Nothing annoyed me more than showing people from an Astromomy Club a globular cluster and being asked what galaxy is that.
I don't see that as a stupid question ; I would see it as an indication of some interest, and an opportunity for a bit of enlightenment.
"Yes, it's stunning, isn't it. Its a globular cluster with about 10,000 stars, and it's in our own Milky Way galaxy. In fact, everything you can see above you with the naked eye is in our own Milky Way galaxy, which has about 300 BILLION stars. Here, let me show you what another galaxy looks like... “
...
I think it is helpful to recognise that group of people who live in their own distorted reality field, who reject evidence because it doesn't correlate with their chosen bizarre theories, and with whom reasoned debate is just futile. When you realise you have encountered one, don't waste any time trying to correct them - just walk away...
One problem with this... I'm related to some of them!
I've had "Can you see planets & stars during the day?" & I've reply, Yes! you can see a big star if you look up at lunch time & a planet if you can see your feet!
I've had "Can you see planets & stars during the day?" & I've reply, Yes! you can see a big star if you look up at lunch time & a planet if you can see your feet!
But seriously, you CAN see Jupiter and Venus in daylight with the naked eye, if you know how and where to look, and quite easily with a telescope - not to mention Saturn and a few of the brighter stars.
After reading the results of the survey, I agree with the #1 beef of most AA'a "The Moon Landing Conspiracy"
Just plain stupid
The growth in "National Geographic" channel conspiracy shows has a lot of responsibility for the growth of this type of Pseudo Science rubbish !
I saw another one the other day about caves in the earth that are portats for aliens. I must have heard the commentary "Ancient Alien Theorists suggest" 50 times during the show.
I would like to know Who these "theorists" are
After reading the results of the survey, I agree with the #1 beef of most AA'a "The Moon Landing Conspiracy"
Just plain stupid
The growth in "National Geographic" channel conspiracy shows has a lot of responsibility for the growth of this type of Pseudo Science rubbish !
I saw another one the other day about caves in the earth that are portats for aliens. I must have heard the commentary "Ancient Alien Theorists suggest" 50 times during the show.
I would like to know Who these "theorists" are
Ian, the Glass house mountains are supposed to have caves underneath them that are energy bases for alien craft to refuel
Cheers
Ron, that does not surprise me at all.
One day I am sure the mothership will appear over Mt Tibrogargan
Clearly the caves at the top of the mountain are portals :-)
I can honestly say that no-ones actually said any of those to me.
But the standard of education is pretty good here.
Must be a NSW / Queenslanders thing.
Ron, that does not surprise me at all.
One day I am sure the mothership will appear over Mt Tibrogargan
Clearly the caves at the top of the mountain are portals :-)
The mothership dropped some galactic tourists off at the Gold Coast a few weeks ago.
And can you believe some people would say they are just clouds !!!
Unbelievers
They will see
Just clouds, My little grandson and I take photos of interesting cloud shapes,when I pointed this one out he said it looked liked a dragon attacking a starwars battle cruiser and when we printed some photos that's when we saw the white silver ufo. For 2 minutes we thought we had snagged a ufo, all we snagged was a couple of downlights reflecting in the glass window. And a pic of a great white pointer shark that had a head-on with an oil tanker.
Just clouds, My little grandson and I take photos of interesting cloud shapes,when I pointed this one out he said it looked liked a dragon attacking a starwars battle cruiser and when we printed some photos that's when we saw the white silver ufo. For 2 minutes we thought we had snagged a ufo, all we snagged was a couple of downlights reflecting in the glass window. And a pic of a great white pointer shark that had a head-on with an oil tanker.
You're spot on with your descriptions there John - the dragon etc and the white pointer I mean - amazing similarities imo
I think a more interesting question is; when did they become an homogeneous demographic, characterised by a uniformly erroneous belief system?
The answer is, they are not and never were. The term 'theorist' has become implicitly pejorative and makes no distinction between bat5hit crazy tin-foilers and highly credible whistle blowers with physics and engineering degrees, long and distinguished careers in forensics or military intelligence, etc.
The thing has got legs of its own and evolved somewhat, but the genesis can be found in CIA document #1035-960 (In response to criticism of the Warren commission) it directs 'propaganda assets' (that would include the media) to effectively define certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. <--think It formalised argumentum ad hominem as THE default response to those who would question the establishment's narrative. It is simultaneously an act of cynical genius to consciously weaponise a (previously neutral) term ie) 'conspiracy theory' for a political end, and an act of colossal stupidity to do so with a literary device that reduces to a logical absurdity.
The corollary to this is a little more subtle, it is the premise that; by virtue of association to a group who maintain a similar belief system, you and your belief system are intrinsically superior. This can be validated by sharing the notion amongst ourselves that there is a degree of kudos attached to thinking in some particular way and reduced status if you don't.
Wherever you see either tactic used, by definition the argument is invalid, not withstanding that their conclusion may in fact be correct, however.
Wherever you see either tactic being employed by someone or some organisation that is aware of the psychology behind it, it is a sure sign that they stand to benefit from manipulating you.... they are not your friend.
best,
c
Last edited by clive milne; 22-02-2015 at 12:54 PM.
People ask "how far can you see with that thing?". So when I give them some sort of an answer they generally have trouble comprehending it. When I say the light you see now left xxx years ago, well forget it.
I'm sure this type of question is raised in every hobby. We have a similar long running thread on a Porsche forum. "Stupid things people have said about your Porsche". Needless to say the Volkswagen reference comes up quite regularly.
To be honest I don't mind any kind of question. What does annoy me is when you give people the answers & they want to argue the point. IE: Conspiracy theory's that have been disproved by the most basic application of a bit of science. (The moon landing Conspiracy C#*p, tops my list)
I regularly get PM's on FB asking me to photograph certain regions of the Moon. Apparently there are Alien bases up there that NASA is covering up.
Then there is another dude who takes pictures of all the alien space ships that are orbiting Earth.
Life is too short to put up with nutters.
I think the stupid questions are the ones which go unasked.
This is absolutely true in the case of genuine inquiry - but there are two types of questions that regularly occur at scientific conferences and in public forums that I would cheerfully call stupid. 1 - a question designed solely to demonstrate that the questioner knows more than anybody else in the room, usually irrelevant and often asked because they've been looking forward to asking it so much they haven't been listening.
2. A question designed to infuriate - for example 'lunar hoax, climategate, etc...'
Of course I've never asked either type...
Cheers,
Andrew.
It formalised argumentum ad hominem as THE default response to those who would question the establishment's narrative. It is simultaneously an act of cynical genius to consciously weaponise a (previously neutral) term ie) 'conspiracy theory' for a political end, and an act of colossal stupidity to do so with a literary device that reduces to a logical absurdity.
