Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

Kevin Behan

I'm saying that the body/mind evolved to be, fundamentally, in the confluence of all its systems, physical and neurological processes, an action potential, a constitutional state of tension, the release from which is emotion. I am talking about "energy" in real concrete, biological terms and which can be verified by any impartial observer who is merely open to looking through this lens. (The woman who discovered infrasound communication between elephants first FELT the vibration herself standing at the elephant exhibit at the zoo, and through her study of whales understood its significance. Then the scientific method was applied to her discovery. Likewise anyone can watch any two dogs interact and see these principles for themselves.)

 

 

Kevin, we have been down this road before. We suggested that a main way that dogs could tell the emotional state (which is a means of communcitaion ) was  scent and sound. This is not new. I don't argue at all that the basis of much Mammal behaviour is emotional. Energy is not neccessarily observable, and conversely, the manifestation of what seems like "energy" has been corrupted by it's use in the english language. I would be the last person in the room to discount communication between animals at either very low or quite high audible frequencies, they are fine evolutionary adaptation.

You have really butchered and mis understood what an action potiential is. I am sick of doing it for you. read a bit more and get back to us.

 

 From "Conceptual Physics" by Paul Gettewitt, (Harper Collins)

"Energy: Anything that can change the condition of matter. Commonly defined circularly as the ability to do work; actually only describable by example."

You complain about my use of the term energy without offering a specific definition to demonstrate the error of my usage. Concise definitions are available, please offer one that demonstrates my error. 

 

 Jeez, I sure could have done better things with my two hours this morning.  I have to quit caring.

Kevin Behan

Also, the researcher used the term selective imitation, which is already an interpretation because the process of selection was by way of a reason. I simply said they selectively imitate in order to be in synchrony, and this is buttressed by discovery of mirror neurons.

That's also incorrect. A sieve, for example can select and it is something that we can quantify. Natural selection is also done with reason or purpose. There is no need for "interpretation" it is mathematically demonstrable. But once again, how does selective imitation turn into uncontrollable urge?

Kevin Behan

(The woman who discovered infrasound communication between elephants first FELT the vibration herself standing at the elephant exhibit at the zoo, and through her study of whales understood its significance. Then the scientific method was applied to her discovery.

Please, dont insult us by even comparing your juju to an objective, measurable phenomenon.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

According to RationalWiki, the first written record of the word ‘pseudoscience’ occurred in 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine, I 387

"That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles"

 

It’s a beautiful description of NDT theory.

• So-called facts – check
• Connected by misapprehension – check
• Disguise of principles – check.

 

Science is a method. NDT is pseudoscience. NDT is a doctrine.

Pseudoscience has a number of distinguishing characteristics that differentiate it from an honest pursuit of knowledge and various authors have compiled lists – usually heavily influenced by the work of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos and popularized by Sagan, Shermer, and Randi.  This list of characteristics is a compilation from RationalWiki and Wikipedia entries for pseudoscience, with the first being my own addition.

Integration with other Disciplines -- Pseudosciences thrive and require isolation; by necessity they need to ignore, misuse and misrepresent mainstream science. NDT and its defenders have gone so far as to declare particular subfields aren’t ‘science’ because they contradict the main tenets.  As such, NDT is forced to invent new physics, chemistry, even ignore basic anatomy in order to make sense of their beliefs. Psychology, astronomy, agronomy, neuroscience and all modern sciences (except maybe theoretical physics) are integrated disciplines. Integration is important to the advancement of science and one of the reasons NDT will never advance.

 

Lack of Advancement / Accumulation of Knowledge -- NDT, like other pseudosciences suffers from a lack of advancement and accumulation of knowledge.  Unlike the mainstream approach it wishes to supersede, NTD adherents have added nothing to our understanding of animal behavior.  Science on the other hand has advanced in leaps and bounds, from gross observations of natural behavior to understanding the role of hormones and neurotransmitters, signal transduction, DNA, fMRI, epigenetics and now we are even beginning to characterize the molecular mechanics of memory formation. 

 

Non-existent research / Sloppy and low standards research standards – NDT manifests this with quote-mining lay articles or the occasional study; they also rely on supporters like LCK or Sattin for copious self-referencing. Behan cites LCK who cites Sattin who cites Behan.

 

Heavy reliance on arbitrary and cultural conventions – NDT arguments are heavy on western metaphors, myths and cultural beliefs. If Behan was Chinese or Polynesian, NDT would be very different.

 

Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the idea – Until a few years ago, those studying human evolution were divided into two camps; ‘Out of Africa’ and ‘Multiregional.’ Both of these camps had some solid evidence on their side.  Thanks to DNA (see Genographic) the Multiregional hypothesis is now dead and the Out of Africa theory has been adapted to incorporate the multiregional evidence – OoA with serial founder.

 

Reliance on negative proofs –  “In science ideas are never really proven, which is demonstrated in the old adage that "proof is for math and alcohol". Pseudoscience promoters however are big fans of the negative proof. They push the idea that somehow the "truth value" of an idea is a binary claim, that if an idea is not proven false it must be true. However, most of their claims are positive claims - and as such would require evidence to back them up. The burden of proof is on the promoter, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” - (RationalWiki)

Use of misleading and/or confusing language – rampant abuse of technobabble is an essential aspect of NDT.

Holism – one explanation for everything. e.g. NDT’s “energy”

Claims with no supporting experimental evidence – e.g “network consciousness”

Claims which contradict experimental evidence - e.g.  dogs can't think

Cherry-picking the facts. - or misinterpretation of them like Behan's use of 'Red Queen hypothesis", which btw Kevin presents as a fact.

Explanations are not parsimonious even when they are available.

Vague and/or exaggerated claims and ambiguous language - “Complete understanding of dog behavior”

Misuse of scientific terms - "emotionally ionizing"

 

Kevin Behan

You complain about my use of the term energy without offering a specific definition to demonstrate the error of my usage. Concise definitions are available, please offer one that demonstrates my error. 

 

This statement unfortunately expresses the shortcomings in your arguements.There are chapters and books written on energy for a good reason. It takes some time to understand the concepts and use them correctly. There are all sorts of concepts that are floating around. To be really honest, you need to shut down NDT, go and get a decent science education and have another crack at the whole dam thing.

 

                                                   "Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the idea"

 

I know exactly what you mean.

Kevin (and corgi)

 

I corrected a few errors in my earlier post and repeat it below.

  I would appreciate your comments, as I have made a considered effort to address your thoughts, and I offer some helpful clarity and advice.

 

 

Kevin, I agree that this is starting to get insulting to our intelligence.  You may not agree with what or in what tone (should be lowered) the others are telling you, but as a member of this planet, you must agree with facts, and you cannot make them up.

Let’s rewiew mine and your recent back and forth:


KB-1: The first question (if you're interested) would be to reprise what you think I mean by energy.


B-1: I think your assumptions of reality are what philosophers like to call deterministic naturalism.  Nature does what it does in a manner over which we have no real control.  Creatures, like planets, are subject to laws of physics, which has energy as the 'fundamental principle of any activity.'  Even biological activity, and even creature consciousness are all manifestations of energy doing things according to what nature dictates.  Any physical activity or creature behavior is simply evidence of the deterministic outcome of energized nature.

Comment (be somewhat succinct, please)?


KB-2: I mean a tension between two things that are in some way linked.

So when I see two animals interacting, or looking at things, I see a fundamental state of tension in play. You can actually see the dog inflate with tension and then there is a collapse into either a coherent (play, drive, meet and greet) or an "incoherent" (growling, hackles, overloading) behavior.

The question then becomes, given what we know of evolution of consciousness emerging from single celled organisms, and before that proto-cells and then before that self-replicating mineral crystals, what is the most logical interpretation of the nature of this tension and the necessary linkage between the two parties in order for there to be tension; psychological principles or physical principles?

Also, this doesn't have to mean a predetermined outcome, I am arguing that an energy model is the only means by which behavior can be said to not be deterministic.  Whereas the theory of randomness (genes/learning) will always reduce to a deterministic mechanical model.


B-2: Not so sure that is the same definition you've offered in the past.  Regardless, tension is a force, it is not an energy.  A force moving through some distance does some work and that is one form of energy with units in foot - pounds when dealing with forces, watts w/ electricity, calories in biology, Btu in HVAC.  But for a force,

Energy = force x distance moved along its line of action


KB-3:  Right, force is a manifestation of energy, but I don't follow your point, what then is your definition of energy?


In B-1, I am pretty sure I have succinctly summed up your outlook on reality as that of a deterministic naturalist. In KB-2, you dodged my assessment of your metaphysics.  Rather than a succinct response to what I wrote, you give yet another of your unending definitions of energy (now it is a force), and insist that physics is not deterministic (it is the most deterministic science there is).

Now after explaining the difference between force and energy in B-2, you make a completely absurd statement that force results from energy.  NO.  They are two different things entirely, though they can be related as I mentioned.  Long ago I gave you a whole list of other ways force and energy are related at your website.

You end KB-3 asking me to define energy after starting out in KB-1 asking anyone to show that they knew what you mean by the term.  It is clear that you are unclear.

I will give you a little insight that might help your own thinking about force, emotion, feeling, consciousness, energy, and dog, but I do not subscribe to this at all:

We can certainly feel a force – we feel a blow to the jaw in a fight; we feel our weight as the earth’s gravitational field attracts us.  You might wish to liken this weight (a true force, pounds) to a ‘force of attraction’ and the feeling likewise likened to ‘consciousness’.  But unlike some previous statememts you’ve made, force of attraction and consciousness are not at all the same. Furthermore,  note that consciousness is not energy, as you often say – in this case, it is awareness of an affect/emotion = feeling.  

As for energy, if dog don’t eat enough calories (a real form of physical energy), dog don’t feel anything – that is the extent of energy for a dog.


Kevin, I went to your website a year or so back where I saw what you were saying, and I brought up many points just made.  At that time I urged you to get a rational framework for your thoughts on dog behavior.  There are many to choose from, and you can mix and match SO LONG AS YOUR TERMINOLOGY IS COCSISTENT ACROSS THE BOUNDARIES where you mate up two or more sciences, philosophies, or psychologies.    

