The Science Delusion.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: The Science Delusion.
(26-02-2013 09:15 AM)Ghost Wrote:  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.
1.The constants have never been observed to change from what I can tell, hence why they are called constants.
2.The brain gets damaged sufficiently then memory loss and behavioural changes can result.

He's asking people to question things for which there is no evidence to support. He may not be a theist, I have no idea, but he is clearly in favour of supernatural nonsense. He gives theists, what they think are reasons, to doubt science even more, whether he is one of them or not.

What this man says is pure nonsense, there are good reasons for believing all the things that he claims are 'dogmas'. If you disagree, pick one and we shall have a go at it.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 05:20 AM
The Science Delusion.
(26-02-2013 09:15 AM)Ghost Wrote:  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

No such thing as science free of ideology. The best thing to do is to accept this fact and create and foster better ideologies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I and I's post
27-02-2013, 10:14 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.
Hey, Asp.

It's not for you and I to sit here and figure everything out because, frankly, I don't think that either of us are qualified to speak definitively on things like the constant speed of light or the gravitational force or neurology. But neither is it for you and I to dismiss everything he's saying out of hand.

When ideological positions become hegemonic (jargon terms, I know, but bear with me), then they become "the common sense view". The common sense view is often colloquially seen as "the no shit Sherlock" view. It's seen as the truth that is so obvious that only a great moron would think otherwise. "It's just common sense". But this is not actually the meaning of the common sense view. The common sense view is the sense that is common; meaning, the great majority ASSUMES that it is true. It's what many humanists refer to as received wisdom. When ideological views enter the domain of the common sense view, then further discourse is blocked. "It's just common sense," is a synonym for, "Don't question it further." Why return to the discourse when it's obvious that the way we see things is sacrosanct? Hegemony naturalises ideology. This is a very normal issue of ideology.

This man's main point (and it turns out that he is a Theist, but that should not automatically disqualify him from making any comments on science) is actually quite simple. He is saying that these ten things are simply assumed to be true. We move forward with those assumptions. But the evidence supporting those notions is not as perfect or as slam dunk as we think. We shouldn't merely trust these ideas because we're used to them. This doesn't mean that these ideas are valueless, but that if we return to the point of discourse, if we don't just assume that these things are true, then we can move laterally as well as forward and open up new lines of inquiry. Maybe they won't lead to anything, maybe they will. But the point of concern is that if we simply stick to what we assume to be true, then alternate lines of inquiry are blocked and that is a negative thing.

I mean think about it. What if the constants are not constant? That would be a huge discovery. So why not investigate? Investigating it doesn't mean that it's somehow suddenly true, it means we're looking into it. That seems reasonable. But if the reason we don't investigate something like that is because the gatekeepers tell us to not bother, not because they have irrefutable evidence that it's wrong, but because they don't want us to, well, that's an issue.

At the end of the day, do metrologists get different values for gravity and light speed? I have no fucking idea. I hadn't even heard of the field of metrology before yesterday. Perhaps this guy is talking out of his ass and no such controversy exists. Regardless of that specific argument, his call to be vigilant against the intrusion of ideology in scientific inquiry is entirely reasonable.

For example, people once thought that Newton's ideas were just common sense. But Einstein took a right turn at Albuquerque and changed the game. But what if the influence of the Newtonian world view was so powerful that Einstein's inquiry was blocked? How would that have benefited us? Even if Einstein had been 100% wrong, at least we'd know.

I fully understand that there is a shitty climate today where people are trying to undermine science to advance their own agendas; creationists for example. But if we block our own questioning of science just so that we don't give them any openings to attack it, then we're not actually doing ourselves any favours. Like the trap in hockey. It was a great way to stop people from scoring on you, but it was so choking that it nearly destroyed the game. Sometimes we have to open the game up be free wheeling. Sure, maybe that means they'll score, but like The Great One once said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Any inquiry should be par for the course in science because we don't have to fear the results. Because no one makes the results. The evidence simply speaks.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 02:01 PM
RE: The Science Delusion.
(27-02-2013 10:14 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Asp.

It's not for you and I to sit here and figure everything out because, frankly, I don't think that either of us are qualified to speak definitively on things like the constant speed of light or the gravitational force or neurology. But neither is it for you and I to dismiss everything he's saying out of hand.

