LOL if you'd been to Kentucky, you'd appreciate that irony of that blogger just a little more. I hope he has shoes on his feet.
Another LOL oddly enough when I Googled cretinism a picture of Obama came up under images.
Registered User
LOL if you'd been to Kentucky, you'd appreciate that irony of that blogger just a little more. I hope he has shoes on his feet.
Another LOL oddly enough when I Googled cretinism a picture of Obama came up under images.
"if its ok for shaolin wuseng to break his vow then its ok for me to sneak behind your house at 3 in the morning and bang your dog if buddha is in your heart then its ok"-Bawang
"I get what you have said in the past, but we are not intuitive fighters. As instinctive fighters, we can chuck spears and claw and bite. We are not instinctively god at punching or kicking."-Drake
"Princess? LMAO hammer you are such a pr^t"-Frost
(. Y .)
Religion is the creation myth.
Science itself is a form of religion - it's better than most at explaining what we can observe (when it suits the prevalent theorists) but dogma is dogma and at some point - faith takes a role over common sense even in science.
---
We are here and we shouldn't be.
Why is the atom / cell structure that created my fingernail a fingernail and not a nose?
Is life a force just like gravity or heat and is it spread widely throughout the universe and if so, has it always been?
For better to learn by
Disagree. Science is based upon the scientific method involving observation, hypothesis, and most importantly experimentation resulting in evidence to support that hypothesis. Religion involves (at most) observation and hypothesis but does not include experimentation and does not include evidence to support it.Originally Posted by MightyB
Scientists, like anybody else, are not immune to beliefs beyond the science but the general scientific community understands this is where the science stops and the philosophy/religion begins. Many prominent scientists were devout religious believers but there are also many who are not. I think it's human nature to postulate beyond what we have the power to experiment and prove at this moment. This is why the human spirit is so great and has led humanity to the achievements it's had thus far.
(. Y .)
Unfortunately this isn't always the case. Science is subject to governing boards and prevalent thought even in spite of direct observation. There are many stories of scientists being ostracized for putting forward theories that didn't conform to the norm. When it loses its objectivity - it becomes a type of faith.
(. Y .)
Here's an example.
Attitudes like this lead to my theory that science is it's own religion:
Forcing Scientists to operate in an environment where they aren't allowed to think, dream or test outside a very specific set of norms because of a very real fear of being excommunicated, proves that Science isn't always concerned with forwarding human knowledge. Like everything... it's politics.Sheldrake's untouchable status was conferred one morning in 1981 when, a couple of months after the publication of his first book, A New Science of Life, he woke up to read an editorial in the journal Nature, which announced to all right-thinking men and women that his was a "book for burning" and that Sheldrake was to be "condemned in exactly the language that the pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy".
For a pariah, Sheldrake is particularly affable. But still, looking back at that moment, he still betrays a certain sense of shock. "It was," he says, "exactly like a papal excommunication. From that moment on, I became a very dangerous person to know for scientists." That opinion has hardened over the years, as Sheldrake has continued to operate at the margins of his discipline, looking for phenomena that "conventional, materialist science" cannot explain and arguing for a more open-minded approach to scientific inquiry.
Registered User
I've only just started reading about the simulation hypothesis, and am finding it quite fascinating, especially with James Gates' relatively recent assertion that computer code was found imbedded in string theory equations. This stuff is way over my head, but it kinda blows my mind to think that we could be existing within a sort of self realizing program that is used to generate answers to queries from a "craetor" or creators if it were, and even more mind blowing to think what if that "creator" had a mortality and no longer even exists as we understand existing. It's like the Matrix f@cked Inception inside of Jacob's Ladder.
Bad the Fukc Ass
http://www.transcend.ws/?p=3020
a link about Gates
For whoso comes amongst many shall one day find that no one man is by so far the mightiest of all.
黑暗的水的孩子
if this is OT...it should be in OT...thats what its there for..to get rid of the nonsense threads..
Banned
Sheldrake was "kicked out" because he broke every rule in the book. He published no peer reviewed articles on his "research" prior to pumping it out in a book. This screams of gold digging. He'd rather put it out, grab everyone's cash in a book, then when the criticisms to his "work" are brought forth he cries foul? Sorry bro, that's not how things work. Furthermore, when you read how he actually came to his conclusions (tripping on psychodelics and becoming a near born again christian) how can you honestly take the guy seriously? His rational boils down to one big argument from ignorance, or rather argument from incredulity. He can't think of a better reason for all the trees and for crystals becoming easier to form; so he substitutes actual testable premises with magic fields. He may as well have just said goddunit. No peer review, rampant logical fallacy...he's a hack. A hack with a good education, but still a hack. Ironically, he suffers from the same problem Dawkins is plagued by, they're more philosophy (or rather pseudo-philosophy) than anything close to science. Sheldrake's prose only serves to obfuscate. Its the same exact kind of crap TGY criticizes a lot on here of doing with vague, antiquated terminology that really has no precise meaning, with regards to TCM. At least Dawkins, for all his venom, doesn't blatantly violate logical principle. And I'll admit a measure of amusement at how that eats the creationists all up. I mention Dawkins because this dude's book seems to be a cheap attack at Dawk's popularity to make a quick buck. Or not so quick, he's been pulling this crap for 30 years now.
Oh and when you try to call out genetics, you better have a **** good basis for your claims. His book came out in what 81 or 82? We've progressed significantly in this area since then and those advances truly rip apart anything he put forth. Dude, we're even beginning to tease out which proteins are actually involved in memory, and which genes encode them. And in a lot of instances, its simply a matter of prolonged chemical bonding. Sorry, we really are just chemical reactions.
His crystal claim is hilarious. So somebody can form them more easily after having been done before....
I suppose this has nothing to do with the fact that, crystal residue on a material will orient additional molecules in the same pattern that is laid out. Its like pouring a mold, only on a molecular level. Oh and I guess you know, having the data that people previously used and seeing where they succeeded (or failed) wouldn't be useful at all in narrowing down your parameters would it? Nope. That's far too rational....
And honestly, if you think this is harsh, well you're probably not cut out for science. At least not in research. Its ok, most people aren't. This isn't reserved for just his kind. E.O. Wilson, Erik Pianka are both pinnacles in biological science and yet they've been getting slammed in recent years and rightfully so. This is how its done. Its why defending your thesis is one of the most nerve wracking experiences a growing scientist can endure. It keeps junk out of textbooks. Its the self correcting mechanism by which science operates. Is it a dogma? Maybe. Is it religion. Hell no. Its the means by which the system is supposed to (although not without some bloodshed) rise above the flaws of human fallacy. The same fallacies that religion does stems from, whether it be gullibility or stubbornness. Does it mean that sometimes good ideas get trashed? Yes. Sometimes those ideas are later vindicated, sometimes not. But its the best thing we have. Science is strict, but its skepticism is in fact the very opposite operating procedure than religion.
Criticizing people who throw whatever the hell explanation that makes them feel good in areas with lack of understanding does not make those critics closed minded. It means they don't often fall for bull****.
(. Y .)
Sheldrake's just one of many and he was the first to pop up on a quick google search - and look at his credentials. Be careful about attacking ad hominem.
This still stands:
Happens all the time.Forcing Scientists to operate in an environment where they aren't allowed to think, dream or test outside a very specific set of norms because of a very real fear of being excommunicated, proves that Science isn't always concerned with forwarding human knowledge. Like everything... it's politics.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with most of accepted theory - but theory can become dogma especially when money, power, and prestige are on the line - and when theory becomes dogma, faith can overturn reason = "Religion"
凸 囧 凸
I see what Mighty B is getting at, however Sheldrake was probably a poor example.
Dogmatic resistance to new ideas and the threat of excommunication in the scientific community is often about job security and the perception of that security being threatened. If you spent your entire career pursuing a particular line of research you would probably be violently resistant to someone who proposed anything that could possibly make that research out of date and meaningless. Many heretics were burned at the stake for nothing more than threatening the Church's bottom line.
Science as religious dogma is really more about laymen. Especially the atheist community on sites like reddit. They form cults of personality around Dawkins and Hitchens, worship the words Reason and Skepticism with no understanding of either, and do nothing more than replace one ideology for another in an environment of self reinforcing group think. They aren't really thinking or reasoning about anything.
True skepticism is open ended; it's not just about rejecting that which cannot be tested and proven, it also means being able to accept whatever is possible, especially if it threatens established understanding.
In 500 hundred years it could be demonstrated that the entire universe is a computer simulation and people then will ridicule the way the cult called Science worshiped at the altar of the Illusion of Empirical Objectivity.
Itinerant practitioner
Technically, all of this was created in a process.
But a dude with a beard making clay dolls and puffing life into them?
Yeah, that didn't happen.
I think that allegory and metaphor is lost on those who are uneducated and uninitiated. Therefore, the "face value" religious interpretation comes out as idiocy.
Also, that thing hasn't had updates to bring it into modernity culturally or socially for centuries.
It's important to know what is a story that outlines something and what is allegory, metaphor and even myth that is used to teach ways to act with yourself that will benefit you and ways to act with others that benefits all.
The obvious patriarchal and misogynistic stuff was clearly added by barbarian thought process when held to the light of reality today. As that changes, religion will have to change with it. So far, it's not doing that great of a job keeping up.
Kung Fu is good for you.
the ass assassin
i believe in god because everyone around me dont. if everyone around me were religious i would have stayed a devout communist.
the counterculture has become the mainstream. so now i am the counterculture.
Last edited by bawang; 08-24-2012 at 04:35 PM.
Honorary African American
grandmaster instructor of Wombat Combat The Lost Art of Anal Destruction™®LLC .
Senior Business Director at TEAM ASSHAMMER consulting services ™®LLC
Banned
Stubbornness to accept new ideas is not religion. How you can make that leap of logic is beyond me. I've already addressed Sheldrake's credentials. A well educated hack is still a hack. And again, if you think this level of criticism is harsh, stay out of science. This is simply the way things go. IF his evidence were sound, it would have stood up for itself. It doesn't. End of story.
Banned
Scientism is not science. Do not mistake the two. And you are incorrect. That is not skepticism, that's gullibility. I don't care what's possible. Pink, invisible goblins holding me to the earth by my big toes are possible. I care about what is PROBABLE. Probability demands evidence to substantiate the claim of its likeliness to be the case. That is skepticism.
Only 24 hours in a day. Roughly 19 or those hours I will be awake. Another hour for random philosophical thought on the toilet and random ball scratching. An hour and a half for eating. 30 min for trolling the interwebs... I don't have time to follow every dead end claim that comes my way. If there's no evidence to give me reason to consider its credibility, then its not credible. I don't care if it may even turn out to be true. If you have no supportive evidence, you didn't do your job. Don't waste my time.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote