The Science Delusion.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2013, 03:15 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.
(25-02-2013 03:04 AM)Julius Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 01:03 AM)LadyJane Wrote:  Ugh! How I coveted thee TED talks for so long... I knew one day it'd go to shit- the minute they let anyone with an opinion some access to the mic. Now I have to be on my toes and all skeptical of the new information first before I enjoy the conversation and just feel excited. Bummer.
I agree 100%. I just lost a lot of respect for TED.

When this guy started out by saying that "Science is a Belief System" then I already knew the talk was gonna' be crap.

It's a shame.



Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heywood Jahblome's post
25-02-2013, 03:16 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.
(25-02-2013 02:48 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 01:26 AM)bemore Wrote:  So what he was saying about the constant speed of light and Gravity being measured and then averaged out.... is that correct or wrong?
Why couldn't it be that the speed of photon in a vacuum is not constant but randomly generated at the time the photon is created? Then just by pure happenstance, every photon whose speed in a vacuum was measured, just happened to be going at the same speed thereby "fooling" us into thinking the speed of light is a constant. Highly improbable but also not logically impossible.
If the speed of a photon is randomly determined and a multiverse of an infinite number universes exists, then there certainly universes where every instance a photons speed is measured, just by pure happenstance the measurement equals the previous measurement. Why can't we be in such a universe?

Because until there is evidence that this does in fact happen, there is no good reason to believe as such. The measurements are being refined, but one of the core principles still remains, light appears constant. Photons do not gain momentum or inertia.

Stand on the ground and throw a ball, and you'll get distance X over time Y. Now throw that same ball from the back of a moving truck,you will now have a much greater X over an identical Y, even with the same throw. Do the same experiment with light, and the photons will travel the same distance in the same amount of time, regardless of whether the light source is stationary or moving. For all intents and purposes, the speed of light appears constant. It may not be, but we don't have good evidence to suggest it is anything but a constant.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-02-2013, 03:33 AM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2013 03:39 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: The Science Delusion.
This guy is a joke. I think he is simply angry that people didn't take his dog/owner telepathy experiment seriously.

Michael Shermer wrote in Scientific
American (2005) that there were a number of
objections to Sheldrake's experiments on the
sense of being stared at, reiterating Marks'
and Colwell's points about non-
randomization and the use of unsupervised
laypeople, and adding confirmation bias and
experimenter bias to the list of potential
problems; he concluded that Sheldrake's
claim was unfalsifiable.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
25-02-2013, 03:48 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.
(25-02-2013 02:48 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 01:26 AM)bemore Wrote:  So what he was saying about the constant speed of light and Gravity being measured and then averaged out.... is that correct or wrong?
Why couldn't it be that the speed of photon in a vacuum is not constant but randomly generated at the time the photon is created? Then just by pure happenstance, every photon whose speed in a vacuum was measured, just happened to be going at the same speed thereby "fooling" us into thinking the speed of light is a constant. Highly improbable but also not logically impossible.
If the speed of a photon is randomly determined and a multiverse of an infinite number universes exists, then there certainly universes where every instance a photons speed is measured, just by pure happenstance the measurement equals the previous measurement. Why can't we be in such a universe?
"Highly improbable".

Logic works on probability. It's illogical for you to believe a hobo when he tells you he has a mansion, with no evidence to back it up, because the probability of it is minuscule. Is it impossible? Technically, no.

So the sentence "High improbable but also not logically impossible" is somewhat redundant. Nothing is impossible, just as nothing is 100% certain in science. It's just very, very, very close.

Also, it's not just photon measurement. Photons are used in very precise machinery and technology. They are not observed or measured, they just do their thing and it all happens according to calculations based on photon measurements. The causal relationship thus suggests that these measurements are correct (within the acceptable margin of error that science inherently includes).

Science, logic and how they destroy religious arguments @ http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
- Isaac Asimov.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sceptical Prophet's post
25-02-2013, 03:52 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 03:52 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 04:00 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.
The video I quoted if you look carefully is a TED X talk. TED give out talks but they also allow their name to be used and those are the TED X talks.

The whole thing about TED is the sharing of ideas, how anybody can think of this organisation as "loosing credibility" TBH is beyond me. Judge the person giving the talk not the platform they use.

With regards to the video I only have a slight smattering of knowledge that's why I posted it here and I think I know of another sheldrake video (which I shall spare posting) that poses another question which I shall locate for you peeps to dismantle.

I did a bit of googling regarding the speed of light constant and saw a lot of differing answers. One answer was that over time our apparatus that we use to observe these things improved bringing a more "definitive" answer. In my googling I did see a lot of other articles where people have contested wether it is constant but again I only have a smattering of knowledge and most of these articles went over my head.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 06:11 PM
The Science Delusion.
Science is a cultural tool and it is manipulated by humans for good or for bad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 09:15 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.
Hey, EKills.

He's a research scientist, not a religious man. Your accusations are baseless.

Furthermore, he didn't make a single religious argument or any argument even approaching religion.

Hey, Asp.

He's not a Theist.

See, this is why I started the "you're either with us or you're against us" thread. This man doesn't have to prove that what he's saying is correct, because he's not saying that it's correct. What he's saying is that there are ideological positions that are inhibiting inquiry. The controversies that he's pointing to are correct. Doesn't necessarily mean that we have to throw out what's there, but we do have to recognise that we may have filled in too many blanks and that we operate with too many assumptions. He's simply attempting to deconstruct ideology and in response, people are accusing him of being a Theist. That's a preposterous accusation and it only makes sense in the "you're either with us or you're against us" mentality. He's not trying to undermine science, he is a scientist. He's trying to illustrate that we make 10 very big assumptions and it is THOSE ASSUMPTIONS that are not supported by any evidence and that, in some cases, like in metrology, inconsistencies are defined out of existence and covered up.

Hey, Julius.

He did not say that science is a belief system. He said that there are two things at work. The first is science as a method of inquiry, which it is. The second is a world view that consists of scientifically generated knowledge. If one studies ideology, then one knows that all that ideology is is accepted knowledge generated through discourse. It is that world view that he was trying to deconstruct, not science as a method of inquiry.

Generally speaking,

This man has a very firm grasp of ideology and how it functions and is, in no remarkable way whatsoever, identifying an ideological position and attempting to deconstruct it.

For example, the idea that there's a "you" inside your head. There is, conclusively, no structure in your brain that houses a central you. There are simply what is analogous to parallel processors. If we say "that's bullshit" because the reigning ideological position is "well of course there's a central me in there" then that is an example of ideology inhibiting inquiry. It doesn't even mean that there has to be something else. It means that new evidence is showing that we may have spoken too soon. That's important to investigate.

That's his entire meaning. That science is better off when ideology is not impeding inquiry.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

Now, interestingly, when one studies ideology, one knows that there are mechanisms in place that constantly obfuscate inconsistencies and contradictions and assumptions and that when people attempt to deconstruct an ideology, then that ideology (to use anthropomorphic terms) re-asserts itself. The hostile reactions to this man's attempt to deconstruct some simple ideological positions illustrate that principal in action.

You're doing neither yourself nor science any favours by attacking this man.

If something CAN be questioned and alternate inquiries CAN be pursued and if things are not being questioned and alternate inquiries are being blocked, then that's a huge problem. No part of my brain can even imagine an argument that says the inhibition of scientific inquiry is a good thing.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Ghost's post
26-02-2013, 02:38 PM
RE: The Science Delusion.
(25-02-2013 04:00 AM)bemore Wrote:  The whole thing about TED is the sharing of ideas, how anybody can think of this organisation as "loosing credibility" TBH is beyond me. Judge the person giving the talk not the platform they use.

The tagline is "Ideas worth spreading", not "Share some ideas". Big difference. I would hope this organization would value the credibility in the different genres in which people are speaking, and for a long time they were, and the knowledge was blowing me away. Of course one must be observant in everything they learn and compare it to how true the new knowledge is, but I wasn't as 'detective' in my listening but more in awe and inspired, and curious for more knowledge and truth. I don't listen to TED talks for debate purposes, I want to listen to it for interesting ideas worth listening to and learning about. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: