. I know who and what humans are, and exactly why they behave as they do.

Auto-equivocation is a handy tool when inbuilt into a theory. "They don't like my theory! My theory explains that and gives me ground to be dismissive!"

Or in your own words; "One can substitute any kind of clap-trap bullshit humans have been using as devise of shutting up those who try to expose their delusions, because most inane believe those delusions to be true, and therefore, never question them."

Which brings us back to how you melted down at what was a profoundly fair line of questioning. Or your recursive justification for arguments put forward by the book.

"Want to know if the book is worth reading! Read the book and all will be revealed!"

Of course, such dubious reasoning to support the book tells us something quite clear about the book; it isn't worth reading.

The only thing malicious in this exchange, Victor, is the contempt you show for those you have spammed (myself included) and those who ask perfectly fair questions.

Victor,

I'm sure there will be others who will happily take apart this ridiculous rant paragraph by paragraph.

I would like to, but I am not finding time. However, upon reading your previous letters and this recent entry, it occurs to me that you are as delusional as every single fundamentalist on the planet. Its pretty comical. Someone called it here, but may I suggest that you go ahead and do a little searching on Time Cube.

There we have another delusional with his personal theory of everything, who thinks that people who don't agree with him are idiots, who thinks they have come onto something truly breathtaking. But in the end, his Time Cube (and your pile of stuff) is meaningless, its based on nonsense, makes no verifiable predictions.

In the end, the Time Cube guy, and you, are just sorry wackjobs, with delusions of grandeur and megalomania.

Now if you wish to actually debate something, defend any single one of your claims. Personally I like how you say time doesn't exist but continue to use the word 'change', which of course means the difference in things from one point in time to another. If you don't like time, you don't get to use that word. Then you like to say its not a physical thing. Well, duh. Neither is emotion, ideas, math, or memories. What's your point? You can't touch it so it isn't real? Nonsense, we measure it, its real.

If you want to debate an idea, how about not taking the path of every astrologer, homeopath, psychic and water dowser and stay away from logical and other fallacies. Skeptico has some good guidelines. And of course there is this list, among others.

Once you are able to defend your bizarre claims without relying on logical fallacies and by providing evidence, then why not come back here for some enlightened discussion rather than this blather you have posted so far.

Also, you need to learn to be succinct. Your diatribes get boring quickly.

Physical change shall always be responsible for all physical change, irrespective of what it may be called and classified.

lol epic fail is epic.

Tell me, is your book just one huge tautology?

Victor, a black hole is not made from a vacuum, my friend. It is made from a massive, massive star (about 2.5x as big as our sun) that has run out of nuclear fusion fuel and collapsed in on itself.

It has the same mass as the former star, but you can approach it much more closely than you could the star, because of its much smaller size. This leads to vicious tidal forces that could tear you apart - the "technical" term is spaghettification.

In addition to this, the surface gravity is so strong that light cannot escape from it. It is therefore black, and, as that clever chap Einstein proved, nothing can move faster than light in your much-maligned vacuum. Therefore _nothing_ can get out.

However, the black hole can theoretically "evaporate" due to Hawking radiation, which relies on vacuum fluctuations due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Once it's evaporated (in a period inversely proportional to the black hole's size), we're left with the vacuum again - except that even a vacuum isn't a vacuum for long due to the aforementioned Heisenberg principle - it fizzes with particle-antiparticle pairs annihilating each other.

All this, of course, takes time... oh, yeah, I forgot.

The real world is so much more interesting than bizarre fantasies.

As with most woo I think there is a tiny germ of method in the madness. Time itself has no causal power. If you take an object and subject it to no process other than the passage of time its properties will not change in any significant way.

Unfortunately, Hume has beaten Victor to this revelation by the best part of 300 years.

Sorry, Victor, but the answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.

Victor,

Grammatically speaking, "shall" is not just a pretentious-sounding version of "will;" they do not fill the same grammatical niche. I forward you to the wiki page, so you can stop sounding like such an ass.

"Shall"-I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Tech said:

Personally I like how you say time doesn't exist but continue to use the word 'change', which of course means the difference in things from one point in time to another. If you don't like time, you don't get to use that word. Then you like to say its not a physical thing. Well, duh. Neither is emotion, ideas, math, or memories. What's your point? You can't touch it so it isn't real? Nonsense, we measure it, its real.

I see how the notion of time requires change for it to have any useful meaning (imagine a universe where nothing ever changes. Pretty dull...), but I'm not sure i see why change requires time. Do you?

Also our clocks do not actually measure time. I think it's more a case of time being defined by the number of clicks of our atomic clocks.

Also our clocks do not actually measure time. I think it's more a case of time being defined by the number of clicks of our atomic clocks.

In that case rulers don't acutally measure distance. It is more a case of space being defined by the number of ticks on the ruler.

Perfect example wikinite! Atomic clocks are clocks, just very accurate ones.

Martin,
change requires time, its part of the definition of the word.

When something changes there is a verb to make that happen. to cause a difference, to make a new form, to give a new appearance to.

All these are actions and require time.

If something has changed, it is with respect to time. If no time has passed, no change has been made.


As I recall we actually define a second based on the wavelength of cesium, not the clock itself.

By the way, both cesium and the wavelength of cesium are both measurable and real. :)

Well, like most words change is pretty versitile. In the case of the ruler, the numbers designating tick marks change as you move down the ruler. Or, for a more qualitative approach, a tye-dye t-shirt changes as you examine diffferent positions on the shirt. The issue is that change needs a modifier in order to explicitly determined, i.e. change with respect to something. In the case of the ruler or the shirt the number or color changes with respect to position. With the case of a clock, the position (or number if digital) changes with respect to time. You could even say with an analog clock that the position changes with respect to time, and numbers change with respect to position.

regardless, the point you are making about change requiring time still stands for many types of change (just not all).

I'm no scientist but I'll bet Vic four dollars that it takes a certain amount of time to type this post.

There. You can keep the four dollars, Vic, it was a rhetorical wager.

Yahoo!!

Have I your attention, boys and girls? I was reading some rude comments about Victor Senchenko on another site that I visit occasionally, which directed me here.

With apologies to the bard, I came here not to bury Caesar but to praise him. It seems that I'm the only one of authority here, as it happens that I have read the book. When I was contacted by the author's PG guys I was curious but doubted I'd learn Anything. Was I ever wrong. The man and his brain are incredible.

What he provides in his book is exactly what he calls it: revelations. It's impossible to explain it in mouthfulls, you have to experience the full feast. He's right in all he says, including that people prefer to make up their minds in ignorance, without first examining all the evidence and only then make conclusions, just like they do in every episode of CSI.

Sure, when first reading the book it seems that there is a lack of empirical and irrefutable proof of what he discloses, and he admits this. But as he also explains, while we are aware of a water cycle on earth,
no one had ever proved it by observing a same single water droplet move right through the whole system. We accept generalisations as indisputable proof because they can be observed in their overall structure. And that's what he does. He provides the descriptions of systems that are repeating from the smallest units to the largest: that being the universe itself. And it all fits so neatly into place it's breathtaking.

Having read this book, I know exactly what he means in regards to humans not knowing who they are and what they are. And we'll never change for the better if we behave like you male clowns. Grow up and give yourselves a chance to learn not just what you never knew, but what you couldn't imagine in your wildest dreams. All of which is right before you in plain view. Men are such dopes.

As I depart, before you all pounce on me in your blind and stupid fury, I'll reveal what the title of "human space navigator"means. It accurately applies to the author and to each and every one of us. We are all human space navigators.

kittycat

Cat Jones, not only are you arrogant and patronizing, like our good friend Victor, you're also misandric! How fun.
1) Argumentum ad hominem is what is known as a logical fallacy. Avoid using them, because they're absolutely pointless in a debate. Neither is the appeal to authority, which you are using when you claim that you are the only authority here because you've read the book; it was previously explained why we don't need to read the book. Namely, he never actually managed a solid defense of his ideas in all those over 5,000 words of emails.
2) Humans do know who and what they are; we're homo sapiens, a species which is a member of family hominidae, or great apes, which happens to have evolved high intelligence on the level that can create advanced technology. We've changed vastly for the better since we first appeared, and a lot of that has been based on scientific thinking and the scientific method, which is exactly what we're using to determine that Victor Senchenko is, more than likely, a idiotic crackpot who can't defend his ideas (and actually, couldn't even attempt to explain them: possibly because he wants us to buy the book to understand his arguments, therefore making him more money; or possibly because he doesn't really understand what the hell he's talking about himself and it just pulling a massive pile of shit out of his ass) because there is no decent defense of them.
3) The title of the book isn't what's being discussed at the moment; it's actually practically irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with being male and everything to do with old Victor being ignorant, arrogant, and knowing nothing whatsoever about science but thinking he can turn the whole world on its ear with the power of his sophistry and illusion.

You, apparently, are also quite ignorant of science, or else you would not handwave away his admitted lack of empirical evidence by citing a terrible analogy he provided. It is not necessary to see a "single drop of water" move through the "water cycle" to know that it exists, but that's neither here nor there because you've not clarified what this oh-so-important "water cycle" is. Is it the motion of water through the oceans? From the rivers to the ocean? Water moving through the various forms of precipitation only to evaporate and enter the atmosphere before raining down again?

And I defy you to even give a cogent definition of "a drop of water" and then explain how one could follow that "drop" through any kind of cycle. The second a water droplet enters a larger body of water, it ceases to be a water droplet and it becomes an exercise in absurdity to even talk about "following" it through the cycle. Imagine if it froze evaporated! Then you're really in a pickle.

And the inaneness of the analogy is beaten by its complete inapplicability. You say it illustrates that

We accept generalisations as indisputable proof because they can be observed in their overall structure.

So...Because we can see all the water moving through a given cycle (observation of the "overall structure"), that's how we know all the water moves through said cycle?

What a revelation.

Except that's not how science works at all, anyway. Science is inductive. Part of what that means is that it moves from the specific to the general. Deduction, which science is not, is the form of reasoning that uses generalizations to move to specifics, i.e.

All men are mortal (very general).
Socrates is a man (specific).
Therefore, Socrates is mortal (very specific).

Science works more like this:

Socrates is mortal. Plato is mortal. Phillip II is mortal. Anaxagoras is mortal. Xeno is mortal (etc. and so forth until one has listed a whole bunch of mortal men). All of these people are also men, therefore we might draw a tentative conclusion that to be man is to also be mortal.

Science works basically by making observations under proper experimental conditions and then crafting a general theory that explains those observations as parsimoniously as possible. We don't accept generalizations as proof of anything (unless one is a racist or otherwise prejudiced, but that's a different type of generalization anyway), rather we use specific facts to build our way to greater generalizations about the universe in which we live.

"Proof," I might add, especially of the "indisputable" kind, is for math. Science doesn't deal in proof. It deals in evidence. Nothing in science is indisputable, but some things are pretty damn solid so the disputer had better have the big guns on his side; he'd better have vast reams of new evidence, properly tested, repeated, and verified, to show that the old view was wrong.

Victor Senchenko has nothing but a bunch of arrogant sophistry pulled out of his ass like his ass was having an ignorant sophistry sale. Science lives or dies on empirical evidence. That Senchenko has none, freely admits it, and then only expands upon his great ignorance of the scientific method, should tell you that he isn't, in any way, doing science. He's a crank publishing half-crocked nonsense through an online vanity press.

Generally, if someone has a deep understanding of human beings, it shows in their communication and general bearing. Generally, if someone has made a great discovery and has written a classic, they can spontaneously give a brief, clear account of their main points when asked.

Victor has more than 6500 words displayed on this site - not including the duplication of exctracts in the main article, yet still parries objections simply by restating "read the book".

Victor, you came to this site attempting to convince people to read your book. It hasn't worked, and your response has been to sneer at and insult people.

From this I conclude you do not understand much at all about humans. I also conclude that your book must be as poorly written as the rest of your material here, and I won't waste any time (existent or otherwise) reading it.

However, the responses others have written have been thoughtful and engaging and of a much higher quality than your offering.

I wasn't really planning on commenting on this nonsense, but then there was this argument which above most other woo arguments really annoys me:

It seems that I'm the only one of authority here, as it happens that I have read the book.

It's just another dressed up version of "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it." So, I guess since I haven't been anally raped by a blue whale, I can't possibly have anything to say about it?

I don't need to have read the book, and I don't need to be an authority on it in order to see that it is complete and total rubbish written by a delusional fantasist who thinks he is the next Galileo. Ask yourself this and then decide if Victor is not really just a mentally disturbed whack job:

Do you think Galileo thought he was the next Copernicus and told everyone that he was and they were just ignorant if they didn't believe that?

He is a fantasist of the highest order.

You just fell for his marketing Cat. If indeed you are not just a sock puppet.

Now, on top of the absolute absurdity of the "Don't knock it" argument, we have no proof that you are what you call an authority. Simply reading something does not make you an authority on the subject, it doesn't even show you understand the subject. If it did that would make me an authoriy on ancient, early modern and modern history; chaos theory; physics; astronomy; the big bang; evolution; religion; psychology; GIS; GPS; computers; software engineering; geology; chemistry, biology, medicine and everything else I've ever read a book on.

That's why the argument from authority is called a logical fallacy.

The man and his brain are incredible.

No, they most certainly are not. This man and his brain are massively deluded. If he said he was the next Napoleon, you'd want him locked away and treated, but he says he is the next Galileo and you fell for it.

It's impossible to explain it in mouthfulls, you have to experience the full feast.

That's right, plug the book again Cat/Victor. We didn't fall for the "read the book for the answers." first time and we won't here.

He's right in all he says, including that people prefer to make up their minds in ignorance, without first examining all the evidence and only then make conclusions, just like they do in every episode of CSI.

Is their an 'argumentum from popular television serial' logical fallacy? Not only that, but how do you and him know that everybody makes up their mind without the complete evidence? No, wait, let me guess. Because the evidence they don't have is the evidence you can only get from reading the book, right. It's a marketing ploy you fool, and you fell for it. If indeed you are not just Victor.

What is everyone ignorant of? Does this other evidence affect everything, or can I decide on a car without needing to read his book?

Sure, when first reading the book it seems that there is a lack of empirical and irrefutable proof of what he discloses, and he admits this.

So it is not science and can never be described as science. He has managed to convince you that no proof is a good thing and you fell for it. By the way, I can't prove it, but I actually own all the land in the world and I can cut you in on a piece if you want.

But as he also explains, while we are aware of a water cycle on earth,
no one had ever proved it by observing a same single water droplet move right through the whole system.

Possibly the worst analogy I've seen a woo use. And I've seen some truly awful ones.

We accept generalisations as indisputable proof because they can be observed in their overall structure.

You might, the rest of us rely on evidence.

And it all fits so neatly into place it's breathtaking.

I doubt it. But then, it would fit neatly into place, he has had time to make it up. See how often real science just fits "neatly into place".

And we'll never change for the better if we behave like you male clowns.

Ahh, sexism rears it's ugly head. Because we all know women don't ever rely on evidence, logic or science, they just 'feel' things.

Grow up and give yourselves a chance

Oh and of course we must all be young and immature because we don't agree with you. How very mature of you to take that stance.

Men are such dopes.

More childish sexism.

before you all pounce on me in your blind and stupid fury,

And name calling as well. What a mature, intelligent and well rounded woman you aren't. If you and Victor are the sort of people we are supposed to aspire to be, I'll stay where I am thanks.

It accurately applies to the author and to each and every one of us. We are all human space navigators.

No, it doesn't. Apparently neither you nor Victor understand the term navigator. Or most of the other terms you throw about.

This one really has it all:

psuedoscience
persecution complexes
delusional fantasy
sexism
ageism
fallacious thought
misunderstood terminology
misunderstood science
insults

You two have really been doing your homework.

Sorry for the double post but something occurred to me whilst I was away making my top secret but incredibly awesome egg sandwich mix.

Cat, please reconcile the following statements (of yours) in ways that don't make you look foolish, immature, sexist and basically a bit lame:

The man and his brain are incredible.

and:

And we'll never change for the better if we behave like you male clowns.

...

Men are such dopes.

Fire away.

"kittycat" = Victor Senchenko. "She" tries to sound feminine, but that familiar uppity tone keeps on breaking through.

yakaru:

That was my suspicion, the writings sound far to familiar.

Further proof that this is a mind on the edge if you ask me. Either they are the same person, or they have the same problems.

Yeh, I almost feel a bit sorry for him. He seems sincere in his own way, otherwise he'd be approaching the new age market instead of skeptics and scientists. Though he'd need to make a few changes and find a better title - something like "Timeless Sex: How to Stop Time and Conceive an Indigo Child". All the pseudo-science would give it the cloak of legitimacy, and so long as the sexual content sounded kinda spiritual and was kinky enough, he'd have a million seller on his hands.

Haha! Very entertaining stuff! Two things.....

First off - "kittycat" - if you are indeed a "female" and not just one of the many voices inside Voctors head, then the two of you should really really be together.

Secondly, wow!! Victor, please, please can i have some of what you are on, it must be amazing stuff!

Perhaps "kittycat" is just one of Victor's multiple personalities? or is he just schitzophrenic?

Which Victor are you talking about - the clever Victor or the naughty Victor?

Time is just a function of memory, isn't it?

From what I understand of it (which isn't actually all that much, it's mostly from the section of a book presenting string theory to the common man that was on relativity), time is another dimension, similar to the 3 that we're familiar with. If I remember correctly, if you go extremely fast, as in a significant portion of the speed of light, time slows down from your perspective; I remember one idea about why this is was that you always travel at light speed through the 4 dimensions, so the faster you travel through the spatial dimensions, the slower you travel through the temporal dimension. Interestingly, one idea is that if one achieved FTL travel, one would go back in time.

"And name calling as well. What a mature, intelligent and well rounded woman you aren't."

Hey folks, I'm a big-time, if peripheral, supporter of skeptics and everything they stand for. But I really hate the lingo. How is calling someone a "woo" not name-calling? Pot, meet old-timey kettle. You're both black when it comes to name-calling.

GM:
There is a clear difference if you look at the context. Jimmy blue was responding to this statement:
"Men are such dopes....you all pounce on me in your blind and stupid fury..."

Add to it that this poster was in all likelihood Victor posing as a woman in order to insult people. I think Jimmy's response was completely reasonable.

Referring to someone as a "woo" is different to insulting people without anything to back it up. It is not derogatory, it just implies we see don't take their "spirituality" any more seriously than a game for kids.

People who use the term have usually already spent a lot of time clearly stating exactly why they think this. It is not just indulging in name-calling the way "kitty-kat" did above.

So that's my answer to your accusation. Now a question or two for you:
Why do you say you "support skeptics and everything they stand for"? Why don't you just say you're a skeptic?

(My suspicion is that you are not really all that skeptical at all, but want to criticize others without having to state your own real position.)

"Why do you say you "support skeptics and everything they stand for"? Why don't you just say you're a skeptic?"

Good question. I'm not sure. That is, no conscious thought went into it. Here's a possible reason thought of after the fact: I thought what I said was stronger. But also maybe it's because I'm a follower, not a leader, in this area. All the commenters here (with the exception of certain nut-jobs named Victor or his aliases) seem fully immersed in the skeptic scene (if that's the right word). I buy the occasional Skeptic magazine, get Shermer's e-mails, and have this site bookmarked, but that's about it. I'm not so immersed that I knew what a 'woo' was except for figuring it out in context (and only from this site -- I haven't been to any other skeptical sites).

"(My suspicion is that you are not really all that skeptical at all, but want to criticize others without having to state your own real position.)"
Nope. But honestly, would it matter if that were true? My words are what counts, not my philosophical stance. That's kinda the problem I have with the term "woo". Instead of just addressing the ridiculous claims, you (in the general sense) start name-calling -- exactly what you rightfully take to task with your opponents. Now, you may claim that it's not derogatory, but it sure sounds like it. I can't speak for non-skeptics, so maybe they agree with you and don't mind being called 'woos'. But it is up to them whether or not it's derogatory.

You also state, "Referring to someone as a "woo" is different to insulting people without anything to back it up." Does that mean it's okay to insult someone as long as you can back it up? How about just sticking to the facts? That's way more effective, I think.

You also play the "he started it" game, which I've never been a fan of. So what if they insulted you or others first. It doesn't mean you have to resort to that level. I guess I'm just a fan of dispassionate reasoning.

Now, if you want my position on anything so you know I'm not one of them, fire away.

GM:

I have some sympathy for your position. But, if someone is a racist dick I'll call them a racist dick.

In this case we have the term woo, which comes at least partly from James Randi's referral to supernatural nonsense as woo-woo. Here on this site at least the term is used to refer to people who believe woo-woo. Yes it is derogatory, but so far you have given no reason as to why this is a bad thing other than it isn't very nice.

Furthermore, as Yakaru said, when the term is applied it is always with the justification behind it's application. Most woos just call you names and think that makes their case, we call you names and say why we did so and back it up with evidence, reason and logic hoping that a combination of this will at best make the woo stop and think, and at worst make someone else stop and think. It's a pretty narrow difference, but it is one that counts for a lot in debate.

So I don't think you are justified in your pot and kettle accusation. kittykat simply claimed all men are dopes - an outright sexist, childish and pointless insult. We call her and her type a woo - and explain why the term is given and what it means. It is less of an outright insult and more a group noun.

