The tome entitled "The Morning of the Magicians", misspelled by the "sorcerers" Gauls Pauwels and Bergier, became not only a hit (thanks to the ignorant masses who drooled borreguiles the new " revelation " pataphysical), but also became the Bible of pseudoscience whose gospel of "fantastic realism" was recited by the sacristan and altar boys pandas spiritualist journals wildest scene of the occult (in Newspeak macanera: Para-science), but the French rationalist Union reacted to such a silly string and bore his wonderful book: "The failure of the witches," rationalist and skeptical antidote to the poison of modern witchcraft P. and B., who refuted each and every one of the fallacies and impossibilities taradeces not only return but also the editorial monster "Planet" sorcerer Pauwels. Here are some refutations of this book that show the failure of the witches:
- "It is false to say that the world no longer plays the game right. The revolution that is announced is entirely due to rational knowledge. Nothing is built without reason. The great thing is no base to build anything. "
-" What would we gain from the scientific point of view, to study the thousands of pages of casters, visionaries, incontinent hacks whose works are sleeping in the library? The most notable, the most wonderful events that quote, they are completely unusable, because their stories are never accompanied by evidence. "
- "Now they tell us, if an electron is projected onto a screen pierced with 2 holes, observation by electron microscopy we show that the electron has passed the time by 2 holes. Well, "added P. and B - if one has gone through, there can be passed through the other at the same time. It's crazy, but it is an experiment. And underline the weakness of our reason refuses to admit that a body can be, at the same time, there and in other parte.Leyendo these lines either be convinced that an observer with an eye glued to the eyepiece of a microscope has followed the path of an electron and has seen him go through 2 holes. Not so, there has been no any comments of that kind, you can not select a particular electron. In fact the screen is bombarded with a beam of electrons is very weak even when containing large number of corpuscles, at the same time there is, through a photographic plate located on the other side of the screen, how to group the corpuscles, following interference circular shapes or different if more than one hole). These interferences are observed by weaker than the beam produced, causing the temptation of thinking that must be kept until the limit of reduction, ie until no more than a single particle. Hence to say that behaves "like if "had passed through 2 holes at the same time, there is but a step that sometimes cross a physical, because this formula is a convenient way to facilitate the development of theoretical constructs. This does not mean they have never thought of identifying this assumption with experimental reality. P. AND B. They take it to the letter without realizing that what they give as experience is only an extrapolation, an argument taken to its limits, ie the absurd, a procedure that could not replace the comments, especially if one intends to follow the nature y. .. to reason. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment