Home › Forums › Open Discussion › War on Science
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 2, 2014 at 6:06 pm #802284
wakefloodParticipantJoB, I used that inside vs. outside entity not simply as my framework to get a direct answer but one based on my understanding of human feedback physiology and the capacity for using it to create biochemical changes in the human body. No spirituality required. :-)
And we move on…
January 2, 2014 at 6:17 pm #802285
VBDParticipantSo now that the religious elements of this discussion have been largely exhausted, what about other topics where scientific evidence is largely ignored. Such as:
Astrology
Dowsing
Homeopathy
Tarot
Psychics
Chemtrails
Chiropractics
Alien visitors
Microwave ovens being unhealthy
Food irradiation being unhealthy
And conspiracies of all sorts…..
January 2, 2014 at 6:21 pm #802286
wakefloodParticipantSounds like a new thread or two to me, VBD! Look forward to those.
January 2, 2014 at 6:36 pm #802287
JoBParticipantWakeflood
how do you know that no spirituality is required to create biochemical changes in the body?
do you simply assume that because you can accumulate scientific data for biofeedback results that there are no other agents differentiating those who have stronger results from those who don’t?
the problem with trying to quantify a subjective experience with objective criteria is that no matter how many objective criteria you use to measure or quantify subjective experiences.. they will always be limited by the assumptions built into the criteria for analysis.
Btw.. the dirty little secret of science is that the same limitation holds true for those “completely objective” scientific explorations
January 2, 2014 at 6:37 pm #802288
JoBParticipantJanuary 2, 2014 at 6:50 pm #802289
wakefloodParticipantIt’s called Occam’s Razor, JoB. What’s more likely, that I can calm my heart rate and blood pressure using mindful focus on them or that affect was enabled by a spiritual entity?
Almost every week the scientific community finds reasonable/testable explanations for things that until recently were “mysteries”, as you call them. Using your thought process, we shouldn’t even bother. Just use “the force”.
…oh wait, Lucas decided that the force was an physiologically explainable phenomenon too. Wonder why he chose to do that?? ;-)
January 2, 2014 at 6:51 pm #802290
wakefloodParticipantIt’s called Occam’s Razor, JoB. What’s more likely, that I can calm my heart rate and blood pressure using mindful focus on them or that effect was enabled by a spiritual entity?
Almost every week the scientific community finds reasonable/testable explanations for things that until recently were “mysteries”, as you call them. Using your thought process, we shouldn’t even bother. Just use “the force”.
…oh wait, Lucas decided that the force was a physiologically explainable phenomenon too. Wonder why he chose to do that?? ;-)
January 2, 2014 at 6:53 pm #802291
JoBParticipantwakeflood..
i am out of this discussion
you have crossed the line into insults
and that is unacceptable
January 2, 2014 at 6:53 pm #802292
VBDParticipant“what a truly subjective list
i rest my case ;-) “
Not sure I get your point here. Would you care to elaborate?
January 2, 2014 at 7:08 pm #802293
wakefloodParticipantI’m sorry, JoB, but nothing I wrote was intended as an insult. I frankly don’t even know what I said to elicit that comment?
Regardless, we’re done here.
January 2, 2014 at 7:11 pm #802294
JTBParticipantI’m struck by the absence of any comments about the political aspects of the “war on science” or, in deference to wsn00b, the “campaign against science.” One only has to look at the efforts of Seattle-based Discovery Institute to counter science-based school curricula throughout the country with thinly-veiled religious teachings to appreciate the deliberate nature of this campaign.
For a number of reasons, the United States has had a large Christian, evangelical movement going back to the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. At various times, religious groups became engaged in political issues such as prohibition and anti-communism. But it was the Jerry Falwell-led Moral Majority and Pat Robertson’s later Christian Coalition that came to the aid of the Republican Party, alarmed that Jimmy Carter had received a large measure of support from Christians. You can trace the shift within the GOP (and GHW Bush in particular) away from prior support for family planning and Planned Parenthood in order to gain favor from the organized Christian Right to appreciate the rapid trajectory of that shift. Experiencing the benefits of support from highly motivated, well-organized conservative Christian organizations, the GOP increasingly embraced social conservative positions to expand and solidify that support. Over time, the co-mingling of these political and religious interests has become increasingly tight. So this is not simply a philosophical debate, it is a matter with serious political and social implications.
I happen to like the rich irony seen in the 2012 election campaign when several politicians who gained standing by appealing to the religious right, appeared to forget the cynical, manipulative nature of the relationship and began spouting half-baked gobbledygook about gynecology as if it were scientific fact and freaked out women throughout the country. I think the posturing against global warming draws on the same anti-science mindset that is popular within the GOP even though the real driver is traditional conservative resistance to any government regulation of business.
For those who despair about a loss of appreciation of the beauty or wonder of the natural world, I encourage you to read Richard Dawkin’s Unweaving the Rainbow which I believe points to a richer, more deeply satisfying sense of the natural world than any religious story-line.
I seem to recall a comment by Carl Jung although I can’t locate the source in which he said, more or less, that as a scientist one has to conclude that God certainly exists —-as a element of human consciousness, because the same basic features show up in cultures throughout the world. If you follow Jung’s writings, particularly the inspiring Answer to Job, you quickly appreciate that the concept of God in human societies has evolved over time as those societies have become less primitive and the individuals gradually became more conscious about their relationship to the world.
My own thought is that God is an aspect of the human psyche, one that contains so much psychic energy that when activated, tends to overwhelm the narrow control of the ego. The effort of psychologists and meditators is to assimilate the psychic material or complexes from the unconscious into consciousness. Advanced meditators, some considered “realized beings” in their traditions, mostly seem to agree with Jung— that God and the Self achieved by this psychic integration are the same. That’s a fairly infrequent achievement, but the various traditions and teachings do seem to concur that the mind shapes one’s experience of reality. More simply put by a keen observer of human nature, “the world is as you see it.”
I’d like to think it is reasonable to expect people to appreciate and accept the differences between religious experience and scientific observation. But since both eventually inform decisions about social issues, I suppose most people will favor one over the other as the issues come up for discussion. That’s why it’s really important to recognize the campaign against science being used as is convenient by the GOP to gain support from the Religious Right and to push back against it whenever it intrudes on matters outside the walls of the Church.
January 2, 2014 at 7:19 pm #802295
JoBParticipantwakeflood
apology accepted
“There are many examples where Occam’s razor
would have picked the wrong theory given the
available data. Simplicity principles are useful
philosophical preferences for choosing a more likely
theory from among several possibilities that are
each consistent with available data. However,
anyone invoking Occam’s razor to support a
scientific preference should be aware that future
experiments may well falsify the model currently
favored by Occam’s razor.”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4932.pdf
it’s what you don’t know and therefore don’t take into account that gets you every time
January 2, 2014 at 7:20 pm #802296
wakefloodParticipantJTB, the political aspects of this topic have been touched upon in various threads here over the months. And I alluded to them with the OP and others. I suspect part of the reason they didn’t get as much play in this thread was because either we have general agreement on the scenario you painted, or that those who disagree tend to not voice those opinions here often, for reasons I’ll leave to you to ponder.
Would be happy to offer my thoughts should you care to start a thread. :-)
January 2, 2014 at 7:26 pm #802297
wakefloodParticipantJoB, I didn’t say Occam’s Razor was infallible. I merely used it to frame the question I posed. Which is simply, which of the two options seemed more likely in the “biofeedback impacting physiology” scenario? :-)
The potential outcome of an Occam’s Razor evaluation can change as new data emerges.
And again, taking my specific example didn’t imply a straw man absolute. One that can be used to find a counter example as disproof of the idea that Occam’s Razor can be a helpful way to sort through reasonable outcomes. Which is kinda’ what I feel like you did.
January 2, 2014 at 7:28 pm #802298
JoBParticipantJTB..
“My own thought is that God is an aspect of the human psyche, one that contains so much psychic energy that when activated, tends to overwhelm the narrow control of the ego. The effort of psychologists and meditators is to assimilate the psychic material or complexes from the unconscious into consciousness. Advanced meditators, some considered “realized beings” in their traditions, mostly seem to agree with Jung— that God and the Self achieved by this psychic integration are the same. That’s a fairly infrequent achievement, but the various traditions and teachings do seem to concur that the mind shapes one’s experience of reality. More simply put by a keen observer of human nature, “the world is as you see it.”
the world is certainly as you see it
but what constittutes the “psychic energy” that is manifested to change how you see the world?
i eagerly await the answers to such questions..
but not too eagerly :)
January 2, 2014 at 7:29 pm #802299
JoBParticipantwake..
and i point out that if you include only the possibility you are looking for that is all you will see.
January 2, 2014 at 7:33 pm #802300
JoBParticipantJTB
“it’s really important to recognize the campaign against science being used as is convenient by the GOP to gain support from the Religious Right and to push back against it whenever it intrudes on matters outside the walls of the Church.”
and it is equally important to realize that “the Church” and it’s political power and economic interests are not necessarily synonymous with religion… not even that of the stated religion of the church in question.
we need to stop focusing on all of the smoke and mirrors… they are counterproductive
January 2, 2014 at 7:34 pm #802301
wakefloodParticipantJoB, why would I need to dismiss a perfectly reasonable and DEMONSTRABLE cause and effect process to allow for someone’s hunch? Isn’t that what you’re asking me to do in my example?
January 2, 2014 at 7:39 pm #802302
wakefloodParticipantDon’t leave me hanging, JoB, what ain’t smoke and mirrors and what SHOULD we be focusing on?
January 2, 2014 at 7:50 pm #802303
JoBParticipantwake..
i live in a subjective world that has been quantified objectively by scientists who have little or no actual experience of that world..
the world of physical pain.
their assumptions about the experience of pain color the way in which they hear me (the collective me) objectively relate it…
yet, their assumptions about the experience of pain are what is used to treat pain patients… resulting in some really stupid advice that i have actually been given by physicians.. get a hobby.. have an affair.. just get on with it..
when you walk into a doctor’s office because your pain is bad enough that you can no longer walk… going for a walk, engaging in hobbies and/or having sex with strangers is probably not going to be effective therapy…
but their subjective observation is that patients get worse if you ask them real questions about how the pain affects them is because they tell you things they hadn’t complained about when they walked in the door…
and.. that patients who receive their advice must get better because they stop asking them to treat their pain…
both “reasonable” conclusions if you accept the basic assumptions underlying them..
but incredibly ineffective when it comes to treating physical pain.
You might wonder what pain has to do with Ocam’s Razor or with a belief in God..
it’s simple.. once you have come to an opinion about something and reinforced that with the opinions of other like minded people.. it is rather difficult to comprehend the possible validity of that which contradicts that which you think you know and is also outside your experience.
does that make my pain.. or my experience of God any less real?
no.. but it definitely does affect your understanding of my experience…
and coincidentally.. mine of yours
I fail to understand how anyone can actually see this world and experience the people in it and not recognize that there is something larger happening here than man’s pursuit of his own personal best interests…
but there you go…
hubby would agree with you
and i .. i hold out for the mystery.. the un-quantified unknown…
January 2, 2014 at 7:53 pm #802304
JoBParticipantwake.. there you go again..
just because you find one explanation for something is no reason to dismiss all other possibilities by labeling them a hunch…
as far as i can see most of the physicians i have encountered on my quest to find treatment for the pain and other symptoms of my illness would have done far better to rely on a hunch than on the cut and dried assumptions of their profession …
January 2, 2014 at 7:54 pm #802305
JoBParticipantJanuary 2, 2014 at 7:57 pm #802306
JoBParticipantas much as i enjoy a good discussion
i have things i need to do today
objective things :(
that will get done only if i approach them in a subjective way ;-)
January 2, 2014 at 8:09 pm #802307
wakefloodParticipantSorry JoB but you just said contradictory things, IMHO.
Post #70:
“I fail to understand how anyone can actually see this world and experience the people in it and not recognize that there is something larger happening here than man’s pursuit of his own personal best interests…”
Post #72 regarding what’s really worth focusing on?:
“Follow the money.”
;-)
In the words of Curt Cobain, “oh well, whatever, nevermind”…
We move on.
January 2, 2014 at 8:48 pm #802308
JTBParticipantWake, I came back to the political angle because I think that’s ultimately the driver for promoting the various notions embraced by religion-based social conservatives. Apart from the conservative media which cultivates those themes, even the so-called liberal outlets have been intimidated enough to play into the “equal time for opposing viewpoints” fallacy. I haven’t been following the WSB Forum until recently, so I missed the earlier discussion you refer to.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.