You disappoint me. I thought better of you than that.
I’m frankly surprised you had any specific opinion of me. In any case, the OP’s question was correctly answered with the first reply. The much-latter-day horsing around is of no real consequence.
Heck, even if the OP was still an active user… some people are going to maintain pseudoscientific beliefs no matter what the response:
- Support: Thanks for the confirmation of what I believe
- Rational analysis and debunking: I prefer to keep an open mind
- Mockery and less-rational dismissal: You guys are just ignorant
It’s unsinkable-rubber-duckery through and through. The best we can sometimes manage through (2) or (3) is to discourage someone from joining the gooey embrace of woo, not rescue someone already smothering in it.
Okay, here’s an ethical conundrum for you. I’d really like to hear answers from **Bryan Ekers **and **Czarcasm **especially, but others may answer.
Let us imagine you’re debating some paranormal subject. Say, astrology, for instance.
You invent a strawman. It’s a really cunning and clever one. It will really damage the reputation of astrology. Many people who hear your strawman will instantly stop believing in astrology. You will instantly win the argument every time you use it. It is, however, a completely false statement.
Do you use it?
Unhesitantly, if it is funny.
At other times, I’d be happy to use more rational arguments, but if the strawman is as effective as you say at destroying astrology (and presumably doesn’t instill something equally woo in its place), then I’d feel something of a social responsibility to employ it.
Peter Morris: I wouldn’t use it as a serious argument…but if it’s clever enough, I might use it clearly labeled as a joke.
I’ve got nothing against rhetorical low blows…so long as they aren’t presented as rational arguments.
Of course not…and that’s got nothing to do with what we’re talking about here.
You’re turning a single line quip, one that the writer later confirms was sarcasm, and argue against it like it was an oft used strawman. If anyone is arguing using straw here it’s you.
And hell yeah I’d use that statement. It’s obviously a marvel of psychology and I’m going to base a PhD on it.
Really? If you could utterly undermine astrology with a devastating quip which, on analysis, was not strictly the product of a well-reasoned line of thought, you’d rule out its use? Okay.
Since I’ve already answered, I’ll pose an exagerated counter-hypothetical: what if you found yourself in Germany of the 1920s and had a chance to undermine the nascent National Socialist Party by spreading false rumours that its leadership were fond of having sex with sheep? You could TRY to undermine their arguments using logic and reason, but that’s not going to work (and clearly did not work) against the kind of people who would embrace the message of the National Socialists in the first place, whereas prompting a crude belly laugh could be very effective.
Given that I did participate in the “Glenn Beck [committed heinous crime]” conspiracy – and I often use the other definition of “Santorum” – hell, yeah!
I seem to remember a few years ago of those suffering from depression who, for one reason or another, received a ct/pet/mri scan and received immediate, if brief, relief from their symptoms
Potentially interesting, but you’d need to compare it to results of people who get put in MRI scanners and get a realistic simulation of a scan (they hear all the noises and such) but are not actually exposed to any electromagnetic effects.
It is a joke, at least it is a very spot on mocking of the whole concept. It is also not wrong, but clearly you do not understand why it is on point. Let’s review shall we?
So, these people believe that the field from the south pole of the magnet is bad while the field from the north pole is good and Tapioca Dextrin makes a comment about magnetic monopoles that you think is neither funny nor correct. To see why you are wrong and (s)he is right all you have to do is apply (and understand) Gauss’s law for magnetism. In words, Gauss’s law says two things:
[ol]
[li]For any closed surface regardless of size, shape, or contents, the net maganetic flux through the surface is zero.[/li][li]There are no magnetic monopoles.[/li][/ol]
These two points, which are physical law to the best of our knowledge, say exactly the same thing. It may be that monopoles were created at the zone boundaries during the inflation of our universe or some were created by another exotic phenomenon, but as far as I know all of these theories are speculative at best and there has never been any evidence that monopoles exist. Thus, Guass’s law for magnetic fields is correct and incontrovertible.
So what does this mean? It means that the practitioners of magnetic therapy who are concerned about the negative effects of the south magnetic pole (heh) are fucking morons and that they do not understand one of the fundamental laws of magnetism. Specifically, placing the north pole of a magnet against one side of a tumor is identical to placing the south side of the magnet against the other side of the tumor. It is impossible for one pole of the magnet to be good and one to be bad. It does not matter if you arrange the magnets in a ring or sphere with all the south poles together and the north poles facing outwards. This does not change the fact that you can get the same field by reversing the magnets and placing them on the other side. Try any arrangement of magnets you can think of, I can draw a surface and apply Gauss’s law and show they are wrong. It is impossible for one pole of a magnet to have good effects and one to have bad effects. Impossible unless there are magnetic monopoles.
Anybody who has spent a couple semesters doing electrostatics in college, applying Gauss’s Law, will understand this. That is why Tapioca was right, you are wrong, the joke was applicable (if not exactly funny IMHO), and the magnetic therapy practitioners making these claims are morons.
No. I don’t think you understand what a joke actually is.
Again, no. I agree that magnetic monopoles don’t exist. That was never the problem.
The point is that it is irrelevant. The magnetic therapists do not ever CLAIM to use monopoles.
I think the majority of people in this thread disagree with you.
Maybe not, but their claims are moronic and impossible without the existence of monopoles. That is the point that TD was trying to make. Maybe you should go take a couple of classes at your local community college so you can understand this. Good luck to you.
Whenever I hear the claims about some revolutionary trearment that will fix things if you just order it on the internet, I like to think:
If this actually worked, how much would it be worth? If you just walked into a pharma company and could show that your treatment could do this, how much would it be worth to them?
I don’t know how many people here remember the days before Viagra (ok, that may have come out wrong), but do you remember all the herbs and horn and weird stuff people hawked that was supposed to help?
And then Pfeizer found a pill that actually worked. Do you know how much their stock rose in value in six weeks after they launched the pill? About fifty billion dollars.
If these products actually worked, they would be worth billions, and snapped up and patented before you could say “induction”.
Why would people hawk products worth billions from their basements on mail-order of they actually worked?
I remain curious what, if any, conclusions can be drawn by the disparity in my response and Czarcasm’s response to the hypothetical in #103. Is one of us demonstrably moral and the other not?
Thank you, Czarcasm. You wouldn’t lie to win an argument. However some would.
So, suppose **Bryan Eckers **tells one of his cunning and clever lies. He successfully makes the astrologers look bad, by deceiving a lot of people, including you. You are fooled by the lie he tells, you believe it 100%.
Would you rather that I called Bryan on his lie? Or would you rather remain ignorant?
It wouldn’t matter anyway. You can’t spend monopole money.
Back to the actual subject at hand: The claim isn’t that the woosters are claiming to have or use monopole magnets. The claim is that for the wooster’s magnet magic to work the way they claim it does they would have to use monopole magnets instead of the regular ones they do use.
Do you understand the difference?
Your hypothetical is stupid, but feel free to misrepresent my response by quoting only part of it. Your continuation of this argument does make the point that sarcasm is a tool oft misunderstood, but I’m not going to give up that pleasure just because of the existence of those immune to it.