For yourself, I can't be sure. You claimed that man wasn't a theist when he actually was. So I don't know if you look into the things you claim at all.


(27-02-2013 10:14 AM)Ghost Wrote:  This man's main point (and it turns out that he is a Theist, but that should not automatically disqualify him from making any comments on science) is actually quite simple. He is saying that these ten things are simply assumed to be true. We move forward with those assumptions. But the evidence supporting those notions is not as perfect or as slam dunk as we think. We shouldn't merely trust these ideas because we're used to them. This doesn't mean that these ideas are valueless, but that if we return to the point of discourse, if we don't just assume that these things are true, then we can move laterally as well as forward and open up new lines of inquiry. Maybe they won't lead to anything, maybe they will. But the point of concern is that if we simply stick to what we assume to be true, then alternate lines of inquiry are blocked and that is a negative thing.

They are not assumptions, they are positions that are based on the evidence of reality. There is nothing wrong with questioning things, but presenting them in the way this man did in the video is just spreading misinformation. It's spreading the much needed doubt in science the young earth creationists need. There is no evidence that the constants change, or that the mind is not of the brain, or that memories are not stored in the brain, or ANY other thing that this deluded man speaks of. If you disagree, please post it now.

There is nothing wrong with questioning things, if the constants change, they have not been observed to change as of yet. I am not against having a routine check on the speed of light to see if it varies, I would never be against a test to verify or falsify something, that would be dogmatic. I am however annoyed with the notion that the mind is not a part of the brain, and that we are not the result of our genes. What evidence does this lunatic have to support this nonsense? He's inducing questioning in the scientifically illiterate groups which is just pushing us farther from getting everyone on the same page.

We have evidence to support the belief that the mind is an emergent process of the brain and that it stores our memories.

1. Explain alzheimers or concussion related memory loss if the brain does not store memories.
2. Explain changes in behaviours when sufficient brain damage occurs.
3. Explain the split mind of someone that undergoes a callosumectomy, if the mind is of the soul, how is this explained? Does the soul also split in half and become two people? If the soul is effected by the physical then at death the soul would die as well. What's the point in throwing in a extra term for which there is absolutely no evidence to support it?

The claim that the brain is an antenna for the soul (which houses the mind) is unfalsifiable, and is akin to saying fairies push particles around which cause the gravity and expansion we perceive. We use the obvious conclusion that the data suggests, which is that mind is an emergent property of the brain.

Questioning stupid things is just that, stupid. It is common knowledge in to those that are scientifically literate. There are piles of evidence in support of these 'assumptions', and no evidence to the contrary.

That being said, I have nothing against someone conducting a study to search for their soul or some nonsense, but I don't expect it to bear fruit. The reason people aren't running such experiments is because they are unfalsifiable and all evidence to date says things such as a soul, a god, or any other supernatural nonsense are not required. Our picture of reality is not incomplete without such things.


(27-02-2013 10:14 AM)Ghost Wrote:  At the end of the day, do metrologists get different values for gravity and light speed? I have no fucking idea. I hadn't even heard of the field of metrology before yesterday. Perhaps this guy is talking out of his ass and no such controversy exists. Regardless of that specific argument, his call to be vigilant against the intrusion of ideology in scientific inquiry is entirely reasonable.

Evolution is wrong because transitional fossils are actually clay molds primitive man created. It's always just been man and the animals we know of now on the earth, no evolution. There, I made a claim, does this warrant inquiry in your opinion?

If you want to inquire, how about you do some research into if they do observe changes instead of blindly following this mans heed and questioning things you have yet to even understand.

(27-02-2013 10:14 AM)Ghost Wrote:  For example, people once thought that Newton's ideas were just common sense. But Einstein took a right turn at Albuquerque and changed the game. But what if the influence of the Newtonian world view was so powerful that Einstein's inquiry was blocked? How would that have benefited us? Even if Einstein had been 100% wrong, at least we'd know.

Newton was not wrong, Einstein just has more accurate equations when dealing with the extremes. Einstein spend the time on his own theory, and he showed it to be true. Nothing that can be proven to be true is blocked, nothing in science is blocked except the insane. If someone thinks the insane is sane, then they are welcome to compound evidence in support of it then present it. We don't see this with people like the guy in this video because they can't conjure up evidence to support their nonsense, so they try to discredit science instead in an attempt to make their hypothesis more viable.

