Why believe in the supernatural?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2014, 11:23 PM
Why believe in the supernatural?
It's slightly more credulous, but "The Supernatural" doesn't imply a whole lot more acceptance than "The Jabberwockey" or "The Yog-Sototh"

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
The answer to the OP is simple. Some people can't handle not being special. Some can't handle not being the best among all the Universe, so they make up a supreme being who loves them above all else. Sometimes they make up ghosts and fairies that only they can see, hear, etc.. The supernatural is just something to satisfy their egos/narcissistic personalities.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like One Above All's post
18-03-2014, 11:59 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(18-03-2014 11:50 AM)One Above All Wrote:  The answer to the OP is simple. Some people can't handle not being special. Some can't handle not being the best among all the Universe, so they make up a supreme being who loves them above all else. Sometimes they make up ghosts and fairies that only they can see, hear, etc.. The supernatural is just something to satisfy their egos/narcissistic personalities.



This^^^
So VERY very much THIS ^^^^


Bowing

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
18-03-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(17-03-2014 12:45 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(17-03-2014 11:31 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  I'm beginning to think you should invest in a dictionary, or at least look up the phrase "begging the question," which is exactly what your "theory" of the supernatural is doing.
I agree that my view also leaves questions. As I said, it's difficult to meaningfully define.
Quote:Both definitions of supernatural and Magic, while referring to the other, are defined clearly without the synonym.
I disagree. The definitions that aren't circular refer to being explainable by science or something similar, and you haven't explained how we can know that something not yet explained is indeed explainable.
[/b]

There are many things that are "unexplained" about the world, and of course we may never fully understand them. But everyone should be fine with that. To presume otherwise would suggest that human beings must ultimately be perfect beings with perfect knowledge about everything. Since we're not, it's OK to admit we don't know everything. This is the point of my original question. Why inserter a supernatural answer to a question you don't know? Why claim knowledge that you don't have?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(17-03-2014 01:13 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  In Which Captain Lubitron Demonstrates That He Doesn't Know Fuck About Science, Part Whatever:
I don't know what I don't know. What is it that I need to know about science? Surely you can tell it to me and show everyone what it is that I'm missing. Is my ignorance as great as this planet itself, so there is no curvature visible and thus no way to grasp it? Second question, does that seem to you like a good marketing of science?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2014, 10:49 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2014 02:22 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(18-03-2014 05:41 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-03-2014 01:13 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  In Which Captain Lubitron Demonstrates That He Doesn't Know Fuck About Science, Part Whatever:
I don't know what I don't know. What is it that I need to know about science? Surely you can tell it to me and show everyone what it is that I'm missing. Is my ignorance as great as this planet itself, so there is no curvature visible and thus no way to grasp it? Second question, does that seem to you like a good marketing of science?

Well, I can fucking try, not that I expect it to make an impression.


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(08-03-2014 04:43 PM)davidh Wrote:  I sometimes find myself wondering why on earth anyone would believe in the supernatural. If you don't understanding something about the world, so what? All that means is that you don't understand; it's a mystery. Why, because you don't understand something, or can't imagine how something might work, would you conclude that supernatural forces must be at work?

I see people making that connection all the time and I just shake my head. How does saying there must be a supernatural explanation help? What's the difference between that and just making stuff up?

Of course, I know why people have supernatural beliefs. It's how you're raised, your culture, it's how the brain works, it can make you feel better, etc.. Also, I think in our society, having supernatural beliefs, particularly religious ones, is accepted as normal, even encouraged.

I guess I just think that having supernatural beliefs is so intellectually dishonest, that I just can't get past how silly they sound when uttered in public.
People can't think properly. They think concepts without defining them. So they can believe pretty much anything they can imagine. The concept of belief itself is flawed.

You're making sense right up until that last sentence. What the fuck do you mean the 'concept of belief itself is flawed'? Do you even know what 'belief' means?

be·lief
biˈlēf
noun
1 - an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2 - trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

Just how is this flawed again? It's not even a concept, it's a definition. What in the hell is the 'concept' of belief, other than just 'belief'?


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  On the other hand, there is a lot of fringe experience and some fringe scientific research, fringe theories... I think we're overdue a scientific revolution. There are always anomalies in science, but I think today due to cultural and political reasons the science is more rigid than usual and thus there is more "dissidents" than usual.

Translation: I believe in a lot of unsupported bullshit that's regularly debunked by the scientific consensus and I don't personally like that, therefore science itself is in dire need of overhaul because the problem can't possibly lie with my unfounded bullshit.

Or if you'll allow me to indulge myself by quoting myself...

(26-11-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  A 'conspiracy theory' is the klaxon call of the one who lacks the evidence to support their preferred conclusion. Drinking Beverage


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Strictly speaking, I don't have supernatural beliefs.

[Image: ROFL.jpg]


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I have fringe experiences which can be explained scientifically, though in a rather unusual way. For example, my experience with Laya yoga or and traditional Chinese medicine corresponds to Dr Nordenström's study of "biologically closed electric circuits". As the book's sub-title says, it is a clinical, experimental and theoretical evidence for an additional circulatory system in the body. That much is my experience. Of course for years I had no idea about that, I was left completely in the dark with my own empirical observations, without defense against a very... proactive skepticism.

You're misusing the word 'empirical' with regards to your observations. Also thanks for the link, as it made it abundantly clear just how much bullshit you buy into; that entire webpage was drenched in pseudo-scientific woo-woo bullshit from top to bottom. Acupuncture, 'zeta potential', meridians, homeopathy... Facepalm

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know real science if it jumped up and bit you in the ass...


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The first thing you get is, "c'mon, you made it all up, because you want to be special, admit it!" The second is, "how comes that scientific community isn't all over this research? YOU explain it, even though as far as you're concerned, scientific community might be located on Mars! Dodgy"

Do you have any objective, verifiable, repeatable, testable, peer reviewed evidence that doesn't break the know laws of physics or make unwarranted jumps in logic for convenient conclusions?


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's science. If you come up with anything new, you don't get response, you get kicked upwards, up and up until you bump off the laboratory ceiling. Nothing new ever happens in science except in laboratory.

Einstein's relativity was all theory until is was backed up with empirical, testable, repeatable observations (as in, not your personal subjective experience that you mislabel as empirical). It was crazy at the time, but it worked, and he was vindicated by the evidence; evidence you simply don't have.


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  In privacy of laboratory people resolve all their technical disputes, they coin crazy and ill-fitting new concepts like "atom" (meaning indivisible, yet is totally divisible)...

The concept of the Atom originates with Greek philosophers (ἄτομος - atomos, "indivisible") and predates the fucking Hebrew Bible. There was a debate about whether or not the name was applicable given that chemical atoms can be split into their subatomic parts, and even further down the scale to more fundamental quarks and leptons; but they decided to retain the name. So what? Do you mean to argue against centuries of evidence for chemical theory and physics? Be my guest, but I hope you have some damn good evidence...


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...everything else is reading, writing, talking and bureaucracy. That's the impression I got, that's my answer.

And what qualification do you have to give your opinion on this matter? Do you happen to have a degree in science? Do you have any lab experience? Or do you buy into pseudo-scientific periodicals and websites that also sell bullshit like homeopathy?


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's why science is so inaccessible to random guys like me who stumble upon something empirically.

Misuse of the word empirical once again.


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  People find it infinitely more comfortable to just do their own work from donations and earn a buck on alternative medicine skipping the rational explanation part, without going through all the hassle, without risking their time, money and privacy.

Work on your sentence structure, I can't parse out who or what you're complaining about now.


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Then there's of course a huge crowd of irrational believers, from whom the above cases are almost impossible to tell apart. That's my experience and as you realize, there is no rational method of rejecting an experience.

Yes, there is. If it lacks sufficient evidence, you can dismiss it as mistaken. I can 'see' a dinosaur walk down my street. I can even walk up to it and touch it and smell it, and I can remember it all with a sober and rational mind. But when I go back to get my camera, the dinosaur is gone; and nobody else saw it. One other person claims to have seen a dinosaur as well, but his description is so different from mine that we cannot both be talking about the same dinosaur. After weeks of searching and not finding any footprints, dino droppings, no destruction, no signs at all of the dinosaur's passing; then even I who witnessed it would have to admit that although I saw it, heard it, and smelled it, it most likely really wasn't there.

When you sit down on a chair, you perceive it as solid because you don't fall through it. But what we perceive as solid is, at the atomic and subatomic levels, a vast chasm of emptiness. We cannot perceive things at this scale, but it is clear (and we have evidence to support this) that what we perceive as 'solid' is in reality anything but.

Our perceptions are often, frighteningly wrong.


(16-03-2014 05:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  When experience is the topic, it's not obligatory for you to believe me and it's not obligatory for me to provide evidence for the experience.

That's correct, but I feel compelled to tell you that your experience means less than nothing to anyone else; and your penchant for woo-woo makes you opinion on science worth even less.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 01:42 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2014 08:55 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
Sorry, I'm late, the server was acting up on me. I saved the post aside...

(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're making sense right up until that last sentence. What the fuck do you mean the 'concept of belief itself is flawed'? Do you even know what 'belief' means?

be·lief
biˈlēf
noun
1 - an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2 - trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

Just how is this flawed again? It's not even a concept, it's a definition. What in the hell is the 'concept' of belief, other than just 'belief'?

Translation: I believe in a lot of unsupported bullshit that's regularly debunked by the scientific consensus and I don't personally like that, therefore science itself is in dire need of overhaul because the problem can't possibly lie with my unfounded bullshit.
It is not a good idea to use the same word 'belief' for things arrived at irrationally and rationally (or empirically).
1 - acceptance of... that's nice, but it says nothing about WHY or HOW the acceptance occurred, which is the important thing.
2 - My language has no distinction between a common "belief" and religious "faith", we're supposed to tell the difference from the context, but Christians misuse it to make fallacies that are tough to explain.
So I really don't like the word "belief", too bad it's a part of common language. Its definition is pretty much useless. It says nothing about why and how anyone believes.

(26-11-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  A 'conspiracy theory' is the klaxon call of the one who lacks the evidence to support their preferred conclusion. Drinking Beverage
Sorry, I find it difficult to take that argument from someone who's government spies on the whole world.
What if I told you, that people act consciously and un-consciously to protect their inertia? The main instrument of that is just keeping busy.
Therefore, conspiracy is the natural state of the world. Non-conspiracy is a rare side effect of civilization, found in transparency, rationality, equality, honesty, courage, free exchange and other virtues.

(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're misusing the word 'empirical' with regards to your observations. Also thanks for the link, as it made it abundantly clear just how much bullshit you buy into; that entire webpage was drenched in pseudo-scientific woo-woo bullshit from top to bottom. Acupuncture, 'zeta potential', meridians, homeopathy... Facepalm

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know real science if it jumped up and bit you in the ass...
I don't know what zero potential means and I have no reasons to believe in homeopathy. But my guess is, you're one of people who haven't studied science from a philosophical and sociological angle. You know science from the inside, but not from the outside. You don't know what a paradigm is and think as most people here that there is just one science and always was. Not method, but community, field of knowledge, and such. You probably think that science is a linear accumulation of knowledge.
This discourse from people like you held me back quite a lot. A scientist's idea of science is his particular set of instruments. You are competent in analyzing things like religion, but you have no way of analyzing science. You probably don't think that is possible and necessary and most of the time it isn't, for most practical purposes.

So naturally, names you are not familiar with you have defined as woo. It's like judging another language by standards of English vocabulary. From the point of view of critical discourse analysis, consensus in science (and preference of using some dominant terminology) is directly proportional to the flow of funding. It's all real science, but who gets funding, gets to name things and steer the direction of research. What you call science is a weird mixture of practical methodology distantly based on philosophy, ideas about the world, old secularized prejudices about human nature, politics, business and bureaucracy. Science CAN NOT be magically more pure and better than the rest of the whole society, which is a total unscientific mess. Science rationally isolates things that work, but that does not mean the direction of research is chosen rationally, that people who do it have wholly rational personalities, that the discoveries are used rationally, or that money for funding are taken and given rationally.


(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do you have any objective, verifiable, repeatable, testable, peer reviewed evidence that doesn't break the know laws of physics or make unwarranted jumps in logic for convenient conclusions?
Looks like I do.
I have a plenty of sensory / experiential evidence which I use to sift through the internet. And I found that it corresponds to Björn Nordenström's work on Biologically Closed Electric Circuits. Which is a big book, so just look on the website and scroll down to the page, there are references to his papers published in journals which seem peer-reviewed to me, such as German Journal of Oncology. Nordenström was a normal radiologist, I think. He has no history of woo.
http://www.iabc.readywebsites.com/page/page/623959.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1286033


(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The concept of the Atom originates with Greek philosophers (ἄτομος - atomos, "indivisible") and predates the fucking Hebrew Bible. There was a debate about whether or not the name was applicable given that chemical atoms can be split into their subatomic parts, and even further down the scale to more fundamental quarks and leptons; but they decided to retain the name. So what? Do you mean to argue against centuries of evidence for chemical theory and physics? Be my guest, but I hope you have some damn good evidence...
No, I mean to argue that we must not confuse the language with reality and science. Choosing atom as a name for some aspect of a reality was not a scientific decision, it was just some people who got together and made a decision. Assigning funding to projects must be similar, I suppose who controls the money, calls the shots. Another thing I've heard from historians and sociologists of science, advancement of science progresses not just by research, but as old theory supporters in key places die out by old age and are replaced by new theory supporters. Again, this is natural, but it's not scientific method. There's scientific method in laboratory and at conferences and then whole damn bureaucracy is heating its soup at its fire. It works rather well most of the time, but not all the time. Bureaucracy has a way of being set in its ways and there are revolutions, when the method of normal science breaks down and there is a discussion about a new way to talk about reality.

(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And what qualification do you have to give your opinion on this matter? Do you happen to have a degree in science? Do you have any lab experience? Or do you buy into pseudo-scientific periodicals and websites that also sell bullshit like homeopathy?
Neither, I have the best qualification of all, I had a course in sociology and philosophy of science and read some books on it as a part of the course. I am also a philosopher, there's no other way to put it. I can't work in a lab, but I can think about the very notion of science, analyze it, which I think is more relevant for the situation. Philosophy is the science of science, that's what I do. Actual scientists are just artisans with specialized instruments.

And if homeopathy on a website bothers you, don't look at it. I don't look at it either, it's not the topic. Even if it was in some sense true, it may or may not be affected by the same mechanism, and I can't judge that, because I haven't seen any undeniable effects of homeopathy. We have to choose our battles.

(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Misuse of the word empirical once again.
If you distrust your senses, you have no right to use your keyboard to protest about the word empirical. A person alone does not suddenly become blind and mad. One person is able to use reason and senses without help of any authorities. In principle, empiricism is still possible even when we're on our own. It just means I have to be extra careful, take extra observations and know that any results I get will only reasonably convince me, not others. So I don't convince others. I use my personal evidence to look for corresponding evidence outside of me. I think that is a legitimate use of "personal evidence", both in name and purpose.

(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Work on your sentence structure, I can't parse out who or what you're complaining about now.
Eh, you mean the SVOMPT rule, I suppose. Subject, verb, object, something, something... I find it easier to use my native language sentence structure, you're the first one who complains after many years.

