Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
[Poll]

The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity


I watched. Sign me up for the SFTSOC.
  0% (0)
I watched. Interesting. I'd like to see more.
  46% (7)
I don't have to watch. I support the SFTSOC.
  0% (0)
I don't have to watch. Fuck the SFTSOC.
  53% (8)


Total Votes : 15
(last vote on : 4/23/2013 2:03:36 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/21/2013 10:57:45 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		It is settled science that drinking a big old glass of strychnine will have a predictable result.

The religious belief that 'if he drinks deadly poison it will not harm him" has been debunked.

And it is rarer these days that new observations and more accurate assessments really challenge foundational science. Refine certainly, raise new areas to be explored sometimes, but gravity and such isn't going away anytime soon, and I wouldn't hold my breath expecting a non-scientific explanation to simply throw science out the window on those things.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
It isn't science if previously debunked notions are given the same weight as previously supported ideas, *unless* something new comes along... and dressing old hoaxes up in new costumes ('energy healing' for 'qigong', or 'intuitive metacognition' for 'ESP' for example) doesn't count.
There is always room for more accurate equipment to provide new information to *revise* older theories, but that doesn't create a vacuum for woo to rush in.


Agreed, but as you well know, the leaps we've seen in understanding and knowledge have challenged previously supported ideas. Who is to say that there is nothing yet to be discovered that will turn science upside down and prove God exists? We don't yet understand the results of the Double Slit Experiment. It was less than a year ago that something showed up that might show the Theory of Relativity to be wrong.

"Settled science" is a phrase lacking specification. What we call "settled science" is only settled based on what we currently know, and could end up being unsettled as we learn more. Burying religious belief as "debunked" is saying that there isn't anything left for us to discover that would change the veracity of whatever the belief is. I don't believe true science will ever say that. True science, IMO, will always state things relative to current knowledge, but leave open the possibility that it could change, which, it can.

There is always a chance that woo is twoo, but we haven't found a way to pwoove it yet.



< Message edited by Powergamz1 -- 4/21/2013 11:05:35 PM >

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/22/2013 1:44:45 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		Reading through the thread, I found it amusing to see religion being represented as a font of tolerance and science/atheism represented as a hotbed of intolerance and narrow mindedness. Amusing because in the real world, it is almost always the other way around.

As a non-believer, I have some sympathy for the complaints about Dawkins and his particular brand of Scientism, which is often described wrongly as militant atheism. While I admire this stream of thought for its courage in publicly challenging theistic influences in the public sphere, Dawkins et al make claims that far exceed that which is scientifically defensible. It is therefore inaccurate to suggest that this stream of thought represents scientific thought or the scientific community, despite its claims to do just that. The Scientism stream of thought isn't representative of the enormous diversity of freethinking perspectives no more than it is representative of the scientific community.

As far as I can tell, the only scientifically defensible position on the existence or non-existence of a deity or theistic entity is agnosticism - the position that on the available evidence, no conclusion is possible. By its nature, this position cannot be limiting to thought or expression. People who cheerfully admit to not knowing all the answers rarely feel any need to limit the thought or actions of others who may have more at stake - until their claims mutate into dogmatism and intolerance.' Dogmatism and intolerance spring from belief systems that make absolute claims, these evils are inevitable outcomes.

An interesting feature of this discussion is the deep emotional investment in their position by many of the protagonists (on both sides). Long ago I arrived at the conclusion that more insight into ideologues can be generated by largely ignoring the belief system, and focusing instead on the emotional needs of individual believers. This contents of this thread seem to me to support the general validity of that insight.


< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 4/22/2013 1:48:22 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/22/2013 11:04:45 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

As far as I can tell, the only scientifically defensible position on the existence or non-existence of a deity or theistic entity is agnosticism - the position that on the available evidence, no conclusion is possible

I think it is important to note that this thread was not intended to be about a diety or a religion. He will correct me if I misunderstand, I am sure, but Kirata is suggesting the exisitence of phenomena such as universal consciousness that escapes any religious designation or supernatural box. Reading his comments here and those I recall from previous threads he sometimes presents the notion that it is a natural phenomenon that is beyond the realm of materialistic scientific investigation. Other times, as in the case of near death experiences and extention of mind he seems to fall back on various sorts of near-scientific investigations. Thus, in the first video we see a denigration of physical science while in the second video we are given an alternative method of investigation and experience. So, he reaches around science and religion. But when you get at it there needs to be some form of acceptable verification and replication of experience, imo. I haven't seen that. And until I do I will remain skeptical of universal consciousness and extention of mind.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 4/22/2013 11:34:56 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/22/2013 12:58:27 PM   
FunCouple5280


Posts: 559
Joined: 10/30/2012
Status: offline 		watched the videos.....Don't know what the fuss is about, or all of this banter.....WTF is this poll even about?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/22/2013 1:04:48 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		Hysteria, paranoia and nonsense.
Can't you tell?


