nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Limitations of Science?

nagirrac

The problem with Dawkins is he is as reactionary and closed minded as those he opposes. Science is an evolving aspect of human endeavour and to draw such 99% certain conclusions from limited information as he has is sheer arrogance. The world simply cannot be explained simply in materialistic terms as anyone would even a rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics accepts. Science is based on what we can objectively describe with our 5 senses but who knows what lies beyond our sensory ability. Science as it currently stands simply cannot answer the big questions; what is consciousness and where does it derive from? where are memories stored or retrieved from say after a concussion? how is knowledge passed on from generation to generation withour direct communication as it clearly is?
We are supposed to believe that the sheer perfection of the laws of nature that led to the beautiful world we percieve around us happened by chance, just atoms banging into each other and making DNA. As Fred Hoyle said regarding life developing randomly "like believing a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and making a 747". Genetics as currently understood explains only a fragment of life and how life evolved and continues to evolve. We have a very incomplete understanding of reality and to say that science as we know it today will explain reality to us in time is the height of arrogance.
None of the above postulates a God or the lack of a God. Life could have come here from outer space via a comet but then you have to wonder where that life came from. Populist scientists like Dawkins will not lead us towards furthering our understanding of reality, it will be evolutionary giant steps in our species whose minds are more open, people like Einstein who did not feel the need to wage war on those with a belief in a God and was humble enough to accept the possibility of a God.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ShooterSF

nagirrac wrote: »

No he is not. He is an affirmed atheist so he should nail his colors to the mast and prove his position. Strong atheists have it handy asking others to prove an all encompassing intelligence that we do not understand exists but have nothing but black holes in their own argument. Science is forever filling in dots but increasingly not making much real progress. Compared to the early 20th century science is extremely inefficient i.e. buried up its own ass.

He is an affirmed atheist. So am I. So are most users of this forum. We are mostly all agnostics too. The rest of your post while ridiculous is thankfully also irrelevant to the concepts of atheism and agnosticism.

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

[...] Compared to the early 20th century science is extremely inefficient i.e. buried up its own ass.

Says you on your computer using insanely advanced technology to communicate with strangers located all over the world almost instantaneously, and with access to medical treatments that are so far ahead of what was available in the early 20th century that it isn't even funny.

The LHC and the detection of the Higgs Boson, that's all buried up its own ass too, is it?

Thing is, modern science is huge and well established, and it's hard to see the advances against the background of what's been done already.

You sound like one of those would-be explorers who wishes he was back in the 1800's when there were vast uncharted continents to explore, but instead finds himself trapped in the 21st century with satellites and GPS.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

"Proving a negative" is admittedly a vague wording, and a lot of your differences of opinion with people here stem from using different definitions to the rest of us.
For example, you seem to be defining an atheist as someone who states that there is no god (incorrect, it is a lack of belief in the positive, not a belief that the negative has been proven)
And an agnostic as someone who admits they don't know (correct) Under your definitions, the atheist would need to disprove the existence of all gods to validate himself.
In fact Dawkins will admit to the very slight possibility of a god, and then move on quickly to talk about something else. This makes him an agnostic atheist, the default position that does not require any proof.

I may have a different opinion than most on this forum but to assert that there is one definition of atheism is laughable. There are almost as many categories and differences between atheists as there are world religions. To state that atheism is simply "lack of belief in a God" is a convenient term that applies to a whole range of beliefs. Under that definition a new born child is an atheist but its not as if they have thought about it a lot. Both my definition of an atheist (and I consistently refer to stong atheists in my arguments not agnostic atheists) and your definition of an atheist are correct. The simplest segregation of atheist belief systems is between explicit (strong) and implicit (weak) beliefs. A strong atheist will state that a belief in any God is a false statement i.e. they deny the existance of God. A weak atheist does not believe in a God or Gods but does not state that belief in a God is false. They are also agnostics. However, there are also theist and deist agnostics who lean towards the existance of a God, and are informed either by religion or by belief in an intelligence greater than ours that created the physical world we observe.
It sounds like most people on this forum are weak atheists which is fair enough but don't tar all atheists with the same brush.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

It sounds like most people on this forum are weak atheists ...

Puny or not, we have big brains.

Dades

nagirrac wrote: »

It sounds like most people on this forum are weak atheists which is fair enough but don't tar all atheists with the same brush.

I think the point of recedite's post was to stop you tarring everyone here with the same brush.

But to reiterate, whatever kind of atheists you want to label people here (agnostic, weak, etc.) you will be hard-pushed to find one who definitely states "There is no God". And again, this is down to being unable to prove a negative.

nagirrac

swampgas wrote: »

If all that these serious studies do is postulate unknown energy fields, then pardon me if I don't take them too seriously. Do they have any evidence or testable hypotheses?

When quantum entanglement was first postulated not many would have taken it seriously except for those involved in quantum mechanics research. Even today, almost a century after it was first observed, there is absolutely no agreement on the underlying mechanism to explain it. There are at least a dozen interpretations to explain the observed effect, including the "many worlds" and "many minds" interpretations which are rather interesting to ponder.
There are mountains of data done by respected scientists showing evidence of paranormal effects such as telepathy and precognition. There is no agreement on the underlying mechanism to explain it. Sound familiar? An observed effect that we cannot explain currently. A serious wide ranging study comparing "normal" science and "paranormal" studies showed that both followed accepted scientific method and the most significant difference was that "paranormal" studies frequently reported negative results while "normal" studies rarely reported negative results. In general people believe what they are conditioned to believe, including scientists.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

There are mountains of data done by respected scientists showing evidence of paranormal effects such as telepathy and precognition.

Would you care to list a few items from this "mountain of data"?

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

When quantum entanglement was first postulated not many would have taken it seriously except for those involved in quantum mechanics research. Even today, almost a century after it was first observed, there is absolutely no agreement on the underlying mechanism to explain it. There are at least a dozen interpretations to explain the observed effect, including the "many worlds" and "many minds" interpretations which are rather interesting to ponder.

There are mountains of data done by respected scientists showing evidence of paranormal effects such as telepathy and precognition. There is no agreement on the underlying mechanism to explain it. Sound familiar? An observed effect that we cannot explain currently. A serious wide ranging study comparing "normal" science and "paranormal" studies showed that both followed accepted scientific method and the most significant difference was that "paranormal" studies frequently reported negative results while "normal" studies rarely reported negative results. In general people believe what they are conditioned to believe, including scientists.

The key point is that even though quantum entanglement sounded a bit crazy, the scientists involved could show the effect in the lab. If you can demonstrate something, other scientists will (eventually) accept the phenomenon.

However to the best of my knowledge there are not "mountains of data done by respected scientists showing evidence of paranormal effects such as telepathy and precognition".

Can you provide a link to some paranormal research you think has merit?

nagirrac

swampgas wrote: »

The key point is that even though quantum entanglement sounded a bit crazy, the scientists involved could show the effect in the lab. If you can demonstrate something, other scientists will (eventually) accept the phenomenon.

However to the best of my knowledge there are not "mountains of data done by respected scientists showing evidence of paranormal effects such as telepathy and precognition".

Can you provide a link to some paranormal research you think has merit?

If you are intersted in the topic I would recommend the Journal of Parapsychology which has been published since 1937. The fact that there is a mountain of data in this area cannot be questioned unless you refuse to look at the data (like Dawkins), the validity of the data is of course debatable. I am an agnostic on the area of parapsychology as in addition to having read extensively on the subject I also have direct personal experience of unexplained events and have spoken to many people with similar experience. I don't claim to understand such experiences but also cannot just dismiss them. I also understand fully why people are skeptical. Even renowned skeptics like Wiseman accept the effects but scorn the explanations which is fine.

Yes paranormal studies are difficult to replicate and seem person specific and yes paranormal studies have become taboo and regarded as pseudoscience (in many cases justified) and yes funding is greatly reduced in this area compared to the 70s/80s. However, there is a lot of research into consciousness currently that is essentially parapsychology but researchers are careful to steer away from any hint of terms that imply "pseudoscience". The skeptic in me (and I come from inside the scientific community) says that most science today is state sponsored which in reality means corporate sponsored (if people don't believe that they are just plain naive). Medical research is a good example. If you believe that medical research is mainly concerned with people's health then you need to wake up, medical research today is mainly funded by big pharma which is only interested in maximizing profits. They have a huge vested interest in rubbishing alternative or natural healing while conveniently ignoring that over 70% of medicines are derived from plant sources that were known for their healing properties by older cultures.

There is no question people can enter altered states of consciousness and no question that this has benefits in allowing people move beyond the accepted logical/rational thought. If it hadn't been for THC and LSD how much great music would we have missed out on from the Beatles alone? Einstein said that it was impossible to solve a problem at the mental level it was created. There are numerous examples of great scientific breakthroughs that were made not by step by step hard work but flashes of inspiration, similar to the creation of great music or art.

Yes we have made great strides in technology in the past 50 years and yes we can keep people alive for a while longer who are terminally ill (at great cost that simply cannot be sustained much longer within our current economicic model) but our understanding of reality has not advanced much and I am firmly of the belief that this is mainly because there is no compelling commercial interest in such research.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

Would you care to list a few items from this "mountain of data"?

Journal of Parapsychology, 1937 - 2012.

theexorcist

None of the above postulates a God or the lack of a God. Life could have come here from outer space via a comet but then you have to wonder where that life came from. Populist scientists like Dawkins will not lead us towards furthering our understanding of reality, it will be evolutionary giant steps in our species whose minds are more open, people like Einstein who did not feel the need to wage war on those with a belief in a God and was humble enough to accept the possibility of a God.[/QUOTE] Posted by Nagarrac on 13-10-12 @ 22.17

Where do you get the idea that Einstein accepts the possibility of a God.

Publicity about the auction this week of a handwritten letter by Albert Einstein in 1954 ought to silence forever the religionists who triumphantly cited Einstein's occasional musings on the concept of "God" to claim that he was a beliver ("Book Confirms Einstein's Belief in God," Christian Post). The translation says, in part:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this..... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

I also have direct personal experience of unexplained events

Go on, tell us about it.
BTW meeting God while on an LSD trip is common enough. Dawkins once tried something similar by trying on the God Helmet, but sadly it didn't work for him.

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

Journal of Parapsychology, 1937 - 2012.

You're all about the detail aren't ya?

Sycopat

nagirrac wrote: »

big pharma which is only interested in maximizing profits. They have a huge vested interest in rubbishing alternative or natural healing.

Tell me, why would a profiteering and occasionally dishonest sector (I don't like them either) want to rubbish alternative medicine when they could just isolate the active component, patent it and exploit it, like they've done with that other '70%' of medicines?

Journal of Parapsychology, 1937 - 2012.

Conveniently, the entire thing is behind a paywall, so we have no access to any data from it. We can't even see abstracts to see what sort of stuff it contains. Which makes your referring to it suspect.

http://www.parapsych.org/section/17/journal_of_parapsychology.aspx

This is it, right?

You know, you claim to be a skeptic and a 'member of the scientific community', whatever that means, but I've got to admit, I'm skeptical.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

Go on, tell us about it.
BTW meeting God while on an LSD trip is common enough. Dawkins once tried something similar by trying on the God Helmet, but sadly it didn't work for him.

I have never taken LSD so cannot comment on that personally but you are missing my point on altered states of consciousness, drugs are not necessary. If you deny altered states of consciousness then you know nothing about research into consciousness.
and no, sorry I am not going to indulge your childish request. When I feel the need to discuss my own experiences I do so with open minded individuals that I know and trust.

nagirrac

MagicMarker wrote: »

You're all about the detail aren't ya?

Do your own research if you are interested, its not hard.

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

Do your own research if you are interested, its not hard.

Why are you so reluctant to actually back up your claims? You say there are mountains of data by respected scientists showing proof of telepathy etc. But rather than link to any such data, you refer us all to an obscure "journal of parapsychology", which has a website that doesn't seem to have a lot of info regarding these studies on it, that was founded by J. B. Rhine, who was...errr.... a botanist.

Why not just link us all to these numerous studies by respected scientists?

Out of curiosity, what part of the scientific community to you belong to?

edit: Their website does have a bitchin' photo gallery though...

55th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association

54th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association

The big crowds are probably at home watching via their crystal balls.

TheChizler

nagirrac wrote: »

Do your own research if you are interested, its not hard.

I suppose the fear is that any data found won't meet your criteria of a good study. E.g. we could fetch different studies and point out their flaws but you might agree that they were poor studies and say that they don't reflect on all the good ones out there.

Can you point us to one that you think is good so we can avoid that potential back and forth and make sure we're on the same page?

nagirrac

Sycopat wrote: »

Conveniently, the entire thing is behind a paywall, so we have no access to any data from it. We can't even see abstracts to see what sort of stuff it contains. Which makes your referring to it suspect.

http://www.parapsych.org/section/17/journal_of_parapsychology.aspx

This is it, right?

You know, you claim to be a skeptic and a 'member of the scientific community', whatever that means, but I've got to admit, I'm skeptical.

The vast majority of scientific journals are the same so the same argument holds regarding subscription costs. Nobody likes paying for anything these days and expect everything to be provided free ignoring the considerable cost to produce a journal that is peer reviewed and edited. The easist way to access them for free is through a University, a majority of Universities in the US for example subscribe to the Journal of Parapsychology. The cost for a yearly subscription is $40 for a student and $95 for an individual, not much is you are interested in the topic. Many people spend a lot more on beer on a night out.

TheChizler

nagirrac wrote: »

The vast majority of scientific journals are the same so the same argument holds regarding subscription costs. Nobody likes paying for anything these days and expect everything to be provided free ignoring the considerable cost to produce a journal that is peer reviewed and edited. The easist way to access them for free is through a University, a majority of Universities in the US for example subscribe to the Journal of Parapsychology. The cost for a yearly subscription is $40 for a student and $95 for an individual, not much is you are interested in the topic. Many people spend a lot more on beer on a night out.

Right, I have access to that. Can you point us to a specific volume/paper?

nagirrac

TheChizler wrote: »

Right, I have access to that. Can you point us to a specific volume/paper?

That's a bit like asking "I have an interest in Evolutionary Biology, can you point me to a paper". I would start with the research done on ESP from 1937 to 1947 (Price and Pegram 1937, Pratt and Woodruff 1939, Humphrey 1947 among others).

For those truly interested as opposed to closed minded skeptics I would recommend "The Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin as a good starting point and then going on to the detailed studies he references in his book.

nagirrac

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why are you so reluctant to actually back up your claims? You say there are mountains of data by respected scientists showing proof of telepathy etc. But rather than link to any such data, you refer us all to an obscure "journal of parapsychology", which has a website that doesn't seem to have a lot of info regarding these studies on it, that was founded by J. B. Rhine, who was...errr.... a botanist.

Why not just link us all to these numerous studies by respected scientists?

Out of curiosity, what part of the scientific community to you belong to?

edit: Their website does have a bitchin' photo gallery though...

55th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association

54th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association

The big crowds are probably at home watching via their crystal balls.

I work in the research MRI field. What field do you work in?
As I said elsewhere if you have an interest in the topic (which I doubt) then read "The Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin. Thats a good starting point for someone with limited knowledge but a genuine interest in the subject.
After you have read it why don't you come on and give us a review and we can debate it.

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

I work in the research MRI field. What field do you work in?

I'm not a scientist, none the less, I work in a field that is equally unrelated to arguments concerning the existence of a deity or to the origination of life.

nagirrac wrote: »

As I said elsewhere if you have an interest in the topic (which I doubt) then read "The Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin. Thats a good starting point for someone with limited knowledge but a genuine interest in the subject.
After you have read it why don't you come on and give us a review and we can debate it.

I'll add it to my wish list.

nagirrac

theexorcist wrote: »

None of the above postulates a God or the lack of a God. Life could have come here from outer space via a comet but then you have to wonder where that life came from. Populist scientists like Dawkins will not lead us towards furthering our understanding of reality, it will be evolutionary giant steps in our species whose minds are more open, people like Einstein who did not feel the need to wage war on those with a belief in a God and was humble enough to accept the possibility of a God.

Posted by Nagarrac on 13-10-12 @ 22.17

Where do you get the idea that Einstein accepts the possibility of a God.

Publicity about the auction this week of a handwritten letter by Albert Einstein in 1954 ought to silence forever the religionists who triumphantly cited Einstein's occasional musings on the concept of "God" to claim that he was a beliver ("Book Confirms Einstein's Belief in God," Christian Post). The translation says, in part:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this..... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.[/QUOTE]

I hate with either religious or atheists claim Einstein as he was neither.

If you did even the smallest amount of reseach on Einstein's beliefs (and like most people they changed somewhat during his life) you would know he rejected the concept of a personal God (which is what he is talking about above) but was a deist ("I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists"). In other words he believed in a creator outside space time but not in a God that actively participated in peoples lives.

Dave!

nagirrac wrote: »

That's a bit like asking "I have an interest in Evolutionary Biology, can you point me to a paper". I would start with the research done on ESP from 1937 to 1947 (Price and Pegram 1937, Pratt and Woodruff 1939, Humphrey 1947 among others).

For those truly interested as opposed to closed minded skeptics I would recommend "The Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin as a good starting point and then going on to the detailed studies he references in his book.

This step-by-step stuff is getting a bit tedious... Why don't you link to your 3 most convincing studies and we can discuss them?

nagirrac

Dave! wrote: »

This step-by-step stuff is getting a bit tedious... Why don't you link to your 3 most convincing studies and we can discuss them?

Why don't you read "The Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin and we can discuss that. That is the most convincing book I have read on the subject and references the leading studies in the field. If you go on his website (www.deanradin.com) there is also a listing of all his publications.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

If you go on his website (www.deanradin.com) there is also a listing of all his publications.

Not much detail there though.
Heres an independent report on the book.
One of the complaints is;

the reader isn’t given details, and therefore actually can’t judge for themselves, whether the results that Radin claims have been obtained are for real or not.

On the subject of Psi Ops research, I recommend the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats" which may or may not be based on true events (there isn't too much detail given about that) But very funny in places, all the same.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

nagirrac wrote: »

There are mountains of data done by respected scientists showing evidence of paranormal effects such as telepathy and precognition.

Would you care to list a few items from this "mountain of data"?

Journal of Parapsychology, 1937 - 2012.

Would you care to list a few items from the "Journal of Parapsychology"?

Dave!

nagirrac wrote: »

Why don't you read "The Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin and we can discuss that. That is the most convincing book I have read on the subject and references the leading studies in the field. If you go on his website (www.deanradin.com) there is also a listing of all his publications.

Yeah, we'll all go off and read a 400 page book and then continue the discussion :rolleyes:

Fúcking time waster, dunno why you bother...

TheChizler

Good call on the thread split!