(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, there is. If it lacks sufficient evidence, you can dismiss it as mistaken. I can 'see' a dinosaur walk down my street. I can even walk up to it and touch it and smell it, and I can remember it all with a sober and rational mind. But when I go back to get my camera, the dinosaur is gone; and nobody else saw it. One other person claims to have seen a dinosaur as well, but his description is so different from mine that we cannot both be talking about the same dinosaur. After weeks of searching and not finding any footprints, dino droppings, no destruction, no signs at all of the dinosaur's passing; then even I who witnessed it would have to admit that although I saw it, heard it, and smelled it, it most likely really wasn't there.

When you sit down on a chair, you perceive it as solid because you don't fall through it. But what we perceive as solid is, at the atomic and subatomic levels, a vast chasm of emptiness. We cannot perceive things at this scale, but it is clear (and we have evidence to support this) that what we perceive as 'solid' is in reality anything but.
These examples are what we can call "normal science". Both the hypothetical dinosaur and chair are placed outside of us and well within average abilities of our senses. This is not what I deal with. I deal with fringe experiences that apply to our physiology and neurology in a way that is not readily apparent and is not present in all people. Most of these things are unimaginable and unthinkable to most people, because they had no prior experience and no way to talk of such things.
So the situation of making of other people know is much more hopeless, but the chance of mistake is much lesser. We see chairs and dinosaurs all the time, but anomalies do stand out.

(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Our perceptions are often, frighteningly wrong.
What do you mean by 'wrong'? You use your senses successfully countless times a day!
Are our senses not sensitive enough for certain things? Yes. Are they unreliable? No! Our senses, imperfect as they are, are consistent. Reality is consistent too. Thus we can reliably perceive reality. There is some chance of mistake, some noise level, but we just take more observations to filter that out, pretty easily. As for some things you would consider woo, I have observed them literally for years every day. However, now that I learned about Nordenström's research, I have at least partial explanation and evidence for what is happening.
The point is, my rationality is exactly the same before and after the scientific evidence. I personally had the same reasons to "believe" before and after discovery of additional evidence that some other people have.
The only thing that changes is, that I now have a way of rationally talking about my experience and of using it, by pointing at a research.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
I'd argue that atheism logically entails beliefs that not only qualify as supernatural, but perhaps even a level below supernatural. Atheism is, after all, belief in a self-creating existence. Once you delude yourself into believing that everything can create itself out of nothingness, there's nothing you can't accept (provided you find it psychologically favorable).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 10:20 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(22-03-2014 12:25 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  I'd argue that atheism logically entails beliefs that not only qualify as supernatural, but perhaps even a level below supernatural.

LOL "Below" -- "WORSE" than "supernatural". Well played, moron.



Quote: Atheism is, after all, belief in a self-creating existence.

No, it's not. It's non-belief in your idiotic fairy tales. Belief in ANYTHING else is NOT required.


Quote: Once you delude yourself into believing that everything can create itself out of nothingness,

No one says this.


Quote: there's nothing you can't accept (provided you find it psychologically favorable).

Kinda like when you delude yourself into believing a magical sky fairy created everything.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
22-03-2014, 11:22 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2014 09:59 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(21-03-2014 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Sorry, I'm late, the server was acting up on me. I saved the post aside...
(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're making sense right up until that last sentence. What the fuck do you mean the 'concept of belief itself is flawed'? Do you even know what 'belief' means?

be·lief
biˈlēf
noun
1 - an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2 - trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

Just how is this flawed again? It's not even a concept, it's a definition. What in the hell is the 'concept' of belief, other than just 'belief'?

Translation: I believe in a lot of unsupported bullshit that's regularly debunked by the scientific consensus and I don't personally like that, therefore science itself is in dire need of overhaul because the problem can't possibly lie with my unfounded bullshit.
It is not a good idea to use the same word 'belief' for things arrived at irrationally and rationally (or empirically).
1 - acceptance of... that's nice, but it says nothing about WHY or HOW the acceptance occurred, which is the important thing.
2 - My language has no distinction between a common "belief" and religious "faith", we're supposed to tell the difference from the context, but Christians misuse it to make fallacies that are tough to explain.
So I really don't like the word "belief", too bad it's a part of common language. Its definition is pretty much useless. It says nothing about why and how anyone believes.

That's why we have additional words, like 'faith' and 'evidence', of which you don't seem to put much importance on the later.


(21-03-2014 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  A 'conspiracy theory' is the klaxon call of the one who lacks the evidence to support their preferred conclusion. Drinking Beverage
Sorry, I find it difficult to take that argument from someone who's government spies on the whole world.
What if I told you, that people act consciously and un-consciously to protect their inertia? The main instrument of that is just keeping busy.
Therefore, conspiracy is the natural state of the world. Non-conspiracy is a rare side effect of civilization, found in transparency, rationality, equality, honesty, courage, free exchange and other virtues.

Thanks for the total non sequitur, because my country's run-away intelligence agencies have fuck all to do with your subjective interpretation of your 'empirical' experiences... Facepalm


(21-03-2014 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're misusing the word 'empirical' with regards to your observations. Also thanks for the link, as it made it abundantly clear just how much bullshit you buy into; that entire webpage was drenched in pseudo-scientific woo-woo bullshit from top to bottom. Acupuncture, 'zeta potential', meridians, homeopathy... Facepalm

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know real science if it jumped up and bit you in the ass...
I don't know what zero potential means and I have no reasons to believe in homeopathy. But my guess is, you're one of people who haven't studied science from a philosophical and sociological angle. You know science from the inside, but not from the outside. You don't know what a paradigm is and think as most people here that there is just one science and always was. Not method, but community, field of knowledge, and such. You probably think that science is a linear accumulation of knowledge.
This discourse from people like you held me back quite a lot. A scientist's idea of science is his particular set of instruments. You are competent in analyzing things like religion, but you have no way of analyzing science. You probably don't think that is possible and necessary and most of the time it isn't, for most practical purposes.

So naturally, names you are not familiar with you have defined as woo. It's like judging another language by standards of English vocabulary. From the point of view of critical discourse analysis, consensus in science (and preference of using some dominant terminology) is directly proportional to the flow of funding. It's all real science, but who gets funding, gets to name things and steer the direction of research. What you call science is a weird mixture of practical methodology distantly based on philosophy, ideas about the world, old secularized prejudices about human nature, politics, business and bureaucracy. Science CAN NOT be magically more pure and better than the rest of the whole society, which is a total unscientific mess. Science rationally isolates things that work, but that does not mean the direction of research is chosen rationally, that people who do it have wholly rational personalities, that the discoveries are used rationally, or that money for funding are taken and given rationally.

Science is a method. Funny that for someone who claims to have studied it so much, you don't seem to get that. Dodgy

It's 'woo' if it doesn't follow the method and lacks evidence.

And the way you fix bad science is with more good science. Trying to throw doubt and discredit onto the whole system still does nothing to bolster your own beliefs; they either stand or fall on their own merits. Once again, that you don't seem to get this is alarming to say the least.


(21-03-2014 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do you have any objective, verifiable, repeatable, testable, peer reviewed evidence that doesn't break the know laws of physics or make unwarranted jumps in logic for convenient conclusions?
Looks like I do.
I have a plenty of sensory / experiential evidence which I use to sift through the internet. And I found that it corresponds to Björn Nordenström's work on Biologically Closed Electric Circuits. Which is a big book, so just look on the website and scroll down to the page, there are references to his papers published in journals which seem peer-reviewed to me, such as German Journal of Oncology. Nordenström was a normal radiologist, I think. He has no history of woo.
http://www.iabc.readywebsites.com/page/page/623959.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1286033

Just because his work is scientific, doesn't mean that you are not misapplying his work to your own subjective experience. This strikes me as no more reasonable than than someone attributing the 'quantum mechanics' of their 'healing crystals' for their perceived reduction in migraines.

So do you have any objective, verifiable, repeatable, testable, peer reviewed evidence that doesn't break the know laws of physics or make unwarranted jumps in logic for convenient conclusions; insofar as it applies to your personal experience?

I didn't think so.


(21-03-2014 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The concept of the Atom originates with Greek philosophers (ἄτομος - atomos, "indivisible") and predates the fucking Hebrew Bible. There was a debate about whether or not the name was applicable given that chemical atoms can be split into their subatomic parts, and even further down the scale to more fundamental quarks and leptons; but they decided to retain the name. So what? Do you mean to argue against centuries of evidence for chemical theory and physics? Be my guest, but I hope you have some damn good evidence...

No, I mean to argue that we must not confuse the language with reality and science. Choosing atom as a name for some aspect of a reality was not a scientific decision, it was just some people who got together and made a decision. Assigning funding to projects must be similar, I suppose who controls the money, calls the shots. Another thing I've heard from historians and sociologists of science, advancement of science progresses not just by research, but as old theory supporters in key places die out by old age and are replaced by new theory supporters. Again, this is natural, but it's not scientific method. There's scientific method in laboratory and at conferences and then whole damn bureaucracy is heating its soup at its fire. It works rather well most of the time, but not all the time. Bureaucracy has a way of being set in its ways and there are revolutions, when the method of normal science breaks down and there is a discussion about a new way to talk about reality.

Really? The agreed upon assignment of proper nouns is unscientific, therefore the whole field of science should be questions for it's use of said proper noun? Facepalm

Do the proponents of the new theories have better evidence? Because that's all I care about. Evolution and natural selection simply have better evidence than creationism, and the fact that Sir Richard Owen never capitulated is not evidence in support of your own bullshit.

Everything you've pointed out about society and funding play parts in the community, but it's still doesn't change the evidence. Either you have good evidence or you do not, regardless of the consensus. Once an idea, however unpopular, gains enough evidence then the consensus will change. You're ideas have yet to gain consensus because they lack evidence; that doesn't mean the rest of scientific community is wrong.


(21-03-2014 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And what qualification do you have to give your opinion on this matter? Do you happen to have a degree in science? Do you have any lab experience? Or do you buy into pseudo-scientific periodicals and websites that also sell bullshit like homeopathy?
Neither, I have the best qualification of all, I had a course in sociology and philosophy of science and read some books on it as a part of the course. I am also a philosopher, there's no other way to put it. I can't work in a lab, but I can think about the very notion of science, analyze it, which I think is more relevant for the situation. Philosophy is the science of science, that's what I do. Actual scientists are just artisans with specialized instruments.

And if homeopathy on a website bothers you, don't look at it. I don't look at it either, it's not the topic. Even if it was in some sense true, it may or may not be affected by the same mechanism, and I can't judge that, because I haven't seen any undeniable effects of homeopathy. We have to choose our battles.

But we're not debating philosophy here. Either you have good evidence for your claims or you do not, and as of yet you simply do not. End of story, no philosophy needed. Your claims simply lack sufficient evidence. Facepalm


(21-03-2014 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Misuse of the word empirical once again.

If you distrust your senses, you have no right to use your keyboard to protest about the word empirical. A person alone does not suddenly become blind and mad. One person is able to use reason and senses without help of any authorities. In principle, empiricism is still possible even when we're on our own. It just means I have to be extra careful, take extra observations and know that any results I get will only reasonably convince me, not others. So I don't convince others. I use my personal evidence to look for corresponding evidence outside of me. I think that is a legitimate use of "personal evidence", both in name and purpose.

