Suggestion Addressing Superstition: A Scientific Approach

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion addresses the misconception surrounding the 2012 doomsday prediction, attributing it to the end of the Mayan calendar and humanity's tendency to create imaginary threats. It emphasizes that predictions of catastrophic events have historically proven inaccurate and that such beliefs can foster a sense of community among believers. The original thread discussing this topic was deleted, possibly due to trolling, highlighting the challenge of addressing superstition in public forums. Ignoring or deleting discussions about these beliefs does not eliminate their prevalence, as evidenced by the significant online interest in the 2012 doomsday scenario. The conversation underscores the importance of rational discourse in debunking superstitions rather than silencing them.
Andre
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
73
So I saw this thread inquiring about the doom fate of mankind in the year 2012, to which I prepared this answer:

No, 2012 is just the end of the Mayan calendar combined with the ineradicable human urge to create imaginary dangers like hell, chemtrails and future catastrophes to promote a herd reaction. Having a common threat promotes togetherness, but the human successrate of predicting future end of the word scenarios has been zilch so far.

But when I tried to post, the thread was gone. Perhaps that the poster was a troll, I don't know but I wonder if this is the best way to deal with superstition. I guess that a lot of decent but less educated people are struggling with questions like these and they may have needed a discussion between reason and superstition.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The mayan calendar ends yes, I don't think it will mean the end of the world at all. Maybe the troll didnt think his way thru properly and only wanted to cause mayhem of his own. :D
 
Well, the 2012 doomsday notion is widespread and growing rapidly. Google 2012 doomsday and you'll have close to some 600,000 hits. Kids pick that up for true. And it's not going away by actively ignoring and deleting threads. Instead I have seen several signs of reliefs when arguing that it is all baloney.
 
PF is not a place for such speculation. This thread will just provide a platform for discussion of the original thread, which was deleted for a reason!

Perhaps I should add, this topic is on the "closed topics" list in the rules of the scepticism and debunking forum: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929
 
Note also that in the closed topics list, a number of threads are linked that explain or debunk this claim and other closed topics.

The topics listed are approved by the entire staff and closed in all forums.
 
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...

Similar threads

Back
Top