The Science Delusion

[crzyman007]

He was talking about you.

It actually applies to you too.

---------- Post added 2013-06-14 at 01:15 AM ----------

Have we completely gone off the deep end, finally?

Never going to happen so don't hold your breath I'll probably end up getting banned though because they just don't like me

[Speaknoevil]

It actually applies to you too.

My arguments, my points, even my sarcasm is grounded in logic and fact based on the scientific method.

I even gave you an example of the scientific method:

• Do poking needles into the flesh make your average human feel pain?
• People seem to experience pain based on what their bodies perceive to be damaging events based on my research.
• I hypothesize that myself, Sayl and Garnier Fructis will feel pain when stabbed by a needle.
• *stabs Sayl and Garnier Fructis and in the finger with sterile needle*
• Everyone said "ow" why the **** did you do that.
• Based on the evidence, I conclude that my hypothesis was correct. However, I believe further research is necessary for a more broad understanding of pain as my number of subjects was very limited.

You claim magic and mysticism with starry eyes, acting like you have a scientific basis. Then you have the nerve to insult the people who take the time and energy to pull you out of a dreamworld.

I shouldn't be surprised considering your OP.

[Adp]

I'm just not sure I believe this guy when he says "mainstream science" has "dogmas". Personally all those sound quite ridiculous and largely irrelevant. You can't possibly imagine the amount of topics being explored by scientific research. Science is nowhere near stuck and researchers don't need some goblet juice to give them inspiration.

"Mainstream" must be code for stupid. There's too much talent out there working tirelessly to advance their research to be undermined by what this guy says.

[Azutael]

So everything we know is false, basically ? well perhaps, let's leave it to the really smart people to find out though.
In a couple of years, a decade or century, many of the current science facts, could be proven wrong anyway.

Science is ever evolving, that's what makes it great.

[Auloria]

When a homeless person is rambling in the streets, it's better to ignore them than argue with them. On the internets it's clearly better to spend an entire week proving them wrong.

Yoink!

Only useful post in this whole thread.

[Adam Jensen]

I know it's not evidence. Never claimed it to be evidence.

Then it's meaningless.

Only things with evidence have any use in science. Substantial evidence.

[Deleted]

Kind of ironic seeing this come from someone with a name like "crzyman007". Oh, well. Sort of strangles your trustworthiness (although I'd totally dig a politician calling himself No Clue).

Edit; oh, well. He got banned. Suppose that sort of ends this discussion here and now. I wonder if the mod who did it yelled "FOR SCIENCE" while he was at it...

Infracted (trolling).

[Cocytan]

Our ideas and theories will change on a whim with new data. We are on a precipice of the understanding our multiverse. Once we crack the quantum quandary, we become a type 1 civilization. We are at a point of MAJOR change to our species. The current generations and their immediate offspring are the most important human beings that will EVER walk the planet.

[Auloria]

Kind of ironic seeing this come from someone with a name like "crzyman007". Oh, well. Sort of strangles your trustworthiness (although I'd totally dig a politician calling himself No Clue).

Edit; oh, well. He got banned. Suppose that sort of ends this discussion here and now. I wonder if the mod who did it yelled "FOR SCIENCE" while he was at it...

LOL

He probably was sending inflammatory PMs, I dont think they'd ban crazy. Hell, even the APS has a "Crackpot Session" at their conferences.

[Mormolyce]

When a homeless person is rambling in the streets, it's better to ignore them than argue with them. On the internets it's clearly better to spend an entire week proving them wrong.

Reminds me of this old XKCD comic:

http://xkcd.com/386/

[frogger237]

Even is the guy was batshit insane(not saying he is or isnt) he is correct that #1 is wrong. It would be more accurate to say that machines are nature like as nature came first(unless we exist in a computer simulation or something similar)

[Garnier Fructis]

Even is the guy was batshit insane(not saying he is or isnt) he is correct that #1 is wrong. It would be more accurate to say that machines are nature like as nature came first(unless we exist in a computer simulation or something similar)

#1 is really just another way of saying that everything follows rules that aren't supernatural.

[Frozen Death Knight]

Yoink!

Only useful post in this whole thread.

Glad we agree that your post applies to this argument of yours.

[Deleted]

The person in this talk is Jeff Lieberman, an MIT-trained artist, scientist and engineer, who makes a scientific argument for mystical experience.

You're kind of burying the lead there buddy. I'm sure this guy might have gone to MIT (although you make no mention of any actual degree, let alone a doctorate, which he actually doesn't even have yet), but he's a TV person first and foremost, from the show Time Warp. Yet another Mythbuster wannabe in other words.

How can you believe in something without evidence?

That's what belief is. Belief is blind. You can believe in absolutely anything. God, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster. You name it, someone believes in it. You don't "believe" scientifically proven facts. You take them for what they are, eyes fully open, as facts.

[Deleted]

Rupert Sheldrake outlines 10 dogmas he has found to exist within mainstream science today. He states that when you look at each of these scientifically, you see that they are not actually true.

1. Nature is mechanical or machine like
2. All matter is unconscious
3. The laws or constants of nature are fixed
4. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same
5. Nature is purposeless
6. Biological heredity is material
7. Memories are stored inside your brain
8. Your mind is inside your head
9. Psychic phenomena like telepathy is not possible
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works

How are these wrong? Please elaborate, I already spend a whole time reading your post, I'm not going to watch an 18 minute video

[Deleted]

It would be awesome if there was some kind of an inherent block that existed in nature, which would prohibit religious people from studying science, later gaining doctorates and becoming any kind of important people in the field.

That, however, is a utopia that exists only in my fevered brain.

This is to say that even the most zealous religious nut can have five Ph.D's and still believe in God, and that doesn't mean we should take their pro-religious "scientific" views seriously.

You relinquish your right to be a scientist the moment you believe in mumbo jumbo.

[Palmz]

It would be awesome if there was some kind of an inherent block that existed in nature, which would prohibit religious people from studying science, later gaining doctorates and becoming any kind of important people in the field.

That, however, is a utopia that exists only in my fevered brain.

This is to say that even the most zealous religious nut can have five Ph.D's and still believe in God, and that doesn't mean we should take their pro-religious "scientific" views seriously.

You relinquish your right to be a scientist the moment you believe in mumbo jumbo.

News flash. The majority of scientists believe in some form of a God. 90% of the world believes in a God. 96% above the age of 30 believe in a God. 94% for female. The drops comes from early teenagers and young adults (20-22).

[Deleted]

News flash. The majority of scientists believe in some form of a God. 90% of the world believes in a God. 96% above the age of 30 believe in a God. 94% for female. The drops comes from early teenagers and young adults (20-22).

Well, first of all, where do you get those numbers?

Secondly, what do you base this "majority of scientists" on?

Thirdly, using Google, I get this: "As of 2005 (most recent data), approximately 88 percent of the world's population were said to "believe in God" (Cambridge University). This is down from 96 percent in 2000. In the United States, 95 percent of the population "believe in God."

So, 96% in 2000 -> 88% in 2005. It's 2013 now. I think this is a pretty good and healthy trend, even though I expect these numbers to be just as much bullshit as yours.

And finally, even if it was 1 scientist and the rest believed in God, even if it was 0 scientists and just me saying it, what I said still stands.

Also, just to add: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2114923AAPMK2D

Q: How many scientists believe in God or creationism?
A: In the national academy of sciences
72.2% disbelieve in God
20.8% have doubt or agnosticism

Again, anecdotal bullshit numbers, but that's 72.2% atheists, 20.8% agnostics and doubting believers vs 7% believers, among scientists.

[Palmz]

Well, first of all, where do you get those numbers?

Secondly, what do you base this "majority of scientists" on?

Thirdly, using Google, I get this: "As of 2005 (most recent data), approximately 88 percent of the world's population were said to "believe in God" (Cambridge University). This is down from 96 percent in 2000. In the United States, 95 percent of the population "believe in God."

So, 96% in 2000 -> 88% in 2005. It's 2013 now. I think this is a pretty good and healthy trend, even though I expect these numbers to be just as much bullshit as yours.

And finally, even if it was 1 scientist and the rest believed in God, even if it was 0 scientists and just me saying it, what I said still stands.

A deviation of 1-4% depending on the source you use. It's common knowledge that the majority of scientists aren't complete atheists?

[Deleted]

It's common knowledge that the majority of scientists aren't complete atheists?

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-...nd-Belief.aspx

In that particular chart, 33% of these particular scientists believe in God. That's the man-made God of religion. 18% are spiritual in some way, but don't believe in a man-made God. 41% don't believe in either. 7% didn't answer or "don't know."

I guess you could argue even based on that, that the "majority of scientists aren't complete atheists", but then again, how many really believe and how many just don't have the balls to say it out loud that they don't.