(27-02-2013 10:14 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I fully understand that there is a shitty climate today where people are trying to undermine science to advance their own agendas; creationists for example. But if we block our own questioning of science just so that we don't give them any openings to attack it, then we're not actually doing ourselves any favours. Like the trap in hockey. It was a great way to stop people from scoring on you, but it was so choking that it nearly destroyed the game. Sometimes we have to open the game up be free wheeling. Sure, maybe that means they'll score, but like The Great One once said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Any inquiry should be par for the course in science because we don't have to fear the results. Because no one makes the results. The evidence simply speaks.

How much time do you suppose we should waste on these things? There are many fields of study that require attention, and advancing requires we broaden our horizons. If we had experiments run every single time someone showed doubt, science would be static and no advancements would be made. It has nothing to do with being open to attack, we are shielded from attack by mountains of evidence. Evidence is on the side of science. If someone makes a discovery about the existence of the soul tomorrow, that is still the realm of science, and science benefits. There is no dogmatic reign of science that is preventing the truth from getting out, there are only rational scientists that don't waste time on things that completely stem from religious wishful thinkers.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
27-02-2013, 02:10 PM
RE: The Science Delusion.
   

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
27-02-2013, 04:15 PM
RE: The Science Delusion.
All of you seem to be missing the point of the video and in fact are reinforcing the author's thesis with your comments. You seem to be saying that scientific understanding and theorems are dogmatic and inflexible. This is completely false. You want dogma? Head for your nearest church. You want uncertainty, seek science.

Science CANNOT tell you exactly how things work. It can only give you an approximation for how physical phenomena behave under certain conditions. There IS error associated with science. It's just that we've tightened up this error such that scientific theorems can explain physical phenomena with a certainty exceeding 99%.

True of false? Water boils (vaporizes) at 212°F, P=1 ATM.

The answer is false. Look it up.

True of false? The amount of electric power consumed by an electric circuit with a load attached is P = (volts) x (amps).

The answer is false. Look it up.

True or false? Bernoulli's Principle explains how an airplane's wing generates lift.

The answer is false. Look it up.

The speaker is correct that our values for various universal constants change (slightly) from time to time. This can be a result of a variety of things, INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY THAT THESE CONSTANTS DO CHANGE IN VALUE FROM TIME TO TIME! Some of these changes can be accounted for in experimental errors and some are due to our current understanding of a subject.

If you really want an eye opener, get yourself a book on the subject of conducting engineering experiments. It'll tell you all about the error present in the experiment, ways to minimize it and statistical analysis that is required to produce an approximate answer to a very high confidence interval.

In truth, we humans don't know shit about how the universe works. We are far more aware now than we have ever been about how it functions but we're only scratching the surface as to how it really functions and, quite possible, may never fully understand it.

Finally ANY concept is science can be challenged, provided what you assert can be verified by a third party conducting your experiment. Remember, scientists are not famous because they postulated a theory that could be proven. They are famous because what they postulated has been so difficult to DISPROVE.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
28-02-2013, 01:19 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.
(25-02-2013 06:11 PM)I and I Wrote:  Science is a cultural tool and it is manipulated by humans for good or for bad.
Please explain to me how "When you drop an object it will accelerate at 9.8m/s^2" is a cultural tool.

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
28-02-2013, 01:29 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.
(27-02-2013 10:14 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Asp.

It's not for you and I to sit here and figure everything out because, frankly, I don't think that either of us are qualified to speak definitively on things like the constant speed of light or the gravitational force or neurology. But neither is it for you and I to dismiss everything he's saying out of hand.

When ideological positions become hegemonic (jargon terms, I know, but bear with me), then they become "the common sense view". The common sense view is often colloquially seen as "the no shit Sherlock" view. It's seen as the truth that is so obvious that only a great moron would think otherwise. "It's just common sense". But this is not actually the meaning of the common sense view. The common sense view is the sense that is common; meaning, the great majority ASSUMES that it is true. It's what many humanists refer to as received wisdom. When ideological views enter the domain of the common sense view, then further discourse is blocked. "It's just common sense," is a synonym for, "Don't question it further." Why return to the discourse when it's obvious that the way we see things is sacrosanct? Hegemony naturalises ideology. This is a very normal issue of ideology.

