Truth Rule of Thumb

Last night, at a social gathering, a friend mentioned in passing that water going down the drain north of the equator swirls in the opposite direction as south of the equator. I said it was an urban legend. He whipped out (figuratively) his doctorate degree in science and an explanation of the Coriolis force to support his case. On my side of the issue was my vague memory of having “heard it somewhere.” I call that a tie. So a wager was made.

That’s when I whipped out (literally) my trusty Blackberry, opened snopes.com, and showed him this page supporting my case:

http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp

I remember the days when you could go to a party, have a few drinks, and argue all night about some dumbass thing because neither one of you could prove your point. It was barbaric. Those days are over, thanks to having access to the Internet in your pocket. Now a simple argument about fact can turn into a far more complicated argument about the reliability of Snopes.com. And it did. But that’s not my point.

I’ve noticed that whenever there are two sides of an issue that sound like this…

1. The fact is true
2. The fact is complete bullshit…

…you can safely bet that the fact is complete bullshit. You don’t need to know much about the coriolis force, or the monetary policy of Peru, or the life expectancy of a beetle to make your case. Just place your bet on “it’s bullshit” and collect your winnings.

Name one case where this rule doesn’t work. The only condition is that the people saying “it’s bullshit” have to be credible in the field, even if not the majority.

Comments

[Science Project]

There are certain procedures in order to get the most accurate solution or the most reliable on. Discussions with no reliable proof to support certain theories is merely a waste.

Kris

[Eric]

Hmmm... your rule of thumb sounds like bu!!s#it, therefore...

[Arkadaslik]

Those who have succeeded used a smooth pan of about one meter in diameter with a very small hole in the center

[Arkadaslik]

The water was then allowed to sit undisturbed for perhaps a week to let all of the motion die out which was introduced during filling. Then, the stopper was removed..

[KM]

How about a famous example? Quantum Mechanics. Remember Einstein's famous quote? Something about dice? He wasn't alone. In fact, most of the times something big has changed conceptually in a field, many many people considered it obvious bullshit. How about that "spooky action at a distance" idea? Or from the world of geometry, how about systems nonEuclidean in nature? It can take awhile for people to see then sense in an idea.

[Adrian D.]

The fish:

I am a believer in the Scientific Method. But the links only go back far enough to say that scientists "agree" that increased CO2 is a cause of global warming. If you can find a link to hard data to support the claim that they make, I will be happy to check it out.

The language is coherent enough. It is only when I traced the links back that I found the data that might support the idea that CO2 caused warming was missing.

[Andrew Denny]

I find that the truth and the facts are usually two different things.

[allannero]

I haven't figured out if you are accidentally hilarious or I'm missing many subplots in your posts. As a typical American I don't want to accep the latter because I think I'm smart.

The rule of thumb is an example (as other posters pointed out) an excellent example of an 'urban legend' that many people believe is true. So that in itself is not funny; it is funny to me that most won't get it. It's like an inside joke. The problem is I don't see that type of insider reference everyday, which means for the latter to be true I don't get all your subtleties.

I think I'd rather be accidentally funny than counted on to be deep and profound everyday. That way when I bust out something good, people don't expect and it has a better impact. Then again, I don't make a living being witty.

[White]

Uh, science continuously revises itself, duh. Hehe. I love being me. >_>

[the_fish]

Hey guys,

You may not like my Grist link (http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics) but I merely presented it as it wasn't the usual Greenpeace-esque "Climate Change killed 150,000 people last year!!!" trash.

Every anti-AGW argument I've come across has been addressed there, and the claims backed up by links to hard data sets and peer-reviewed papers. If you then proceed to doubt the scientific process, then I can't persuade you any further.

It seems a lot more coherent than the equivalent skeptic sites, and if any of you can find one of a similar calibre I'd be happy to look at it.

@Scott: any chance you'd run AGW underneath your bullshit detector? I'd be interested to hear your conclusions.

[Lamark]

Lads I've had a think about this and ye were right, I was incorrect. Because Monty's intervention is non independent of the result, it destroys my theory.

I think this is a good example of how home made experiments can really mess you up. After my friend and I initially disagreed on this we took 3 cards and played find the King 50 times ( and then got bored). We came up with 27 times better to switch, 23 times better to stick. Obviously he was giving me some unconscious indication as to which was the correct card in order to throw off the test. Of course, it could also have something to do with the fact that we'd just had a bit of Wine with Dinner.

A warning to all - don't do drunk science.

[The Clerk]

Lamark's and Arian's aside, i love my BB,, and yes, I do the same thing all the time, haha, my non-BBing friends hate it, but I cant help it if theyre technological cavemen!

[mindcrime]

OK, I'm diving in without reading hardly any of the previous posts so usual apologies apply:

Lamark, you're wrong, Adrian is right.

Imagine there were a thousand doors and after you choose Monty opens 998 of them that don't have prizes behind them(same situation, same probabilities apply, just bigger numbers).

There is a 1 in 1000 chance you got it right first time (so if you swicth 1 in 1000 chance you lose).

