"Talking with trees" in July's Touchstone

[premabha]

I am not sure this is the right place to post this but it seemed to be.

I read with great interest "Talking with trees (part 1)" by Ian Beattie and thought it'd interest my best friend.
So I scanned the three pages and sent them to him. That might have been a mistake.

My best friend, although having done the bardic course, is very much into science and wanting proof of everything.
Beattie's article is about electromagnetism. I won't try to summarize it for fear of failing.

My friend read it and started pointing out all the "flaws"(according to him) in the article and all the un-scientific points, which amounted to everything, more or less. (He got rather upset at OBOD in the process, although I did point out the writer's opinion is his own)

Not being much into science myself I have no idea if my friend's right or wrong -and I found myself agreeing with the article- so I was wondering if anyone out there has scientific proof either way? (with links, or it'll never get passed my friend...)

Thank you.
Marie

[Lily]

That one got under my skin as well. Your friend is very right.
I am in the same boat - scientifically minded, spiritual. There's a bunch of others who will surely pitch in with dissecting this article...
I'll take a first shot -
I am mainly going to cite Wikipedia below. Sorry.
Don't have quick direct links to actual science-based websites but what I read on Wikipedia matches what I learnt in physics and earth science, while 99% of the article does not. Someone better trained in the field of Astronomy might provide some corrections (Nico?)

ok let's start.....


This article reeealllly boggles the mind: why does one have to go to such lengths mix science and esotericism?
Why the effort?
Is that really necessary to justify spirituality?


So "research shows that trees are affected by human presence"? No reference is given.

Then we dive head first into astronomy and planetary science...

Where does he get the idea from that a solar protuberance (which I think he means) will lead to an evolutionary change to something "beyond our recognisable three dimensional world"?
What is this supposed to mean, anyway?

And where does the idea come from that the sun collects EM waves from space, when it generates its own electromagnetic radiation - just where does he get his information?
here for example - a site that explores "Alternate Theories on Atmosphere and Gravity" - that's who said the moon has a growing atmosphere. Made of "Natrium", which one should know is sodium.
Sure there are particles floating around the moon. No surprise there.

Uranus and Neptune may have an odd orientation of their magnetic fields, but I couldn't find reference to its shifting - even if true - Earth's has, too, measurably! Big deal.

Mercury's atmosphere may have been discovered only recently, and may be changing, and even be made up of particles from solar wind, but why does that mean it is "growing" an atmosphere - suddenly?
The scientific community does not seem puzzled about the atmosphere of Venus either...

And what does that all have to do with trees ....??


...let's go on...



No one has been able to show that meridians and acupuncture points actually exist.
True, our hearts do radiate a weak EM field.
But why would that have anything to do with our feeling or thinking? From a biomedical point of view feeling and thinking resides in the brain.
True, lie detectors seem to work. Mostly due to the amount of sweat on the skin - which varies with the stress level.
No, from a biological standpoint we "cannot" change our DNA. Our DNA changes, but this is not of our doing.
Show me the money - where has it been shown that our thoughts or emotional make-up can be transmitted to others?

I cannot comment on the paragraph on electromagnetism, brain waves and earth's magnetic field. But it also, lacks references.

With regard to "electromagnetic hypersensitivity", it has so far not been shown that people can pick up weak EM fields at all, even if they think they can.
Some Animals can. Such as sharksand birds...
And some special events lead to auditory perception.
But, biologically, our body lacks such a sensory organ (with the exception of the visible spectrum which is also electromagnetic waves, of course!)

And how many claiming to be clairvoyant have actually been struck by lightning, or electricity, which as the author claims, is the cause of this perceptive talent? And how many have not but are just as "good"??

And what does THAT all have to do with trees ....??


So hey. I think we can talk to trees, don't get me wrong.
But it doesn't occur through electromagnetism.
And I would need more data to believe the lemon tree story.
Most of the ideas in this article seem ludicrous to me, and not giving reference does not help.
All I can say it all goes contrary to most of everything I have learned in science.

Gods, this makes me tired.
But I still talk to trees!

[DJ Droood]

Maybe it has something to do with "String Theory"...since nobody understands what that is, it is impossible to refute and makes something sound mysterious, but in a scientific way....when trying to shoehorn esotericism into science, I think one only needs to say "string theory" and nod sagely, and then carry on with their tree meditation.

[Bart]

And of course the observer effect.

Because we observe the strings we create our own universe. I'm only wondering why I include you lot in my fantasy.

[DJ Droood]

And of course the observer effect.

