The Science Delusion

[Frozen Death Knight]

We should kill all the imperfect monkeys who are unable to see Pink Unicorns.

I don't know what you're smoking, but I see them perfectly fine. Isn't that right, Invincible? *Invincible neighs*

---------- Post added 2013-06-10 at 07:27 PM ----------

Yup, an exemplary case of the Dunning–Kruger effect in action. I would feel sorry for him, but his pride in being ignorant is just too much for me.

He already passed that line for me the moment he refused to actually explain how he as well as others like him has more in depth knowledge than the rest of us and how he determined this. I don't care what point one person tries to make, but you never tell someone in a discussion that you have much better knowledge than anyone else without actually giving any criteria to that said knowledge. At that very point you should not even bother with anything that person has to say. At least, that is how I roll.

[buck008]

I missed some fireworks in this thread. Did we ever figure out what the deal with atoms and electromagnetic force was? Or how Niels Bohr's research somehow invalidated the atomic model, even though he, you know, has the one he invented named after him? Thread was pretty interesting before it devolved into:

Person one- Well reasoned argument based on fact.

Person two- Nuh-uh, you're wrong. Too bad you aren't smart enough to see the real world and you need this evidence stuff.

[Eroginous]

Even if someone DID see a pink unicorn or whatever supernatural thing they believed in, we have mountains of evidence within psychology that indicates the brain is a highly fragile thing, susceptible to hallucinations and confusion. Knowing what we know, seeing a pink unicorn is better evidence of a malfunctioning brain than it is of the existence of pink unicorns.

[Adam Jensen]

I missed some fireworks in this thread. Did we ever figure out what the deal with atoms and electromagnetic force was? Or how Niels Bohr's research somehow invalidated the atomic model, even though he, you know, has the one he invented named after him? Thread was pretty interesting before it devolved into:

Well the rational people figured out the Strong Nuclear Force.

Not sure about the irrational people.

[Garnier Fructis]

Ah, the signature upgrade is finally complete. It's truly a special occasion when someone reaches the auBerg level.

This one is pretty good, but I'm not sure I'll ever read anything better than auberg's stuff.

Well the rational people figured out the Strong Nuclear Force.

Not sure about the irrational people.

Sadly, from Cantor's work we know that the irrationals far outnumber the rationals.

• *stabs Sayl and Garnier Fructis and in the finger with sterile needle*

Do not want!

[Spectral]

Thread was pretty interesting before it devolved into:

Person one- Well reasoned argument based on fact.

Person two- Nuh-uh, you're wrong. Too bad you aren't smart enough to see the real world and you need this evidence stuff.

That was post one. The speaker at TED was the first person in the thread saying, "nuh-uh, you're just a materialist, man!".

[Sayl]

• *stabs Sayl and Garnier Fructis and in the finger with sterile needle*

Do not want!

Ugh, me either. I reached my needle-stabbing limit last week.

[crzyman007]

The person in this talk is Jeff Lieberman, an MIT-trained artist, scientist and engineer, who makes a scientific argument for mystical experience. He asks us to challenge our perception of what we are, our relationship to the universe, and our relationship to one another. Our minds are "thought-generating machines." What we would happen if we could turn off the machine? If we could transcend our individual experience of the world?

Another video that shows the validity of this topic.



I recommend to those who are interested, to watch the videos first so you can draw your own conclusions. I suggest that those who do not care to see it or have different beliefs to please refrain from bashing it because that is not what this thread is about. Also this isn't about my personal stand on this topic but rather that of the people on the videos I have posted.

[buck008]

I am disheartened that after 28 pages you are still unaware of what science is. It's a nice little motivational, self help kind of talk. There's no actual science there though. Philosophy, not science. You get so hung up and making this stuff science that you lose the point. As for the actual point? Maybe I'm just cynical but it seems pretty naive. He sounds like a 20 year old kid that just took philosophy 101 and wants to tell everyone that he's got this whole life thing figured out.

[crzyman007]

I am disheartened that after 28 pages you are still unaware of what science is. It's a nice little motivational, self help kind of talk. There's no actual science there though. Philosophy, not science. You get so hung up and making this stuff science that you lose the point. As for the actual point? Maybe I'm just cynical but it seems pretty naive. He sounds like a 20 year old kid that just took philosophy 101 and wants to tell everyone that he's got this whole life thing figured out.