I am trained as an engineer who has spent much of the last several years increasing knowledge in the area of one of my big avocations, philosophy.  (Dogs and RVs are two others).  I think I am knowledgeable enough in philosophy now to counsel you to back off of your focus of the ontology of the dog, and focus on its epistemology.  

By this I am saying the nature of the dog’s existence (ontology, mode of being in reality) is not where the fruit of understanding dog behavior is to be found.  Rather, you should study ‘how’ the mental processes of a dog work, how it subjectively knows (epistemology, psychology, cognition).

This took 2 hours to write!

 It will take me some time to follow the intertwining of our comments so that I can be most sure as to what your saying, but I have two questions on first reading: how can physics can be deterministic if quantum mechanics and chaos theory is saying the exact opposite about nature. Second, how can there be a force without energy?

 

I also don't any idea what you mean about me dodging anything, although it may very well be that we're talking at each other from different planes of analysis and so not intersecting, and I'm 100% consistent with my definitions although my power of articulation may be stretched trying to explain it from different angles and that I write all my responses spontaneously and without benefit of hundreds of people tightening up the language over hundreds of years of cross pollination. At any rate, let me sum up the energy thing this way,

The subconscious (and unconscious) compartments of the mind can be activated by environmental influences far below the plane of conscious awareness so that the body state is enlivened by way of hormones, the activity of neurons, action potentials discharging, heart beating, etc, etc, and it's not scientifically possible to say that said organism is thinking. My argument is that this subconscious activation of physical systems which internally create waves, pulses, pressures, etc, etc is already a highly evolved form of social information that doesn't require thoughts to render intelligence. That's all I'm saying and it will defy logic to find any other word for all of this internal combustion and processing other than energy.    

I reserve the right to question authority. 

Back in the sixties I used to have to tell clients that when their dog didn't meet them at the door, a telltale sign that disaster awaits within, their dog wasn't feeling guilty. It was simply afraid. But now forty years later if Range is right about the interpretations of her experiments and with which you agree, then the rolled up newspaper crowd was right all along.

I don't think so. 

 Just to correct one misrepresentation amongst a blizzard of them, you said somewhere earlier to the effect that I consider that if a science isn't complete, it isn't being scientific. My actual position is that if a science contradicts itself, it isn't being logical and therefore can't be scientific. This is why you must pursue these silly cult/religion/mystical charges because as soon as you offer something concrete, I demonstrate the inherent contradiction of that position. The difficulty you are having is that you are trying to explain the evolution of natural processes through a rational mechanism and this will always generate self-contradicting logic loops because natural systems will always evolve according to energetic principles. So again, feel free to offer a definition of energy that negates my use of the term and we can put this discussion to rest.

poodleOwned

 

Kevin Behan

There are no trials. It's about trust.

 

That's ok Kevin, but don't ever pretend that you are operating from a scientific basis. 

 

 

 

 

Trust.  Interesting concept when you apply it to the dog owning public who are not as dog centric as some of us are;-)  What happens in the real world is that if the puppies don't learn bite inhibition, sooner or later they place their mouths on human skin and hurt it.  Then, humans react.  Some humans react very badly.  The consequences can be devastating for dogs - abused physically, off to the shelter, relegated to the back yard on a chain.  Knowing how often things go horribly wrong, I think I'll side with Dunbar on this one.  It's been my experience, and apparently Jean's too, as evidenced by her comments in the following article: http://www.calgaryhumane.ca/document.doc?id=15 that dogs that don't acquire bite inhibition as pups don't gain it as adults when they are under duress.  Of course, for me this is anecdotal, and I don't claim to have made any scientific study on the matter, but having trained hundreds of dogs, and I find that dogs do tend to revert to harder bites when there is competition, stress, or duress.  JMHO, but you are playing with the lives of dogs if you don't err on the side of caution and have them learn ABI as pups. 

Kevin Behan

                                                   "Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the idea"

 

I know exactly what you mean.

 You are a great practitioner of the craft

Kevin Behan

 Just to correct one misrepresentation amongst a blizzard of them, you said somewhere earlier to the effect that I consider that if a science isn't complete, it isn't being scientific. My actual position is that if a science contradicts itself, it isn't being logical and therefore can't be scientific. This is why you must pursue these silly cult/religion/mystical charges because as soon as you offer something concrete, I demonstrate the inherent contradiction of that position. The difficulty you are having is that you are trying to explain the evolution of natural processes through a rational mechanism and this will always generate self-contradicting logic loops because natural systems will always evolve according to energetic principles. So again, feel free to offer a definition of energy that negates my use of the term and we can put this discussion to rest.

 

The NDT juju is nonsense.  As it has been explained to you several times, and you refuse or are unable to comprehend; the inconsistencies you see are all in your mind.  They are the product of ignorance, a poor understanding of the principles, facts and theories involved. Time after time you've proven that you have no idea what you are fighting against. You get simple facts wrong, you invent counter-factual arguments and you distort and misuse legitimate findings.