Because we observe the strings we create our own universe. I'm only wondering why I include you lot in my fantasy.

that is a good question...with an infinite number of universes, why am I stuck in this one stealing time from my employer to post to the DHP messageboard?....mysterious! Maybe I am not imagining hard enough.

[Explorer]

Someone better trained in the field of Astronomy might provide some corrections (Nico?)

I don't have touchstone anymore, so I didn't see the article.
Your quotes from the article about astronomy seem mostly false though, or groteskly taken out of context.
The Moon and Mercury have no atmospheres. Uranus and Neptune indeed have peculiar magnetic fields, because they have no iron core, but they have only been measured once in the late 1980's by the Voyager 2 probe. So if the writer knows how they are shifting then he has impressive insights that nobody else seems to have. (that we can't detect them from this distance should give an indication on how much they influence they have on us).

Coincidentely we were talking about these kind of stories here (at the observatory) yesterday. Not about trees, but stars.
A few years ago we discovered that we are colliding with another small galaxy. You can't feel it, you can't see it, it was discovered in older data when the spectra of a whole bunch of stars didn't match the prediction, which meant they where not rotating in the plane of our galaxy but moving in another direction, through our galaxy, so they must form another small galaxy. The effect on us is less than an ant peeing against a skyscraper, but a whole bumch of people got upset and predicted cataclysmic doom, lacking any sense of perspective and education.

I'm always in doubt when I hear stories like this. How do you fight stupidity? By igorning it or by trying to educate?
I regard such stories as a form of lying, and I don't have too much mercy on people who spread falsehood. And we have tarred and feathered a few of them in this Skeptical forum already, which I find a really good practise.
On the other hand, there are also innocent people who simply lack the education and don't know what to believe. And I think we should try to help to bring some clarity and insights in those cases. So, if somebody could post the entire story, then I will comment on the astronomical part of it.

[Bart]

I'm always in doubt when I hear stories like this. How do you fight stupidity? By igorning it or by trying to educate?
I regard such stories as a form of lying, and I don't have too much mercy on people who spread falsehood. And we have tarred and feathered a few of them in this Skeptical forum already, which I find a really good practise.
On the other hand, there are also innocent people who simply lack the education and don't know what to believe. And I think we should try to help to bring some clarity and insights in those cases. So, if somebody could post the entire story, then I will comment on the astronomical part of it.

Tar and feathers outside the skeptical forum will not work. The fluffy stuf has a weird way of proving itself. The harder you deny, the more truth it holds for fluffy believers. Creating a balanced counter argument, to be heard by the reasonable seaker is better. The truth is out there, but you need to find it yourself.

@DjDroood: maybe we are part of your subconscious. Jung will say, we come to you through the general subconscious, Freud will ask about the relationship with your mother.

[Explorer]

I'm always in doubt when I hear stories like this. How do you fight stupidity? By igorning it or by trying to educate?
I regard such stories as a form of lying, and I don't have too much mercy on people who spread falsehood. And we have tarred and feathered a few of them in this Skeptical forum already, which I find a really good practise.
On the other hand, there are also innocent people who simply lack the education and don't know what to believe. And I think we should try to help to bring some clarity and insights in those cases. So, if somebody could post the entire story, then I will comment on the astronomical part of it.

Tar and feathers outside the skeptical forum will not work. The fluffy stuf has a weird way of proving itself. The harder you deny, the more truth it holds for fluffy believers. Creating a balanced counter argument, to be heard by the reasonable seaker is better. The truth is out there, but you need to find it yourself.

I agree. That is why I don't use 'tar and feathers' outside 'skeptical druid', this is an island of reason. Outside this forum, where everything goes, I usually ignore and avoid these people. If they get in here, in Skeptical, then they get a fair chance to make and defend their claims.
But if they then still stick to unfounded stupidity, unprovable claims, muddying the water and spreading ignorance, then they ask to be ridiculed. Not everything should always be accepted with a friendly smile in my opinion. I hold people responsible for their words, and if those words result in spreading ignorance and falsehood then they offend a lot of what I value. And I'm not a christian who turns the other cheek, certainly not before my second coffee .

[Hennie]

Nico, I don't want to nag you, but for the sake of clarity, would you please state what your position is at the Observatory, as you are now called upon as obods 'astronomer in residence' ? And if you state that you are a computer programmer please could you elaborate a bit on what systems you are programming on? You once already stated that you have no formal education in astronomy, which I do appreciate.

[Explorer]

Nico, I don't want to nag you, but for the sake of clarity, would you please state what your position is at the Observatory, as you are now called upon as obods 'astronomer in residence' ? And if you state that you are a computer programmer please could you elaborate a bit on what systems you are programming on? You once already stated that you have no formal education in astronomy, which I do appreciate.