I can see where you are coming from and understand your point but what you need to realize and what these videos try to explain is that it IS science because everything has an explanation, some of which we just haven't found yet.

To quote one of the greatest scientist of all time:

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." -Albert Einstein

He also said:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

Which is the point these talks are trying to make. We must all come together to find an answer. That is true science. Science does not discriminate nor does it deem as crazy what It can't (yet) explain. Divided we will fall and together we shall prevail. Thank you.

[Garnier Fructis]

I can see where you are coming from and understand your point but what you need to realize and what these videos try to explain is that it IS science because everything has an explanation, some of which we just haven't found yet.

To quote one of the greatest scientist of all time:

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." -Albert Einstein

Demonstrably untrue, see Paul Dirac.

He also said:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

Which is the point these talks are trying to make. We must all come together to find an answer. That is true science. Science does not discriminate nor does it deem as crazy what It can't (yet) explain. Divided we will fall and together we shall prevail. Thank you.

Failure to realize that Einstein did not believe in a personal god, and his conception of a deity did not in any way interfere with the pursuit of science. That's pretty much the antithesis of religion in America. Any religion which asserts a truth without proof has no place in science.

Besides, I fail to see why quoting Einstein helps your point.

[crzyman007]

Demonstrably untrue, see Paul Dirac.



Failure to realize that Einstein did not believe in a personal god, and his conception of a deity did not in any way interfere with the pursuit of science. That's pretty much the antithesis of religion in America. Any religion which asserts a truth without proof has no place in science.

Besides, I fail to see why quoting Einstein helps your point.

Most religions don't talk about a personal god though. The problem is when you hear religion you think of christian religion but the truth is that there are many other religions out there that don't believe in a personal God.

[Garnier Fructis]

Most religions don't talk about a personal god though. The problem is when you hear religion you think of christian religion but the truth is that there are many other religions out there.

Read my second to last line more closely. Any religion which asserts a truth without proof (every religion) has no place in science. You can believe in whatever you want alongside it, but you cannot call those claims scientific, because by their very nature they are not.

American Christianity is the most obvious offender, but my statement was designed to be equal opportunity.

[Speaknoevil]

Most religions don't talk about a personal god though. The problem is when you hear religion you think of christian religion but the truth is that there are many other religions out there.

Oh you're back.
__

You know none of what you posted is evidence of anything, none of it correlates or proves your beliefs following the scientific method.

All of this is wishful thinking brought on by terror of the void.

[buck008]

Are we really going to go through this again?

Science involves the scientific method. It requires evidence, mathematics, experimentation, peer review, and results that can be independently created and verified under the same conditions anywhere else in the world. That is science. That's it. Your videos are philosophy. They look for answers to questions that are beyond our ability to understand. You may call it religion, mythology, belief, faith, god, whatever. These things are not verifiable. They can have no proof. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, nor does it mean (from a philosophical standpoint) that one can dismiss them out of hand. My point was that you are so enamored with calling this stuff science that you lose the point of what these people are trying to say. It demonstrably is not scientific. There is no data, no proof. There could be an interesting discussion to be had on the philosophical nature of humanity and the universe, but it does not belong in the same category as a discussion on the big bang and scientific origins of the universe. The same way that Creationism is fine as a philosophical view, but does not belong in a science class discussed in equal measure with evolution.

[crzyman007]

Oh you're back.
__

You know none of what you posted is evidence of anything, none of it correlates or proves your beliefs following the scientific method.

All of this is wishful thinking brought on by terror of the void.

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

[Speaknoevil]

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

How can you believe in something without evidence?

[Grimbold21]

How can you believe in something without evidence?

Faith.

Le 10 chars

[crzyman007]

How can you believe in something without evidence?

There is evidence, I just can't present it because it is something that isn't presentable. This is where it gets philosophical. It is something that you must expierience yourself, I can only point the way.

Like I said before in a previous post. I can't explain you how chocolate tastes, you have to taste it yourself. Some people however because they don't find evidence of something they completely shut themselves out of that experience.

[Grimbold21]

Like I said before I can't explain you how chocolate tastes, you have to taste it yourself.

Yes you can. It's sweet, although there's bitter chocolate as well :P