Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Debunk please

  1. Jun 19, 2007 #1
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 19, 2007 #2
    "Recently, Hagelin participated in the What the Bleep Do We Know, [4] an independent film released in 2004, and winner of five film awards. [5]"

    "In 1987 and 1989, Hagelin published two papers on the relationship between physics and consciousness.[4] These papers discuss the Vedic understanding of consciousness as a field and compare it with theories of the unified field derived by modern physics. Hagelin argues that the most parsimonious explanation for these two fields having almost identical properties is that they are, in fact, one and the same.[5]"

    ...Sounds really fishy to me.

    "In 1994, Hagelin was awarded the Ig Nobel Prize, an annual award given for achievements that “first make people laugh and then make them think." The award was given for the experimental conclusions drawn from the Washington, D.C. study. Although noted as an award for research that can’t or shouldn’t be replicated[11], Hagelin’s study was a replication of several such studies, suggesting that the study did not meet the criteria for the award.[12]"

    Sounds like other people think it's fishy too :P
  4. Jun 20, 2007 #3
    Have a look at chart 2 in this document:


    You will see how crime is fluctuating on a monthly average basis.
    The weekly fluctuations should be twice large.

    Therefore, it is reasonnable to think that the five points data from this Hagelin are just a favorable sample in noisy data.

    To go further, it would be good to look at the statistics over at least 52 weeks and possibly for many years.
    Can we exclude a systematic drop of crime during the five first weeks of the year? My guess is the opposite.
    It would be interresting also to think about how an experiment could be conducted and evaluated to test significantly for an impact on crime. My guess is that a correlation can be established only if the experiment is reproduced several times on randomy-choosen periods.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2007
  5. Jun 20, 2007 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I know that Hagelin is considered a bit of a crackpot.

    "What the bleep" is definitely a crackpot film and discussion of it isn't even allowed here anymore.

    Crime statistics for Washington DC


  6. Jun 20, 2007 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Bob Park did a bit on this in "Voodoo Science". Simply put, the data was cooked (or just plain fasified, depending on your point of view). It is meaningless. By most reasonable peoples' estimations, those were two unusually bad months for violent crime in DC. Murders, for example, were up. Besides playing with the definition of "violent crime" and picking and choosing which crimes to use, the guy added correction factors for everything he could think of to manipulate the data. One thing he did was to say that the weather hurt the data, so he added a correction factor for it.

    ...found a link to it online: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-67691836.html
    One other thing:
    Actually, to me it reads like someone who had some serious potential, but suffered a short-circuited in his brain. The jump from SLAC to the ficticious "Maharishi International University" is not one calculated to be career-enhancing for a scientist.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2007
  7. Jun 21, 2007 #6
    Anyone from crackpot films such as "What The Bleep Do We Know?" should be ignored and not taken seriously.
  8. Jun 28, 2007 #7
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Debunk please
  1. Debunk please: Ghost kid (Replies: 16)