Science or Pseudoscience?

Post Reply New Topic

... which is how rational materialists like myself have been treated on this website.

Point out how the Emperor has no clothes, and then count how many people accuse you of having once been naked yourself.

For anyone looking for the DMT/ayahuasca of pseudoscience look up Operation Highjump. You'll get everything you've ever heard of lumped into Antarctica for good measure.

Link:Ectoplasm

You studied geology. You therefor know very well that the Earth is not 6000 years old as is implied by a literal interpretation of Genesis.

ruveyn

Then you understand the significance of accurate determination of geological time.


It is not "thinking differently" to deny life-saving medical treatment to someone because of your beliefs - it is murder.

It is not "thinking differently" to give life-saving medical treatment because you know it works - it is simply right.


The difference being that scientists are more right more often than the religious mob.


Sorry, kid; but if you were a real scientist, you would know that the burden of proof lie squarely upon the person asserting the claim - in this case, it's the religionists and their "God's will / God did it / God is in control" answers to everything they don't immediately understand that places the burden of proof upon those who advocate for God.

I agree it's impossible to disprove God's existence, but so what? The evidence shows God doesn't seem to exist in any way beyond the human mind.

Any issue that cannot be resolved along empirical lines or mathematical/logical lines is nonsense and is best ignored. Life is short and time is wasted chasing after the answers to unanswerable questions.

ruveyn

That is correct. I am totally happy to believe that this planet is billions of years old, even if they change their estimate numerous times. They only do so with new information which we are free to analyze, or with improved methods of analyzing existing data. I do not believe it is only 6000 years old.

I do understand plenty about determining geological time.
I also believe we evolved from a common ancestor with other primates, and that it is possible that life started from 'scratch' on this planet either from simple organisms from another planet, or from a fluke bit of chemistry near a hydrothermal vent, or some primordial soup, or maybe some aliens dropped a 'starter culture' off here as an experiment, but whatever started it, it evolved into the fantastic biosphere we see today. I also believed this may have happened without the help of of any God at all.
I believe it is possible that however the Universe began, it may have not involved any God at any point. I have never seen or otherwise detected a God nor have I been convinced by anyone else who claims that they have anything more than 'blind faith'.

The way that I see it, the possibilities are as follows:
-there is no God, and there never was, and that it is nothing but a human construct
-there is a God but religion has been, to whatever degree, corrupted or altered by humans over time so that it does not truly represent what God is all about
-there is a God, and the Bible is right, and scientists are wrong, etc etc

I have listed the possibilities in order from most likely to least likely in my mind, but without conclusive evidence, I will not rule any out. (although the third one is extremely unlikely to be true, to me)
Nor will I scoff at anyone else for whatever they choose to believe. I cannot possibly determine the accuracy of their interpretation of every experience they ever had in their lives, so cannot fairly judge their choices. I therefore think that they can think what they want, and it is not for me to try to force them to think my way.
I do agree that civilized society should have some policing of people who might take advantage of others, and cause them harm, but it is not easy to determine when it is 'protecting the people in a free society' and when it becomes something more nazi-like.

If you have ever seen the statistics, then you will know that iatrogenic diseases are a major problem in the medical industry, so you cannot always 'know' that their treatments will help. Do you really think it is OK to force a treatment on someone if it is risky (and almost all of them are)? If someone's kid dies, do you think telling them 'but statistically, it should have helped them, according to science' will make them feel better? It is not a simple matter. Parents bear the responsibility of the care of their children. You can take steps to inform and educate them but after that, it gets trickier.

You talk about the burden of proof for scientists, but you seem to forget that most people are not scientists. They do not understand this stuff and will not just accept that they should believe what they are told. Of course, many people do exactly that with their churches, but they CHOOSE to place their faith there. To them, science seems as mysterious and easy to dismiss as astrology seems to scientists.
I understand that a scientist would need proof before acknowledging the existence of God, but a non-scientist does not, an it becomes an issue of human rights when you start imposing your beliefs on them, even if you think you have more proof (which they often cannot even understand).

Even if scientists are right with what they say, and the religious sector can't back up what they say, it still does not mean that they are proven to be wrong, or that it is moral to persecute them because they feel the need to have faith in something.

I have never claimed that I believe in any religion or deity. I simply defended the rights of others to believe in them. I expect that if I knew everything there was to know, that I would find that many items in that Venn diagram are nonsense. But there is a possibility that in time, some of those things may turn out to have some basis. So I will wait and see, without throwing stones at the people who do it.

My issues within this thread that have prompted me to participate are the following 2 things:

1-When you lump so many different things together and dismiss them collectively without proof, it is, to me, a form of discrimination. I am aware that there are unsavory people who use some of those things to deliberately rob people and profit from their trust and misery, but that does not mean that the 'disciplines' themselves are in the wrong. (they may be, or they may not be )
There are also people who also use scientific ideas to manipulate people and rob them. There are incompetent doctors and unscrupulous drug companies. There are banks who use advertising companies and psychologists and clever maths to draw people into credit card debt. Gullible people fall for this just as they fall for almost anything. And let's not forget all of the mistakes that science has made to shake people's faith- thalidomide, Chernobyl, space shuttle Columbia, DDT, as well as nuclear weapons, pollution, and global warming.

2-Even if it turns out you are right, and every single thing on the diagram is total crap, it still is not necessary to belittle the people who believe in it. I never told my kids there was a Santa clause because I felt I would be lying, and I decided to not lie to them, but I did not feel the need to tell that to other children because I respected the right of other parents to teach their kids whatever they wanted to, even if I knew they were actually lying to them. These things are not black and white to most people, even if they are to you.

I do agree that there is a communication problem between the scientific community and the general public. Part of it is that we write our ideas and findings in a way that other people (scientists and included) need a dictionary to understand completely.

But there is another issue too. Many scientists would love to talk about why something is true to the average person. The problems are that (1)there usually isn't enough time to stop and talk about it or (2) by the time they're a quarter of the way done with the explanation, they come to realize that the other person is usually bored out of there mind and doesn't want to hear any more or never wanted to hear/believe them in the first place. Such problems discourage sharing knowledge to the general public. It makes them ask, why try, when almost no one wants to listen

I agree that part of the problem is that getting people to comply by teaching them the science behind it, (whatever it is), is not generally practical. Making policies that everyone else must follow is often the only way. For example, you can't expect the average rev-head to stop hooning by explaining the physics that make car accidents so likely and dangerous, because they choose to speed and disregard the law. For people like that who clearly don't care for their own safety nor anyone else's, fines, jail or car confiscation are probably necessary, even as you try to get them to wake up by meeting grieving parents of people that their type have killed.
If we want a safe, civilized society, there has to law.
See, this is where religion plays a necessary role in society. Many people are compelled to behave in a particular way because their religion requires them to. They see the law and God as separate authorities that can be in conflict with each other, sometimes putting them in a position to choose. But overall, I think I prefer a society in which people don't kill each other, or steal, and I don't really care what compels them to favour these behaviours, as long as they do. If they want to spend time on a Sunday singing about it, that's fine with me. I like that it inspires people to donate to charity, do nice things for each other, etc.
Personally, I do not need a belief in God to do these things, I choose to do them when I think I am helping someone I want to help.

Maybe one day we can have an ordered, civilized society where people are happy and looked after without needing anything to compel any of them to comply with the rules.

HAH!

You do have a good point. It drives me nuts that in order to do the right thing, people have to think that there's someone looking over their shoulder and will punish them if they step out of line. Unfortunately, that is how some people are. Maybe religion was started in the first place to keep such people in line.

One thing this diagram doesn't point out is that when creationists look for quotes by scientists, they very often pick what they want out of context in such a way as to imply what the scientist said means the OPPOSITE of what he or she actually said. This BLATANTLY DISHONEST method is known as "quote mining" and is rampant in creationist literature and web sites.

That is what offends me the most about the "controversy" over teaching evolution, that the side that claims the moral high ground is in fact the most dishonest. Show me a creationist web site that is not riddled with distortions and denials of the facts and that does not use quote mines.

What amuses me is when they try to say the evidence supports their side. It's so cute! They show how incredibly ignorant they are of actual reality and demonstrate utter stupidity on what science is and how it works. Of course it isn't really funny because such ignorance has the potential to drag mankind back to the Dark Ages where scientific and medical advances are suppressed and superstitious nonsense is king.

Check this link out- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin

Qst- Did science create parasites, or have scientists not found a way forwards to bypass revolution based o abstract radiology found in parasites?

The twin attaches itself to the mucus membranes, tissus, organs, and any connective tissues finding nutritional gain in the placenta and formulaes itself onto a mixed genetic code to replicate tiny fragments of the data that are supposed to generate over a set period of time.


Has evolutionary science sparked revulsion in abstract minds to unrevolutionise the foundings of where
it was first born. Answer- in the womb.

Fable
Ideas, more ideas and brain science has not prepared itself for the possibility of organ donation failure that has seen Wales marginalised for not accepting that there are no places to rest ones soul when the findings of say multiple organ failure come back positive and cant be used.
Miners were once considered the graft of medical science for their coal mining spirit and brews the air off many an admins task of laying rest to science a graf of mankind's medieval warrior like strength found on spectrums of carbon-monoxide gas that degenerates itself from the coal mining revolution.

Lets observe-
A calm hemisphere of worldly goods combined with the knowledge of world peace and sponsored donations, and where is the money spent?

Check out the wildlife zoos, and big infrastructures and billion pounds worth of one railway link and you reach your answer.

No clinical research is ever specifically funded for medical science. It always goes to The Directors first.

Wrong. Not a scrap of definitive verifiable empirical evidence. Not even a crumb.

ruveyn

Ok am I the only one who can find humor in this?

Having a logical debate about sciences and pseudosciences. If there was anything logical about pseudosciences there would be no debate. Really guys?

Let people believe what they want, no one here I bet would argue that they like being told what to think or do, so why pressure others into understanding science. All you can do is sit back and watch. If they want to say "god did this/that" for whatever reason, smile and just be happy that you have a better understanding.

I actually enjoy watching that crazy haired guy on the History channel go on and on about UFO and aliens visiting earth. He gets excited, he loves it! I'd let him ramble off his theories (I use that wording only as a courtesy) all day to me. I find it fascinating how detailed he makes them as well as how animated he is when he explains them. I wouldn't dream of even attempting to explain to him all the numerous reasons why he is wrong, because he is so damn happy about it. He found his purpose and he loves it.

Here's my other point as well, a lot of pseudosciences gave way to actual science. Case in point, blood letting by leaches was for the longest time considered barbaric and a pseudoscience. They have found that it actually can help some illness. I can't post links as of yet but do a quick search using the terms "leaches in medicine" FDA approved, lots of uses, etc. Same with maggots. Reanimating people was a pseudoscience as well at one point (Luigi Galvani) using electricity. Today we have defibrillators.

Sometimes the crazy ideas give way to some really interesting ones, you should pay attention and at least pose the question what if....if not for that particular use maybe another.


(sorry edited because I had to add two "L"s brain was typing faster than my fingers when I typed "well")