There is a 999 in 1000 chance you got it wrong first time (so if you switch 999 in 1000 chance you win).

So it's ALWAYS better to switch.

[Lamark]

Sorry Adrian,

You're missing the point. The claim is that you have a better chance of winning the prize if you switch than if you don't. False.

If the claim was You have a better chance of winning by switching than you initially had when you made your first choice (before one door was opened) then that's true

Initially you had a 33% chance of picking the correct door. However once one of the other doors are opened (new information) the chance that you have the correct door is now 50%, equal to that of switching. The New information has changed the original probability.

Again, try it using the 'find the King' 3 card trick.

Oh, and RummyBum, I didn't post the link, my post is the one on Monty below it.

[mendel]

Here's a good test case for your theory: is AIDS caused by the HIV virus? The majority of scientists in the field believes it is true, but Nobel laureate Kary Mullis and UCB professor Peter Duesberg (among others) think it's bullshit.

Wait another decade or two and see how it turns out.

[Adrian D.]

No, actually the initial probability is quite relevant. You see, Monty knows which door holds the prize. If you chose right at first, 1 chance in three, he leaves a random door. If you choose wrong at first, 2 chances in three, he leaves the prize door.

[William]

Well back to the actual topic…

Brief underwear makes you sterile.

Papaya, Pineapple and Adolph’s meat tenderizer will fix a jellyfish sting. Pissing on it will just get you on U Tube.

A lottery winner will owe half as much after a couple of years.

Lowering taxes will increase revenues.

Oh, and I cannot resist--

Taking credit for global warming is like pissing in the ocean and getting paid for the tide change.

[Free William]

Interesting that this ended up as a debate on global warming.

There is little debate as to wether there is global warming. The debate is on why it exists and what will be the results of this (i.e. modelling).

At the end of the day there is science that 'proves' and science that 'disproves' the current theory of global warming. (The one that blames human activity)

Whether of not one side or the other is bullshit really should not matter all that much. If the doomsayers are right we need to act to change the way we treat the planet we live on. If they are wrong the same still applies, we need to stop polluting we need to conserve resources these are simple common sense notions which humanity has survived by for millennia. The debate on global warming is moving us away from logic not closer to it.

[Rummybum]

Sorry Lamark I've read your site the debunking is pure rubbish, avoids some issues, misinterprets others, because they say they are debunking doesn't mean it's true.

[gr8hands]

Scott,

There is a wonderful sci-fi story which has the following recurring statement said by various characters as a truism throughout the book: "Whatever 'everybody knows' is wrong."

Time after time, this was proven true in the book. I read it as a teen, and decided to test out the theory. Turns out that it's pretty accurate.

I every tried to get a seminary to allow me to teach a short course: "Everything you think you know about the Bible is wrong." It was great. Just discussing the synopsis of it brought people into apoplectic fits.

[MikeJ]

How is global warming related to the survival of the species? If the temperature rises 10C and all the ice caps melt there will still be land. How will that kill everyone off. To misquote a famous line "The humans will survive, you won't"

[Dan]

I just returned from a trip to New Zealand and I totally forgot to check out the direction the water swirled down the toilet because I was blown away by something awesomely cool that some Kiwi thought up: toilets in NZ have 2 flush options--a small flush for #1 and a big flush for #2. How clever is that?

[Richard]

The Fish

Except it gives only equivocal answers to the most critical objections. I successfully debunks a few myths, but it completely fails to address the most important claims against the global warming myth.

The most important is the fact that all greenhouse models show that the warming happens first at the upper troposphere, about 33,000 ft. The observation is that warming happens first close to the surface. This means that global warming is not primarily caused by the greenhouse effect. It means that the IPCC is wrong.

The IPCC changed their reports after the scientists had written them, taking out much of the equivocation and doubt. Their excuse was that it was in response to requiests by "...individual scientists, governments and NGOs". This defence means that the report is completely corrupted. It is the view of individual scientists, government politicians and senior members of NGOs. Many with a vested interest in climate panic, but even without that it not the view of the claimed 2000+ scientists!

[Greg]

Aww, I just remembered the "lets make a deal" thing and came back to post about it.

It's a good example of this, lots of mathematics professors wrote in to complain that telling people this was "lowering the standards of mathematics in this country". My favoriate response was someone writing "If this many PhDs are wrong, we're in serious trouble"

[Adrian D.]

The fish:

No good. It falls back on "we agree (without evidence) that global warming is human-caused." Although, I suppose it is effective in baffling people who don't realize you are not dazzling them with brilliance. I liked the "just because Earth and Mars are warming at the same time doesn't mean it's for the same reason." Now, it is true that we don't have as extensive measurements of Mars' temperature as we do of Earth's. But to challenge the objection that the warming on Mars is obviously not human-caused with a claim that it is only at an isolated point, you need more measurements. The keepers of the orthodoxy, however, will not allow such measurements.

I found an interesting site, "http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/". Its graph on absorbtion rates actually show that CO2 makes for a remarkably poor greenhouse gas. Indeed, they try to make the claim as it narrowing the gap of water vapor.