This man's main point (and it turns out that he is a Theist, but that should not automatically disqualify him from making any comments on science) is actually quite simple. He is saying that these ten things are simply assumed to be true. We move forward with those assumptions. But the evidence supporting those notions is not as perfect or as slam dunk as we think. We shouldn't merely trust these ideas because we're used to them. This doesn't mean that these ideas are valueless, but that if we return to the point of discourse, if we don't just assume that these things are true, then we can move laterally as well as forward and open up new lines of inquiry. Maybe they won't lead to anything, maybe they will. But the point of concern is that if we simply stick to what we assume to be true, then alternate lines of inquiry are blocked and that is a negative thing.

I mean think about it. What if the constants are not constant? That would be a huge discovery. So why not investigate? Investigating it doesn't mean that it's somehow suddenly true, it means we're looking into it. That seems reasonable. But if the reason we don't investigate something like that is because the gatekeepers tell us to not bother, not because they have irrefutable evidence that it's wrong, but because they don't want us to, well, that's an issue.

At the end of the day, do metrologists get different values for gravity and light speed? I have no fucking idea. I hadn't even heard of the field of metrology before yesterday. Perhaps this guy is talking out of his ass and no such controversy exists. Regardless of that specific argument, his call to be vigilant against the intrusion of ideology in scientific inquiry is entirely reasonable.

For example, people once thought that Newton's ideas were just common sense. But Einstein took a right turn at Albuquerque and changed the game. But what if the influence of the Newtonian world view was so powerful that Einstein's inquiry was blocked? How would that have benefited us? Even if Einstein had been 100% wrong, at least we'd know.

I fully understand that there is a shitty climate today where people are trying to undermine science to advance their own agendas; creationists for example. But if we block our own questioning of science just so that we don't give them any openings to attack it, then we're not actually doing ourselves any favours. Like the trap in hockey. It was a great way to stop people from scoring on you, but it was so choking that it nearly destroyed the game. Sometimes we have to open the game up be free wheeling. Sure, maybe that means they'll score, but like The Great One once said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Any inquiry should be par for the course in science because we don't have to fear the results. Because no one makes the results. The evidence simply speaks.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I may have missed the point but I get the feeling you're claiming science is ignoring research into universal constants based on the assumption that they are correct, based on the reasoning that most scientists believe it is correct, therefore it is.

I'd like to happily inform you that you're wrong. I'm a part of the science community (by good fortune of being the child of the two leading nuclear physicists in my country) and it may be for this reason that I'm privy to information that you are not. Regardless, your assumption of their assumption is wrong.

Here's what a quick Google brings up: http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...nts-jan-12

I only skimmed that post to make sure it was relevant, because it wasn't what I was looking for. There was an Australian scientist who provided evidence that the value of scientific constants depends on where you are in the universe. He spent a good deal of time at some of the larger observatories around the world to verify this. Last I heard, he was still building up his theory (yes, a real scientific theory is not that easy to create - it requires years of gathering evidence) and is being peer reviewed.

Perhaps more relevant to the nature of this forum, how's this as a thought? If we "simply stick to what we think is true" why would atheists even exist right now? It was the social paradigm to be a religious man only a century ago. We've gone through hundreds of civilisations and religions to reach this present day and age, and our understanding of science has only grown. An example of challenging existing scientific facts? All of Aristotle's works were challenged, even though they were preached as the truth (by the way, the Church heavily supported Aristotle). Many were punished for challenging these "facts" but change still triumphed. Newton's law of gravitation was replaced by Einstein's SR for large scale calculations. The Big Bang Theory has been changing ever since it was first proposed, as more information is added (and outdated information removed) to make it more accurate.

I resent the claim that scientists will believe something simply because it is "common sense" because that goes against the scientist's true nature - to question and seek answers for everything.

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
28-02-2013, 10:19 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.
(28-02-2013 01:19 AM)Sceptical Prophet Wrote:  Please explain to me how "When you drop an object on Earth it will accelerate at 9.8m/s^2" is a cultural tool.
Fixed.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
04-03-2013, 09:30 AM
RE: The Science Delusion.
HERESY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: