Michael Shermer/Ben Stiller (Sam Harris) vs. Chopra/random bird

robindch wrote: »

Something is declared "scientific" if it's amenable to the scientific process, meaning that it's testable to see if it fits in with observable reality or not. If an idea can't be tested, then the idea has no observable consequences, so there's little point in worrying about the truth or falsity of the idea to start with. In which case, the idea is reduced to the level of a thought-experiment, or philosophical idea -- possibly interesting in and of itself, but of no practical use to anybody.

But thought experiments are often the foundations on which testable theories are built on. They may not be always be directly testable themselves, but they can illustrate a process which may lead to the development of practical, falsifiable experiments.

The problem is that it's not always possible to see in advance whether a given thought experiment, if elaborated, will lead to a fruitful consequence.

Wicknight wrote: »

Hypothesis (untested theories) are often build upon through experiments, the most famous probably being Einstein's that lead to idea of relativity.

But these by themselves are useless. They are not science, any more than a tag line for a Hollywood movie ("Jaws meets Aliens in 3D!") is a movie, or even a script.

Stopping at the level of the thought experiment as if you have some how found something is not science.

Yes they must be developed and explored, and some may lead to scientific advance. But this possibility may be denied if they are seen as entirely worthless in and of themselves.

Jakkass wrote: »

Or merely disagree, saying that materialism isn't enough. I think explaining away everything in materialistic terms is dangerous. It promotes views that "it's just chemicals", things like love, really don't matter.

Explaining things in materialistic terms only promotes the view that everything is materialistic, to try to imply that it promotes the view that this means that these things dont matter is, frankly, moronic, as it fails to realise that things "mattering" is in of itself a materialistic thing, and if things dont matter if they purely materialistic, then them not mattering doesn't matter.

Jakkass wrote: »

Human explanation goes beyond a chemistry set, it involves philosophy, a wealth of ideas.

No it doesn't. People have tried to use these things to humans and human notions, but time and time agian it has been shown that every aspect of humanity is subject the materialistic universe, such as recent studies that show peoples ideas of morality change when their brains are placed under the effect of magnetic fields (here and here).

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't deny that love has this affect in the body, but I certainly wouldn't say that this is what love is.

Love doesn't have this effect in the bady, love is this effect in the body. You dont want it be, but you havent shown a single shred of evidence for why we should believe you when you say its more than just chemical interactions.

pljudge321 wrote: »

I think The Professor summed up Chopra's beliefs pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqcaaUtPdAo

Awesome just watched this on TV and was thinking "I wonder if there's youtube clip of this?"

Yeah this is a really great debate.
When Leonard Mlodinow got up & completely demolished Chopra's wishy-washy nonsense I couldn't keep still

The physicist dude, Mlodinow, is the guy who wrote Feynman's rainbow, an awesome (audio)book about Feynman.

Seeing as we're talking physics , here is a great discussion about religion and physics between Carl Sagan, Steven Hawking & Arthur C. Clarke called "God, the Universe & Everything Else".

As I have said before, religious backers have expertise in fancy turns of phrase and evasive conversations,

The bird was a stereotypical liberal, hippy, non-relevant humanist type. She didn't seem to have anything much relevant to say with regards the debate, just chiming in with her "from a womans point of view" and completely out there personal anecdotes with "wise people" from her travels.

Jeez, thought this was a pretty poor debate to be fair. My first time hearing anything from Chopra, and while I thought he started out like he could make a fist of the debate, he shot himself in the foot by his attempt to use scientific terminology to back up his argument. There are certain arguments, that QM can be used to support, but as has been pointed out here on occasion, the notion of the observer is a flawed one. Speaking, not just as a male , but as someone who would be [obviously] more spiritual than scientifically minded, it is understandable how he comes across as, well however he is perceived by the [more] scientifically minded. The points he makes reference spiritual concepts, which he either doesn't take, or didn't have, the time to clarify. It is the statement of things as fact, without any effort to explain, which I think is a major issue with him. Also, his constant interrupting and attempts at profundity, as opposed to engaging in a dialectic*, simply make him more of a hinderance to the discussion. His opening statement showed promise, as far as I was concerned, but no follow through really.

Again, Sam Harris is intriguing me more and more, and he strikes me as an individual who would be more given to a dialectic, rather than simply an argument. Obviously his intention might be to show the inaccuracies of the "other side", but he certainly seems more level headed and open-minded. Certainly doesn't seem to be the Sam Harris that wrote this article. I was very disappointed with his opening statement, however, in which, I beleive, he showed one of the fundamental issues when it comes to the "atheist side" of the discussion, in that he created a clear strawman. Instead of discussing the concept of God, that the two panelists were clearly [to my mind] advocating, he instead chose to base his argument on what he presumed "people at home and on TV" believe in. He even went so far as to say, "an invisible person". While it may indeed be true that some people believe in "an invisible person", that does not necessarily mean that is what God is, or indeed is supposed to be. Indeed Ben Harris pulled him on this, saying that neither of the panelists were [to paraphrase] "advocating the kind of religion he was talking about" Just as Deepak's understanding of nonlocality, or the observer effect, which many might believe in, is not what they actually are. Also, in his opening statement, he clearly "poisons the well", or "plants a flag" in his words, with regard to broaching the issue of Quantum Mechanics. In this case he was somewhat justified, as he was probably familiar with Deepak's arguments. Still however, quantum theory does have some rational implications in the discussion, not least because it goes a large way to making up our understanding of reality, of which God is (or isn't) a part.


Still though, I thought throughout the rest of the discussion he redeemed himself, and just as in the "four horsemen" vid, he showed that he is, not only well worth listening to, but level headed and reasonable.

The woman, well, she was alright, a bit too much on who she had met, and attempted to be too profound. The "speaking as a woman" was shameful, but didn't really spoil the rest of what she had to say. It was the over elaborate way she tried to say it, that took care of that.

Scherner, not sure what to make of him. He seems somewhat reasonable, but instead of engaging Deepak and showing his misunderstanding, as Harris did (which was important for the audience), he simply dismissed him.


Overall, not a great debate, but on the issue of "Does God have a future?", the segment "the story is changing", around 3:50 Harris makes a point, which is somewhat echoed by Chopra, even if the wording is different. Which is equally echoed by the Dalai Lama

Can we envision a scientific methodology for the study of consciousness whereby a robust first-person method, which does full justice to the phenomenology of experience, can be combined with the objectivist perspective of the study of the brain?

Article posted in "People claiming..." thread