3 ms·

> No prehistoric levitation of massive stones. Throughout history, there's always been wrong-yet-standard "scientific" statements that have been later correcte

> No prehistoric levitation of massive stones. Throughout history, there's always been wrong-yet-standard "scientific" statements that have been later corrected, from Aristotle's laws of motion, to discussions about the shape of the Earth, going through the so-called impossibility of heavier-than-air flight, the (im)possibility of perpetual machines, etc. Of course, I'm not suggesting levitation of massive stones either, but I think history encourages prudence. I would dearly enjoy to read a list of undisputed facts, agreed on by all parties, clearly separated from a list of all interpretations, and an evaluation of their consistency, instead of sensationalized/ridiculed "fringe" theories.

jacquesm 3y ago
> from Aristotle's laws of motion, to discussions about the shape of the Earth, going through the so-called impossibility of heavier-than-air flight, the (im)possibility of perpetual machines One of these is not like the others.
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  In the late 1500s, Cornelius Drebbel built and patented a perpetual motion machine that used the daily changes in barometric pressure to power a sort of clock. It was a very impressive achievement. We can be pedantic and say it isn’t actually a perpetual motion machine based on our definitions (which necessitate impossibility) — but for him, he made the impossible possible.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That isn't pedantic. The whole point of a perpetual motion machine is that it has a certain definition which is violated by putting in external energy. For him, had he been aware of all of the facts, he would have reached the conclusion that he didn't make the impossible impossible. There are even more subtly wrong not-quite-PMs that are impressive feats of engineering but nevertheless are not PMs.
    - mbivert 3y ago
      Of course, for most intents and purposes, it's "absolutely" true to say that there is no perpetual motion machines. But if we want to be precise, I don't think we can escape the fact that this truth is "merely" relative to a specific conceptual framework. The now-deprecated conceptual frameworks of the past (religions & cie) weren't so decisive regarding perpetual motion machines for example. In religions/science, people had/have a tendency to think "we've reached the peek", but history relentlessly teaches us to be more careful. This point of view probably is pedantic, in the context of perpetual motion machines, but that mindset is so prevalent in society today that I can't think of it as a bad habit: it's easy to be blinded by knowledge as much as by ignorance.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        No, it's a simple matter of classification. Given a class of hypothetical devices 'X' with a strict and clear definition the question is whether or not device 'Y' is a member of said class. If it isn't then that's the end of that.
        mbivert 3y ago
        Fair enough. It's amusing given the context: I think you're using a precise definition of "perpetual (motion) machine", while I'm relying more on the one of an average human.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        An average human would not be able to distinguish something that looks like a perpetual motion machine from something that actually is a perpetual motion machine. But it's fine to have different degrees of rigor for lay people than for scientists, the scientists have never been confused on this one, lay people obviously can be simply because the lack the relevant background. Just like 'really long' is not for ever and 'really large' is not infinite.
        dr_dshiv 3y ago
        Yes, but it is quite hard to define it precisely — which is partly why it was so astonishing then and now. For instance, to say: “a machine that operates indefinitely without the addition of fuel or energy” well, neither fuel nor energy is added to this machine, not in any apparent way. Instead, it absorbs the natural fluctuations of the surrounding environment and translates that to motive power. Now imagine that some huckster claimed to do that with “quantum zero point energy” or something, I think we’d treat the device like a perpetual motion machine — and look under the table for the trick. You’ll need to translate the page. It’s a fascinating story. Drebbel isn’t well known in the English speaking world — but he also designed the first cybernetic system, a thermostat. https://historiek.net/perpetuum-mobile-cornelis-drebbel/150502/ https://historiek.net/perpetuum-mobile-cornelis-drebbel/1505...
  - michaelcampbell 3y ago
    Saying something "is" or "isn't" something is always within the context and limit of the definition. If you want to throw definition out of the equation just to not be pedantic, anything is anything else.
  - HumblyTossed 3y ago
    Or we could water down the word "perpetual", yeah?
darkerside 3y ago
Those ridiculous fringe theories is how science has marched forward for centuries. Unfortunately, it seems we're losing our capacity for it as a species.
- notahacker 3y ago
  Its almost the exact opposite tbh. We got far more out of Newton doing boring uncontroversial recording and measuring than we ever did from his obsession with heretical interpretations of the Bible. If we're losing our capacity to be gullible enough to take Graham Hancock seriously (and I'm not sure we are) it certainly doesn't seem to have held back scientific progress relative to historic norms.
  - seanw444 3y ago
    What claims of Graham's are hard to take seriously?
    - notahacker 3y ago
      The burden of proof is really more on you to explain why it's so hard to take the entire field of archaeology except Graham Hancock seriously...
      - seanw444 3y ago
        I was really just curious. Your "no you" is disappointing.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      See Miniminuteman's "I watched ancient apocalypse so you don't have to" detailed critique (in 4 parts) starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A .
  - darkerside 3y ago
    I guess I wasn't there so we can't settle he debate, but this smacks to me of cherry picking and survivorship bias. For every one of Newton's careful measurements, which I actually imagine he was mocked or dismissed for at the time, I'm sure there are just as many examples of unexpected outcomes, like manned flight, geocentrism, or evolution. Likely many more that seem expected and commonplace today, because they proved true, that we can't even recognize in retrospect.

