The Science Delusion

[Julian Rayne]

Who's "banning" this guy anyway? And from what?

Actuallllly i COULD see him being right but i'd suspect they'd be HEAVILY latent and almost impossible to access....Also don;t forget people like Carl Jungs mass unconscious.

No, he isn't right at all. Memories are not passed on genetically, even in a latent state.

[Coffer]

It's rather odd that his talk was banned while other, much worse talks weren't just approved, but even ended up being popular.

TED's not what it used to be. Not much of a surprise, considering how much people focus on materialism and the requirement of 'evidence' these days. Science itself is quickly becoming extremely unappealing.

[Aldred]

OP: Are you Joe Martino? If so, why not just provide links to your website if you want us to read these posts and encourage people to look around your site:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/...ence-delusion/
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...consciousness/

If you're not, why copy and paste the entire page as if it's your own opinion?

Back on topic: I don't really agree with much of what he says. The talks are available on the TED website as people have pointed out, but prefaced with caution since they're not considered accurate. Finally scientists - good ones - are very much open to having everything they do questioned. They welcome it.

[Sorrior]

I always considered science to be working on the assumption that those 10 dogmas are true, and working from there. I've never seen scientific teachings as making me believe that they are absolute and never changing, only that you must work on the assumption these are true. Science at its heart is about discovering how everything works and continually questioning these things we now assume are true by further increasing our understanding by working from those assumptions, and seeing if the results reflect what we believe to be the case or not, then ammending what we consider to be true based on the results.

Those 10 dogmas he's listed are a bit science and a bit philosophical in nature. He's not so much discussing science as he is discussing religion or philosophy.

To the lamen(at least in america) i've noticed that alot of people tend to not understand this...

---------- Post added 2013-06-09 at 03:45 PM ----------

Who's "banning" this guy anyway? And from what?



No, he isn't right at all. Memories are not passed on genetically, even in a latent state.

From what we know now you are correct but that doesn't mean he might not be proven right down the line.

[Durandro]

If you have studied any area of science on your own or in school, you may have noticed or have come across the fact that there are many differing beliefs in the scientific world.

Incorrect. That's all I needed to know from your post. You have no actual understanding of science if you think that.

Also, he's not 'banned'. He's just making his arguments in the wrong place. You can't run into a church and start shouting at the priest that he's not teaching atomic physics and expect anyone to take you seriously, can you?

[vizzle]

Incorrect. That's all I needed to know from your post. You have no actual understanding of science if you think that.

There's this thing called "theories", and there are a lot of differing theories for what is currently unexplained.

[crzyman007]

OP: Are you Joe Martino? If so, why not just provide links to your website if you want us to read these posts and encourage people to look around your site:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/...ence-delusion/
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...consciousness/

If you're not, why copy and paste the entire page as if it's your own opinion?

Back on topic: I don't really agree with much of what he says. The talks are available on the TED website as people have pointed out, but prefaced with caution since they're not considered accurate. Finally scientists - good ones - are very much open to having everything they do questioned. They welcome it.

Because if I provide links to the website then the mods might see it as advertising and close the thread. I am not Joe Martino. I'm just sharing. Not claiming that anything is mine, just spreading awareness about the topic.

[buck008]

It's really all metaphysical nonsense. He has no interest in talking science. When he suggested that matter has a magical collective unconscious binding it all together, he lost any credibility as a scientist. You can't just make shit like that up. Tell me you have an experiment that proves it. You have observational, empirical evidence of some sort.

"That feeling when someone is watching you" was especially hilarious. How does he account for the countless times people look at you and you have no idea? How about the times when you get that feeling and absolutely no one is around? Is it situational? This guy seems like the type that could be shown evidence that his ideas were shit, but would claim that mainstream science was censoring him rather than admit he was wrong.

[Deleted]

the topic.

topic: religious/scientificially illiterate people talking about nonsense.

[crzyman007]

topic: religious/scientificially illiterate people talking about nonsense.

Sadly in today's society being literate is also means being closed-minded for most. That is the root of many of our problems today.

[Templar 331]

This is basicly pseudoscientific bs. Blatantly ignoring many scientific theories and saying "science believes this so science is wrong. Buy my book." I couldn't get past the "speed of light slowed down" part. But lets talk about the "Dogmas of Science."

Dogma 1: everything is a machine.
Yeah, in a basic sense everything is. We are, the universe is. Everything follows a set of parameters. Everything is bound by limits. Stars orbit in a predictable and constant orbit unless some other force comes and knocks it out of orbit. Stars fuse matter in a constant and measurable way.

Dogma 2: Matter is unconscious.
Well duh. Everything without consciousness is unconscious. Believing particles have conscious is the very definition of pesudoscience. And anyone who references the experiment where the atom changed because it was "looked at" has no real understanding of science. It changed because of how it was looked at. It was looked at by using a nonpassive means. Meaning the tool used to see it made it change.

Dogma 3: The Laws of Nature are fixed.
For the most part, yeah. There have been several astronomers that have theorized that the laws were slightly different in the first few seconds of the big bang. And now they are fixed.

Dogma 4: The total of Matter and Energy is the same.
Yeah, that is a pretty big principle of physics. You can't destroy matter or energy. So guess what? It's the same. The only difference is when one becomes the other.

Dogma 5: Nature is purposeless.
The purpose of science is NOT to determine what purpose something has. It's to understand it's workings. "The evolutionary progress had no purpose." Really? Are you that dense? The purpose of evolving most of the time is to better adapt to your environment. Sometime it's random. So you can't say that evolution has one single purpose or none at all.

Dogma 6:Everything you inherit is in your genes.
Yeah, that's how DNA works. It gets passed down from mother and father. You inherit it. If you want to go nature vs. nurture, there's a whole lot of debate going on about that.

Dogma 7:Memories are stored in your brain.
Really? I thought they were stored in your feet. "No one knows how that works." YOU JUST FREAKING SAID HOW IT WORKS!! Just because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean we know nothing about it.

Dogma 8: Your mind is inside your head.
I can't really believe he would dispute this. But then again, this is psudoscience.

Dogma 9: Psychic telepathy is impossible.
Kind of hard to prove your psychic/telepathic.

Dogma 10: Mechanistic Medicine is the only one that works.
"Governments only fund mechanistic medicines and not alternative ones." I wonder why. It maybe because they use quantifiable means to determine if the medicine works. Not just "he ate this weird plant and now he's better." Or "he meditated for several hours a day and now he's better."

But like I said before. This is just pseudoscientific BS.

[Sorrior]

It's really all metaphysical nonsense. He has no interest in talking science. When he suggested that matter has a magical collective unconscious binding it all together, he lost any credibility as a scientist. You can't just make shit like that up. Tell me you have an experiment that proves it. You have observational, empirical evidence of some sort.

Pretty sure his ideas would fall under hypothetical...As in eyt to be tesed(or rather we CANNOT yet test) and thus cannot be proven OR disproven...Thus up for grabs.

[Waarheid]

There's this thing called "a hypothesis", and there are a lot of differing hypotheses for what is currently unexplained.

Fixed it for you.
Having a hypothesis means jack-all until you test it, and make available the results and methods, so that others can attempt to repeat the results of the experiment. Once there is a rigorously tested body of evidence that supports the hypothesis being correct, then it becomes accepted theory.

[Sorrior]

Sadly in today's society being literate is also means being closed-minded for most. That is the root of many of our problems today. You guys are hindering our evolution and your children's future. Wake up!

I actually wrote a FB post about just this the other day...Damn is that a rare thing for me in MANY ways....

[buck008]

Sadly in today's society being literate is also means being closed-minded for most. That is the root of many of our problems today. You guys are hindering our evolution and your children's future. Wake up!

Mysticism is not science. It is not closed mindedness to discard ideas that have no foundation in reality. If they did, the "scientists" who support them would be able to present some evidence.

[Gheld]

Believing in pseudoscience doesn't automatically make somebody open minded. In fact, all of the established facts that you have to blatantly close yourself off to in order to get to that point would suggest otherwise.

[Sorrior]

Believing in pseudoscience doesn't automatically make somebody open minded. In fact, all of the established facts that you have to blatantly close yourself off to in order to get to that point would suggest otherwise.

And yet ruling out the possibility itself. Basically it sounds like you're saying his ideas are impossible when what SHOULD be said is improbable...basically just this side of impossible.. In essence i say put em on the backburner for a good long while and maybe dust em off every few decades or centuries when new ways to potentially test his ideas come up.

[Deleted]

Sadly in today's society being literate is also means being closed-minded for most. That is the root of many of our problems today. You guys are hindering our evolution and your children's future. Wake up!

If you open your mind too much your brain falls out. Also saying "wake up" makes you automatically crazy.

Infracrted: Please don't insult other posters.

[Elim Garak]

And yet ruling out the possibility itself. Basically it sounds like you're saying his ideas are impossible when what SHOULD be said is improbable...basically just this side of impossible.. In essence i say put em on the backburner for a good long while and maybe dust em off every few decades or centuries when new ways to potentially test his ideas come up.

Nah, science doesn't need ideas. Science needs evidence. Idea's worth is zero. So maybe his ideas are not impossible (nothing really is) but we can just safely discard them with ridicule.

[buck008]

And yet ruling out the possibility itself. Basically it sounds like you're saying his ideas are impossible when what SHOULD be said is improbable...basically just this side of impossible.. In essence i say put em on the backburner for a good long while and maybe dust em off every few decades or centuries when new ways to potentially test his ideas come up.

That's not how science works. Let's say I announce a ground breaking idea tomorrow to the scientific community. I just spitball ideas that could be possible and I load it with enough jargon and buzzwords to make the non-scientific community give it more credence than it should. The scientific community should absolutely laugh at me because I've presented nothing to indicate that this could be true. No evidence. No ideas for how to set up an experiment for prove that it is true mathematically. Nothing. Accepting ideas on blind faith that they might be true isn't in the realm of science. You need something to back it up.