No, sorry, I am not going to elaborate on that, I don't want to make this thread about me. It is sufficient to say that I know what I am talking about when I talk about astronomy, and if you doubt anything I say you can always verify yourself, because I will provide links.

[Muddy Fox]

I'd like to see this article as well, because I don't get touchstone. Tarring and feathering people is an inhumane act and totally uneccessary in this age of open communication. Perhaps it is a power/ego trip in reality, but then I haven't been around long enough to make snap judgements on someone's character, particularly when they are only known to me through this medium.
Maybe you have beautiful brown eyes Nico and gentle hands, carressing your telescope as you look into deepest darkest space. An enigma!

[Explorer]

I'd like to see this article as well, because I don't get touchstone. Tarring and feathering people is an inhumane act and totally uneccessary in this age of open communication. Perhaps it is a power/ego trip in reality, but then I haven't been around long enough to make snap judgements on someone's character, particularly when they are only known to me through this medium.
Maybe you have beautiful brown eyes Nico and gentle hands, carressing your telescope as you look into deepest darkest space. An enigma!

Well, you've got to see that in perspective a bit. This is an internet messageboard, and the only "tar and feathers" is basically in the way that people ridicule themselves through 'open communication'. This is "The Skeptical Druid", not "The Fluffy Druid where every opinion is eqally valid.
For instance, a while ago we had a person who claimed that every scientifically investigated truth was outweighted by her "direct spiritual transmission" of her "all-knowing, omnipresent, onmipotent" gods? She 'tarred and feathered' herself by getting rude and making a spectacle of herself because she wasn't taken very seriously, ofcourse.

[Bart]

"direct spiritual transmission" "all-knowing, omnipresent, onmipotent"

That unbelievable. You don't believe her

As long as the claims are valid and well quoted, the virtual tar and feathers will be kept in storage. Needless to say people probably know what they walk into, when they started posting in the skeptical druid.

[Explorer]

"direct spiritual transmission" "all-knowing, omnipresent, onmipotent"

That unbelievable. You don't believe her

As long as the claims are valid and well quoted, the virtual tar and feathers will be kept in storage. Needless to say people probably know what they walk into, when they started posting in the skeptical druid.

Or at least they could be: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8158

[Lily]

(I felt compelled to compose a fresh little "skeptopagan manifesto"...)

We have here another example of someone using the scientific narrative, which is the currently acceptable way of explaining the world in the „western / developed“ countries (don’t beat me up on that definition!!) (schools do very well in ingraining that into our minds) to validate his spiritual beliefs.

Spritual or religious beliefs are by definition rigid.

i.e. „we can talk to trees“.

Scientific concepts are not rigid. If there’s valid reason to change a theory, it is adapted. That’s one pillar of the scientific method. (Let's put it that way: the method is rigid, the results are not)

In the scientific mindset that we have been trained in – and we all have (we use it daily, just flipping a light switch) even if we might lack the details that more thorough science education gives to some, but not all - and no-one’s to blame - we then need a natural explanation for a specific belief, which, being religious, must be true, and the author starts bending scientific concepts to match his belief.

Anyway....
I know he didn’t make that stuff up himself – one of the links I gave show where these ideas can be found.
I’m only blaming him a little bit for not checking the facts (I would, because I am mortally afraid of making a fool of myself)...

So we start with the idea that we can talk to trees – and look out for „scientific“ ideas matching that idea... bend the rules a little...
And in the excitement – religious fervor – about these bent concepts FINALLY matching your spirituality, you open up to a bunch of ideas that are thrilling, but scientifically wrong – but you end up not checking back with realism.

You don’t care because your belief had been validated.
Happens over and over.

Even though many „alternative“ people are uneasy about science (there’s a veritable anti-academic backlash in some segments the alternative community) because the scientific narrative has de-mystified a large part of our experience... they still are under the spell of the western narrative.....

Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine –
Unweave a rainbow

(Keats)

...so at the same time they (or maybe a different segment of „alternative“ religion??!!) often wrestle scientific ideas into explaining their world view.
That is really sad (the poetry is really good though!!) - why is this necessary?

Why can’t we have two mindframes, methods of thinking – one for the profane, based on science.
One for the sacred, spiritual - framing our feelings and desires about the spiritual in symbols and symbolic action – like talking to trees!! – but not requiring pseudoscientific validation?

Can’t we recapture the magic but not bend the rules...
just enjoy the rainbow as a miracle! Then go and look up in Wikipedia how it works! Then go outside again and look for the pot of gold!


I think we could...

[DJ Droood]

@DjDroood: maybe we are part of your subconscious. Jung will say, we come to you through the general subconscious, Freud will ask about the relationship with your mother.

yea? yo mama.

[Explorer]

Okay, I read the article.
I agree with 2 points, that we can talk TO trees, and that Stone Circles resonate at 0 Hertz. .

This is generally a story with so much taken out of context that it doesn't make any sense at all, I don't even think it qualifies as pseudoscience.

Some snippets of information are correct, but it is usuallly misunderstood, taken out of context, and packaged in rather insane conclusions.

There is indeed a 'bow wave' of plasma at the edge of the solar system, this has been known for decades and the voyager probes that were launched almost 35 years(!) ago have about reached that area now. But the conclusions in the article, that this means that the sun is an entity and such, is totally ridiculous.

Uranus and Neptune have indeed shifting magnetic fields, because they don't have an iron core, but are gas giants with a liquid interior. But they have only measured those magnetic fields once, in the late 1980's, when that same Voyager 2 probe passed these planets. It is not known how these magnetic fields change over time.

Aurora's were indeed seen on Saturn by the Hubble Space Telescope. Which only means that Saturn couldn't be seen in that detail before the HST was launched, not that Saturn's magnetic fields has grown stronger.

Mercury and the Moon do not have an atmosphere.

The claim about the Martian atmosphere doubling, causing problems for space probes, is totally insane.
I can guess where that story comes from though, Mars has periodic dust storms that obscure the surface, causing problems for probes photograping the surface (atmospheric density is so low that a storm on Mars feels like a gentle breeze here). And a number of probes crashed for technical reasons and human error. Unrelated events, but with enough fantasy you can read a lot in it.

Sun is indeed getting active with dangerous discharges to satellites and senstive technology, but this also taken out of context. This is the well known 11-year solar cycle (in fact, we've been working our butts off to get our new radio telescope ready before the maximum hits, next year or so, because our telescope goes blind for a few years then). After that maximum it will subside again until 11 years later.

The remarks about how earths orientation to the galactic center and the Milky Way influences our chemistry are slightly exaggerated. There is no physical influence at all.

I'm not a biologist, so I won't comment on the rest of the article.
But the astronomical part is a mix of misunderstood fragments of facts woven into a imaginative tapestry of utter nonsense.
And I can guess that the rest of the article is like that also.

I didn't have time to add the promised links to back up my own statements, sorry about that, but this stuff is so silly that I don't really want to waste more time on it. I have better things to do, like going into the forest to talk TO some trees

[Lizzy]

Sun is indeed getting active with dangerous discharges to satellites and senstive technology, but this also taken out of context. This is the well known 11-year solar cycle (in fact, we've been working our butts off to get our new radio telescope ready before the maximum hits, next year or so, because our telescope goes blind for a few years then). After that maximum it will subside again until 11 years later.

Really? That's fascinating Nic. What do you do in the years between, just not watch or use another method??
Probably off topic by the way, so feel free to just mail me xxx

[Bart]

Where can I find the article, you have me intriguided now

[Kima]

Spritual or religious beliefs are by definition rigid.

i.e. „we can talk to trees“.

Scientific concepts are not rigid. If there’s valid reason to change a theory, it is adapted. That’s one pillar of the scientific method. (Let's put it that way: the method is rigid, the results are not)

I'm not sure this is entirely true.

On the one hand religious beliefs seem to be rigid (and are to certain communities at a certain time) but not only do people evolve new beliefs while abandoning old ones, religious communities too will progressively develop new beliefs and adapt to their environment. The church I used to go to, for instance, accepts divorce which would have been unthinkable only a few decades ago.

On the other hand while the scientific method can and often does produce new concepts and theories, the scientific community has often been resistant to change. It can take time for mainstream scientists to acknowledge a major change in conceptualizing the world. Evolutionary science for instance has changed a lot in recent decades and "survival of the fittest" is no longer validated by all. I believe that has a tendency to follow, albeit at a distance, the ideology of its time (which seems obvious when you take a historical view.

Why can’t we have two mindframes, methods of thinking – one for the profane, based on science.
One for the sacred, spiritual - framing our feelings and desires about the spiritual in symbols and symbolic action – like talking to trees!! – but not requiring pseudoscientific validation?

I think you're absolutely right here. The way in which every article writer seems compelled to use the magical formula "scientific studies have shown..." to support any and every claim is absolutely ridiculous and quite unnerving. Can't we speak for ourselves, or to support the insights coming from our communities for what they are?