I trust in my senses, but I limit that trust with knowledge that compels me to doubt their accuracy. This is not a zero sum proposition that you're try to force into a false dichotomy of either complete trustworthiness or absolute skepticism. You're sample size of one (yourself) is both unscientific and statistically unsound.


(21-03-2014 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Work on your sentence structure, I can't parse out who or what you're complaining about now.

Eh, you mean the SVOMPT rule, I suppose. Subject, verb, object, something, something... I find it easier to use my native language sentence structure, you're the first one who complains after many years.

When using English, make sure it makes sense in English. I'll make sure to refrain from placing nouns before adjectives as well, because it's English and not Spanish/French/etc...


(21-03-2014 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, there is. If it lacks sufficient evidence, you can dismiss it as mistaken. I can 'see' a dinosaur walk down my street. I can even walk up to it and touch it and smell it, and I can remember it all with a sober and rational mind. But when I go back to get my camera, the dinosaur is gone; and nobody else saw it. One other person claims to have seen a dinosaur as well, but his description is so different from mine that we cannot both be talking about the same dinosaur. After weeks of searching and not finding any footprints, dino droppings, no destruction, no signs at all of the dinosaur's passing; then even I who witnessed it would have to admit that although I saw it, heard it, and smelled it, it most likely really wasn't there.

When you sit down on a chair, you perceive it as solid because you don't fall through it. But what we perceive as solid is, at the atomic and subatomic levels, a vast chasm of emptiness. We cannot perceive things at this scale, but it is clear (and we have evidence to support this) that what we perceive as 'solid' is in reality anything but.

These examples are what we can call "normal science". Both the hypothetical dinosaur and chair are placed outside of us and well within average abilities of our senses. This is not what I deal with. I deal with fringe experiences that apply to our physiology and neurology in a way that is not readily apparent and is not present in all people. Most of these things are unimaginable and unthinkable to most people, because they had no prior experience and no way to talk of such things.
So the situation of making of other people know is much more hopeless, but the chance of mistake is much lesser. We see chairs and dinosaurs all the time, but anomalies do stand out.

Right, smaller sample sizes lead to fewer mistakes and more accurate data. Dodgy

When was the last time you saw a living, breathing, walking, dinosaur that you were able to walk up to and touch and verify with all of your sense that it was real, yet disappeared without a trace before you could get equipment to empirically record the experience for others? Anomalies indeed... Weeping


(21-03-2014 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 10:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Our perceptions are often, frighteningly wrong.
What do you mean by 'wrong'? You use your senses successfully countless times a day!
Are our senses not sensitive enough for certain things? Yes. Are they unreliable? No! Our senses, imperfect as they are, are consistent. Reality is consistent too. Thus we can reliably perceive reality. There is some chance of mistake, some noise level, but we just take more observations to filter that out, pretty easily. As for some things you would consider woo, I have observed them literally for years every day. However, now that I learned about Nordenström's research, I have at least partial explanation and evidence for what is happening.
The point is, my rationality is exactly the same before and after the scientific evidence. I personally had the same reasons to "believe" before and after discovery of additional evidence that some other people have.
The only thing that changes is, that I now have a way of rationally talking about my experience and of using it, by pointing at a research.

They are unreliable (insofar as the standards demanded by science), and the moment you denied that you lost what little credibility I thought you had. Facepalm

[Image: pinwheel-illusion.jpg]

This image is not moving, but it appears to be moving; because our senses are unreliable and can be fooled. Every time you watch a movie and do not see each of the individual 24 frames per second, but rather just enjoy the illusion of motion? You're senses are not as reliable as you'd like them to be, get over it.

Hallucinations, color blindness, optical illusions, sea/altitude/motion sickness, our perception of pain, pressure, or time, etc. Even our short term memories, for example what was the first word I started this post with? Neither of us can remember, and either of us would have to scroll back up to double check what it was.

If you already believed in bullshit, and now you think you've found evidence that supports your conclusion, then that is the exact opposite of the scientific method; rather it's a textbook case of confirmation bias.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: