What's new

Aliens and Ghosts.. (1 Viewer)

D. Scott MacDonald

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 10, 1999
Messages
545
While I haven't believed in the Lochness Monster since I was a kid, it was actually a little sad to watch when they recently proved it didn't exist using various sophisticated tecnhiques.
 

Bryan X

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
3,469
Real Name
Bryan

I thought we already agreed that you cannot prove something doesn't exist. ;)
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

BTW Jeff, while I quite enjoy ballet, but I don ‘t really know that much (especially the technique). I make up for that lack of knowledge by being a major opera freak.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Actually, it was "you can't prove a negative", which is different from proving "there's no monster in the lake".
 

D. Scott MacDonald

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 10, 1999
Messages
545
I know you were joking, but since we are discussing scientific modelling, it may not be possible to prove that a polka dotted unicorn doesn't exist, but it is possible to prove that I don't have one in my office right now. So whereas there may be a Lochness type monster out there someplace (living in the ocean or in Lake Champlain), they proved with a scientific certainty that such a monster (consistent in size with the "eyewitness" accounts) does not exist in Lochness.
 

Bryan X

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
3,469
Real Name
Bryan
Actually, I would think the loch is sufficiently big that the scientists were not able to 'observe' the entire lake at any one moment. If not, how could they be sure the monster doesn't exist? That is much different that proving a large animal isn't in your office which you can observe all of at any one time.

For the record, I don't believe in Nessie.

Who is this that you say 'proved' Nessie doesn't exist? I would bet that they don't claim they proved it doesn't exist, but merely claimed that with thorough scanning (or whatever) they found no evidence of existence. Big difference.

If you want to prove there's no monster in the loch, dam the loch and drain it.
 

D. Scott MacDonald

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 10, 1999
Messages
545
Tomorrow I can goggle the specifics of the methodologies used, but multiple approaches were used - including scanning the entire lake one end to another with 5 simultaneous sonars. If anything swam past them while they were scanning, they would have easily spotted it. They did find a balloon near the bottom that one of their crew had planted as a control. They also other methodologies such as studying the plant and animal life to detemine whether it could support an animal that size.

I will try to find the specific tommorrow.
 

Bryan X

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
3,469
Real Name
Bryan
I don't doubt they did a thorough scan. But one could just argue that the monster 'hid' in a side cave while the scan went overhead.

If you can find a link that would be cool. Although I don't believe in the monster, I love reading about such things.

EDIT:

I think I found the expedition you saw. It was done by the BBC and called 'Searching For The Loch Ness Monster'. Here's part of an article on it:

The team did find a buoy moored several metres below the surface as a test for the equipment, but, in the end, no Loch Ness monster.

"We went from shoreline to shoreline, top to bottom on this one, we have covered everything in this loch and we saw no signs of any large living animal in the loch," said Ian Florence, one of the specialists who carried out the survey for the BBC.


Here's the BBC article on it, and even they put 'prove' in quotes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3096839.stm
 

Jeff Gatie

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
6,531


Funny you should say that. One of the things that thawed the chilly relationship between myself and the afore mentioned geometry teacher was he included me and a few other students on a trip to an opera in Boston. He even allowed me to pick the performance (if I recall correctly, it was Billy Budd). It was a very adult event for a bunch of 13 year olds and greatly appreciated. Can't say it spawned a lifelong love of opera, but I certainly don't loathe it.

My interest in Ballet stems from around that time also and came from a certain pretty, dark haired, 13 year old young lady who danced for the Boston Ballet. Being as shy as I was, I figured an interest in Ballet would let me talk to her. After an embarassing school event in which I actually took a ballet lesson from her in front of the class (picture a 13 year old hockey player working through moves on a bar
htf_images_smilies_blush.gif
), I got to learn a lot about the art (even went backstage for a couple of events) and kept the interest to this day. Funny how a teenage crush can teach you more than how to get your heart broken. ;)
 

BrianW

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 1999
Messages
2,563
Real Name
Brian
Bryan, if it's in quotes, then it must be true.

Oh, wait... You mean Dr. Evil quotes, don't you? I see what you mean, now.

------------------------------------------------

Wow, Mary. I'll have to think about that one. Does anything sequestered within the confines of the skull exist without action? Love, pain, or a plan to remodel one's bathroom?

Some brain activity ("emotions" seems too inadequate a word) is selected by choice, like love and indignation. In fact, we don't have a way of using "indignation" in a way that suggests that it is involuntarily thrust upon someone. Someone "becomes indignant." Nobody ever "indignifies someone else."

But there are other things that essentially are thrust upon someone, like jealousy, and pain. (Yes, ultimately, one can always choose not to become jealous, which, bottom logical line, makes jealousy a choice, but it is still a very reactive emotion. I mean, brain activity.) If one does not act on jealousy, does that make it not exist?

And what is it about action that makes the thing that caused it exist? Is it simply that others know about it? If that's the case, then the agony of someone suffering in silence the pain of betrayal is no more real than, well, ghosts. (;))

On the other hand, once I'm dead and gone, only the stuff I did will be real. If I loved someone but never expressed it, or if I wanted to remodel my bathroom but never did, then once I'm in the ground, these things may as well have not existed. Is that the same as actually never existing?

But pain is different because it's reactive. I once programmed a computer to feel pain. I doubt, however, that I could program a computer to feel or to manifest love.
 

Jeff Gatie

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
6,531

Oh John, how are we supposed to remember now if you don't give examples. That was at least 2 pages ago, we've moved on to other subjects. :D
 

Brad Porter

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 8, 1999
Messages
1,757
In post 26, John "Inspector Hammer" Williamson said:

John, your homework assignment is to read the "Transporter" thread that Jeff referenced:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=205202

...if only as a warning of the pathway that you are walking down. We'll go nine pages arguing with you until Joe Szott posts a link to the Bacon Whores. Believe it! :D BrianW will add an extra paragraph to every post he submits until you give up. You've been warned.

If you want to believe in imaginary things then no one here can stop you, but you don't strengthen your position by leading off with an attack on science. You just gain new opponents that love to argue.

Brad
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
As it happens, my love of opera came about because I wanted to impress a girl when I was a freshman. Not having much money (a typical situation for a college student) I decided to ask her to a free performance of The Magic Flute put on by the graduate music program of a neighboring school.

Aside from everything else, I was so blown away by the Queen of the Night’s first act aria, O zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn that I completely forgot how silly it was that the hero falls in love at first sight with a picture of the girl. And her second act aria was so outrageously, over-the-top (and incredibly difficult with its Fs above high Cs, that I became an on the spot convert—even though the girl went the way of college romances, I did get one life-long love that night.

A good many things in my life (also) are attributable to sex and love. ;)
 

DeathStar1

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2001
Messages
3,267
Real Name
Neil
For all the scientists on the board, here's one that always gives me a headache just thinking about it :).

If the universe started as nothing, how did that nothing get there? Was there anything before the nothing? And if nothing was there, how did the something that was there cause the big bang? Why would a bang create a universe?

All fun questions to make out little quables seem meaningless :).
 

BrianW

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 1999
Messages
2,563
Real Name
Brian
John, of course intellectuals make mistakes. And you know what? So do we! :)

And, really, that is exactly the point. Since we all make mistakes, wouldn't it be a spectacular idea if we could adopt some kind of methodology that helps to mitigate our errors? A methodology that is self-correcting so that the more it's used, the more it leads to reliable conclusions?

Wow, that would just be grand! Instead of duking it out to see who's right, information would be judged on its merits after beng vetted through this methodology. If we could adopt such a methodology, NOBODY would be entitled to say, "I'm smarter than you, so I'm right, and you're wrong." And if we could somehow make this methodology available to everyone, then anyone who used it would have the right to tell intellectual bullies to go take a hike.

Imagine the possibilities if such a thing were possible!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top