Thanks, GM. From your answer I can see that my "suspicion" was unfounded. I voiced it because people often start posts with "I'm a skeptic, but..." when they're just trying to add credibility to their defense of some new age nonsense. It's hard to have a sensible discussion with someone who is pretending to hold values they don't actually hold.

Next point. This sentence of mine was maybe a bit unclear: "Referring to someone as a "woo" is different to insulting people without anything to back it up."

I didn't mean that it is necessarily ok to insult people if you back it up; what I meant was that "kittykat/victor" had insulted people in a way that had no connection to reality (accusing them of blind fury). I find THAT different to referring generally to "woo", which is shorthand for a list of well reasoned criticisms.

That being said, I personally never use the term and don't particularly like it. It probably does alienate some people a bit, but I also find the basic assuumptions underlying much new age philosophy to be quite offensive, ignorant, greedy, racist, deceitful, etc, so I don't mind too much if they feel a little offended occasionally.

Wow.

I was actually considering getting the book from the library (if it was available there) and reading it for the entertainment factor; even I, a lay person, was able to spot his complete misunderstanding of relativity. But if the book reads anything like his emails, I wouldn't get past page two. Not because I couldn't understand it, but because it's so excessively wordy with no content.

Also, nice delusions of grandeur. Could I borrow them sometime?

(Why, yes, I am feeling a bit snarky; thanks for asking!)

GM: the issue is generally not with insults, rather ad hom attacks. The distain for ad hom is not because it is rude but because it is faulty reasoning.

There is a distinct difference between saying 'Bob is a jerk and therefore wrong' and 'Bob is wrong because of reasons x,y, and z, and he is total jerk'. The first (ad hom) uses an insult regarding the speaker to justify why the arugment is wrong. The second (assuming reasons x,y, and z are correct) debunks the argument and seperately insults the speaker.

Now is insulting rude? Absolutely, I don't think anyone can really protest an insult as not being rude, however I would argue that being rude is not necessarily inappropriate.

Additionally, there is a difference between honest and dishonest rudeness. If someone spouts off anti-vax nonsense (for example)then calling them a brain-dead mercury militia is not unwarrented. However refering to someone as a baby-eating rapist is very likely a dishonest (if not slanderous) insult.

" I buy the occasional Skeptic magazine, get Shermer's e-mails, and have this site bookmarked, but that's about it."

Well you do more in the 'skeptic scene' than I do! :)

I think Victor should ponder the words of Carl Sagan:

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Also worth a mention is this similar bit by Robert Park:

To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted by an unkind establishment. One must also be right.

So many woos forget that crucial last bit.

Sometimes I'm afraid of being called a crank because I look for things beyond known physics. I guess I should look on the bright side; I don't hold a candle to this guy.

Looking beyond the known is the point of science; we try to figure stuff out that we don't already know. Then we get other people to check our work, and if it passes inspection, it tentatively goes into the "Stuff We Know" pile.

Victor, on the other hand, makes shit up with no evidence or investigation.

collin237,

I work with someone who is admittedly more open minded than I am. But there is a difference between the way he openly views things and the 'crank' you are worried about.

His thinking lies around the idea of "Why not?"
Aliens in different dimensions? Why not?
Energies that influence us but we can't measure? Why not?
Invisible Pink Unicorn? Why not?
Ghosts? Why not?

The difference between him and most woos is that he doesn't use these ideas as a foundation for reality. He doesnt think, "Well there may be special energies that heal me, so I am going to refuse medical treatment". They are just possibilities and if one day there is evidence for it, he'll act on it.

I admire this type of open mindedness, to be open to new ideas, simply acknowledging that if it isnt real perhaps it might make a good story. I personally don't share it. I believe this sort of thinking leads to more answers to questions of the unknown, even if they are ridiculous. I think he may have more influence in the new places science might go than I would. However, when it comes to ferreting out what is real and what is not, people like me are going to be needed to hold the more 'creative' to the fire and ask for the evidence.

By that definition, I'm as open-minded as a guy with a hinged skull-cap, Techskeptic. I'll believe anything at all if I'm shown incontrovertible evidence for it. The only difference between me and your colleague is that if asked I'll say I'm not prepared to believe in something until it's proven.

This is glass-half-full/empty stuff. It doesn't make any difference either way.

Hi,
One thing i want to say time physical exist.If time physical not exist then why the day and night come.This is the example time.That is great thinking.But you need some experiment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site