Comments on: J.J. Abrams New TV Show “Fringe” is a Hunk of Crap (and Bad for Science) http://biochemicalsoul.com/2008/09/jj-abrams-new-tv-show-fringe-is-a-hunk-of-crap-and-bad-for-science/ Musings on Nature, Science, Evolution, Biology, and Education Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:43:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: narain http://biochemicalsoul.com/2008/09/jj-abrams-new-tv-show-fringe-is-a-hunk-of-crap-and-bad-for-science/comment-page-1/#comment-2294 narain Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:39:33 +0000 http://biochemicalsoul.com/?p=275#comment-2294 interesting write up there derek martin... however the storyline is crap and boring.... it is literally annoying and therefore tough to sit through..... actually it is very similar to terminator sarah connor...... i watched about 4 episodes and was still hopeful....6 episodes i was hoping it will pick up.....it never did and i did not touch the show after the first season.... i feel fringe is going down the same road.....and yes/....lost season 5 also seems like the writers are confused.....trying to make a mysterious plot.... i have presently actually watched 5 minutes of the no brainer episode of fringe and paused it just to search : fringe crappy show..... its that big a put off.... yet i dload it.....i think im going to stop now....im done. interesting write up there derek martin…
however the storyline is crap and boring…. it is literally annoying and therefore tough to sit through…..
actually it is very similar to terminator sarah connor……
i watched about 4 episodes and was still hopeful….6 episodes i was hoping it will pick up…..it never did and i did not touch the show after the first season….
i feel fringe is going down the same road…..and yes/….lost season 5 also seems like the writers are confused…..trying to make a mysterious plot…. i have presently actually watched 5 minutes of the no brainer episode of fringe and paused it just to search : fringe crappy show….. its that big a put off…. yet i dload it…..i think im going to stop now….im done.

]]> By: derek martin http://biochemicalsoul.com/2008/09/jj-abrams-new-tv-show-fringe-is-a-hunk-of-crap-and-bad-for-science/comment-page-1/#comment-2044 derek martin Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:31:04 +0000 http://biochemicalsoul.com/?p=275#comment-2044 >>I am a scientist throughout every level of my psyche. >>I do not believe in Gods, . . . As a Man of Science, you must employ The Scientific Method. It requires The Scientist to reject the null hypothesis. Let's assume this null hypothesis: "Gods, the paranormal, homeopathic remedies, astrology, magic, UFOs, immortal souls, and the chupacabra are make-believe, and do not exist." Can we prove it, beyond the shadow of a doubt? Even if we are able to prove, absolutely, that there is no "hard evidence" (debatable, re: cover-ups), we could not (responsibly) disregard the eye-witness testimony of (literally) millions of people, across all times & cultures. The world itself is the biggest cross-cultural longitudinal study of all time, and throughout its history there are records of strange happenings. Granted, Science is a relatively recent thing, but people have always sought to know The Truth, and the Reason Why. I have never calculated Pi, or seen a nucleus, but I believe that people have, and that what they experienced was real (as far as we know, given our current understanding of the universe). I believe that colour blind people cannot perceive Red in the same way that you or I can. And, just as it's possible for someone to see less than I do, I believe it is possible for someone to see more than I do. Dogs hear more than we do. I'm sure some creatures see a broader spectrum than we do. Perhaps some people can see an altogether different spectrum. There are, on record, cases of people who are blind, but have perfectly good eyes. Their lack of sight is caused by something in the brain. Mightn't it be possible, then, for someone to have superior sight, also due to something in the brain? The rabbit hole goes even deeper... What if belief in a phenomenon determines your ability to perceive it? What if skepticism guarantees that it will never exist to you? How can you possibly test it? Your results will always be tainted. In fact, didn't a Scientist named Heisenberg propose that the mere fact that we are observing something, changes it? What if there's a verifiable reason that skeptics are able to disprove things (repeatably), while at the same time believers are able to prove them (repeatably)? Food for thought... >>I am a scientist throughout every level of my psyche.
>>I do not believe in Gods, . . .

As a Man of Science, you must employ The Scientific Method. It requires The Scientist to reject the null hypothesis. Let’s assume this null hypothesis: “Gods, the paranormal, homeopathic remedies, astrology, magic, UFOs, immortal souls, and the chupacabra are make-believe, and do not exist.”

Can we prove it, beyond the shadow of a doubt?

Even if we are able to prove, absolutely, that there is no “hard evidence” (debatable, re: cover-ups), we could not (responsibly) disregard the eye-witness testimony of (literally) millions of people, across all times & cultures.

The world itself is the biggest cross-cultural longitudinal study of all time, and throughout its history there are records of strange happenings. Granted, Science is a relatively recent thing, but people have always sought to know The Truth, and the Reason Why.

I have never calculated Pi, or seen a nucleus, but I believe that people have, and that what they experienced was real (as far as we know, given our current understanding of the universe).

I believe that colour blind people cannot perceive Red in the same way that you or I can.

And, just as it’s possible for someone to see less than I do, I believe it is possible for someone to see more than I do. Dogs hear more than we do. I’m sure some creatures see a broader spectrum than we do. Perhaps some people can see an altogether different spectrum. There are, on record, cases of people who are blind, but have perfectly good eyes. Their lack of sight is caused by something in the brain. Mightn’t it be possible, then, for someone to have superior sight, also due to something in the brain?

The rabbit hole goes even deeper…

What if belief in a phenomenon determines your ability to perceive it? What if skepticism guarantees that it will never exist to you? How can you possibly test it? Your results will always be tainted. In fact, didn’t a Scientist named Heisenberg propose that the mere fact that we are observing something, changes it? What if there’s a verifiable reason that skeptics are able to disprove things (repeatably), while at the same time believers are able to prove them (repeatably)?

Food for thought…

]]> By: DMN713 http://biochemicalsoul.com/2008/09/jj-abrams-new-tv-show-fringe-is-a-hunk-of-crap-and-bad-for-science/comment-page-1/#comment-468 DMN713 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:44:41 +0000 http://biochemicalsoul.com/?p=275#comment-468 I have to agree. I've watched the first few episodes and I have a hatred for it just under the surface. I can't quite put my finger on it, but they just don't do science or even fictional science right. It's constant leaps of logic that I can't suspend my disbelief for. There's no testing predictions. On the X-Files, Mulder had done research on each and every case. Additionally, Scully was there to provide a rational explanation. On Heroes, a lot of stuff is unknown, but there's people in the show studying that exact subject for decades. Watching Fringe, there is a distinct feeling that the only reason that curly-haired man knows what's going on is because the writers and plot demand it. It's shoehorned it. I have to agree. I’ve watched the first few episodes and I have a hatred for it just under the surface. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but they just don’t do science or even fictional science right. It’s constant leaps of logic that I can’t suspend my disbelief for. There’s no testing predictions. On the X-Files, Mulder had done research on each and every case. Additionally, Scully was there to provide a rational explanation. On Heroes, a lot of stuff is unknown, but there’s people in the show studying that exact subject for decades. Watching Fringe, there is a distinct feeling that the only reason that curly-haired man knows what’s going on is because the writers and plot demand it. It’s shoehorned it.

]]>