jacquesm 3y ago

> from Aristotle's laws of motion, to discussions about the shape of the Earth, going through the so-called impossibility of heavier-than-air flight, the (im)possibility of perpetual machines One of these is not like the others.

dr_dshiv 3y ago
In the late 1500s, Cornelius Drebbel built and patented a perpetual motion machine that used the daily changes in barometric pressure to power a sort of clock. It was a very impressive achievement. We can be pedantic and say it isn’t actually a perpetual motion machine based on our definitions (which necessitate impossibility) — but for him, he made the impossible possible.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That isn't pedantic. The whole point of a perpetual motion machine is that it has a certain definition which is violated by putting in external energy. For him, had he been aware of all of the facts, he would have reached the conclusion that he didn't make the impossible impossible. There are even more subtly wrong not-quite-PMs that are impressive feats of engineering but nevertheless are not PMs.
  - mbivert 3y ago
    Of course, for most intents and purposes, it's "absolutely" true to say that there is no perpetual motion machines. But if we want to be precise, I don't think we can escape the fact that this truth is "merely" relative to a specific conceptual framework. The now-deprecated conceptual frameworks of the past (religions & cie) weren't so decisive regarding perpetual motion machines for example. In religions/science, people had/have a tendency to think "we've reached the peek", but history relentlessly teaches us to be more careful. This point of view probably is pedantic, in the context of perpetual motion machines, but that mindset is so prevalent in society today that I can't think of it as a bad habit: it's easy to be blinded by knowledge as much as by ignorance.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      No, it's a simple matter of classification. Given a class of hypothetical devices 'X' with a strict and clear definition the question is whether or not device 'Y' is a member of said class. If it isn't then that's the end of that.
      - mbivert 3y ago
        Fair enough. It's amusing given the context: I think you're using a precise definition of "perpetual (motion) machine", while I'm relying more on the one of an average human.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        An average human would not be able to distinguish something that looks like a perpetual motion machine from something that actually is a perpetual motion machine. But it's fine to have different degrees of rigor for lay people than for scientists, the scientists have never been confused on this one, lay people obviously can be simply because the lack the relevant background. Just like 'really long' is not for ever and 'really large' is not infinite.
      - dr_dshiv 3y ago
        Yes, but it is quite hard to define it precisely — which is partly why it was so astonishing then and now. For instance, to say: “a machine that operates indefinitely without the addition of fuel or energy” well, neither fuel nor energy is added to this machine, not in any apparent way. Instead, it absorbs the natural fluctuations of the surrounding environment and translates that to motive power. Now imagine that some huckster claimed to do that with “quantum zero point energy” or something, I think we’d treat the device like a perpetual motion machine — and look under the table for the trick. You’ll need to translate the page. It’s a fascinating story. Drebbel isn’t well known in the English speaking world — but he also designed the first cybernetic system, a thermostat. https://historiek.net/perpetuum-mobile-cornelis-drebbel/150502/ https://historiek.net/perpetuum-mobile-cornelis-drebbel/1505...
- michaelcampbell 3y ago
  Saying something "is" or "isn't" something is always within the context and limit of the definition. If you want to throw definition out of the equation just to not be pedantic, anything is anything else.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  Or we could water down the word "perpetual", yeah?

darkerside 3y ago

Those ridiculous fringe theories is how science has marched forward for centuries. Unfortunately, it seems we're losing our capacity for it as a species.

notahacker 3y ago
Its almost the exact opposite tbh. We got far more out of Newton doing boring uncontroversial recording and measuring than we ever did from his obsession with heretical interpretations of the Bible. If we're losing our capacity to be gullible enough to take Graham Hancock seriously (and I'm not sure we are) it certainly doesn't seem to have held back scientific progress relative to historic norms.
- seanw444 3y ago
  What claims of Graham's are hard to take seriously?
  - notahacker 3y ago
    The burden of proof is really more on you to explain why it's so hard to take the entire field of archaeology except Graham Hancock seriously...
    - seanw444 3y ago
      I was really just curious. Your "no you" is disappointing.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    See Miniminuteman's "I watched ancient apocalypse so you don't have to" detailed critique (in 4 parts) starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A .
- darkerside 3y ago
  I guess I wasn't there so we can't settle he debate, but this smacks to me of cherry picking and survivorship bias. For every one of Newton's careful measurements, which I actually imagine he was mocked or dismissed for at the time, I'm sure there are just as many examples of unexpected outcomes, like manned flight, geocentrism, or evolution. Likely many more that seem expected and commonplace today, because they proved true, that we can't even recognize in retrospect.