_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to FunCouple5280)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/22/2013 3:33:44 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

The thing is we know that consciousness is a product of the functioning of the brain. We can change consciousness temporarily by temporarily affecting the functioning of the brain, drugs or EM fields work quite nicely, and we can permenantly change consciousness by permanently affecting the functioning of the brain, physical damage of a wide variety of kinds.

There is not a shred of scientific evidence for anything else.

Oh, I agree. But others do not agree. Some insist consciousness results from the embed of a soul. Then, others believe consciousness is a characteristic of all matter. That's why science must be attacked and degraded as just one of several approaches to valid knowledge. Never mind all that stuff about falsifiable hyportheses. There are other ways to attain knowledge of reality. Scientific evidence is limiting, you see. Well, you will if you have a drink of this foul shit concocted from a plant in the Amazon, or wherever. Shades of Timothy Leary.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/22/2013 4:13:14 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The thing is we know that consciousness is a product of the functioning of the brain. We can change consciousness temporarily by temporarily affecting the functioning of the brain, drugs or EM fields work quite nicely, and we can permenantly change consciousness by permanently affecting the functioning of the brain, physical damage of a wide variety of kinds.

There is not a shred of scientific evidence for anything else.

Oh, I agree. But others do not agree. Some insist consciousness results from the embed of a soul. Then, others believe consciousness is a characteristic of all matter. That's why science must be attacked and degraded as just one of several approaches to valid knowledge. Never mind all that stuff about falsifiable hyportheses. There are other ways to attain knowledge of reality. Scientific evidence is limiting, you see. Well, you will if you have a drink of this foul shit concocted from a plant in the Amazon, or wherever. Shades of Timothy Leary.

No, thanks. I did enough of that stuff in my, mostly forgotten, youth.

However back in reality mystical claptrap remains not science and not real.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/22/2013 5:52:01 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I think it is important to note that this thread was not intended to be about a diety or a religion

I suppose it was Hancock's reference to the Weighing of the Heart that seemed to open the door to religion in this thread. But to use the same word for both introduces a violent clash of meanings.

To the ancient Egyptians the Universe was sacred and everything in it divine. They would have found it bizarre to imagine that the divine was somehow separate from the Universe, and that the world was merely an object to be exploited. To comprehend the Universe was to understand Man, to comprehend Man was to understand the Universe, and I suspect that they may have known more about consciousness than we do. Nor were other ancient traditions as ignorant as some are pleased to think. There is no better guide to the psychedelic experience than the one that is based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Even when it comes to an understanding of the nature of physical reality, in the Spanda Karika, a Saivite text, the Universe is said to arise through the action of spanda sakti: the vibrating pure energy of the Void. Mass is frequency. Modern physics.

These traditions are worlds apart from what we commonly think of as religion today, and offer no one a doorway through which to drag the various discontents of Biblical literalism into the discussion.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 4/22/2013 5:55:34 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/22/2013 7:04:11 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		First, I do not think science will ever prove the existence of God because of [his] continued inability to actually define God.

In his ever-historical and ever-present social, economic and political insecurities, man created God just as he created religion and the church.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/22/2013 8:15:21 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

First, I do not think science will ever prove the existence of God because of [his] continued inability to actually define God.

In his ever-historical and ever-present social, economic and political insecurities, man created God just as he created religion and the church.

Technically "does a supernatural entity exist?" cannot be answered by science. It is outside the domain of science. What can be said is no evidence of such has ever been encountered.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 2:45:13 AM   
Determinist


Posts: 38
Joined: 4/20/2013
Status: offline 		I'm watching the first video (even after reading that Deepak Chopra was on board with that letter, which made me sigh) and its about what I expected, though I tried not to approach it with any expectations.

Here's my two cents. I'm a skeptic first and an atheist second. If someone makes a claim to me, whether about gods or fairies or psychic powers, I expect them to support their claim with evidence (of the level that could be published in a scientific journal, not by anecdotes or a poorly controlled study or a TV documentary). There is no convincing evidence for supernatural events, so I do not believe those claims. Dualism (the belief that consciousness exists outside the physical mind) is a relatively simple concept to deal with, from my perspective. Everything we *do* know about the conscious experience indicates that it is controlled by the brain (supported by evidence psychology, psychiatry, neurology, neurochemistry, etc). To assume that there is also an immaterial aspect that exists outside the brain is akin to believing that the lamp turns on because electrons *and* mystical energy flow through the wiring. Mystical energy is a hypothesis that is not needed to explain what is occurring (see Occam's Razor). Moreover, it is an untestable hypothesis as it stands. I'm not closed to the idea that consciousness exists in the flow of quantum energy in the universe or whatever it is that the Chopra-types claim (and at which every theoretical and experimental physicist cringes in horror), but if it's not testable then it is an unfounded claim and useless hypothesis. Does that make sense? The second it is demonstrated to be true, I shall the be the first to stand up and applaud. When someone proves the God hypothesis (sometime after it's defined, I expect), well, I'll probably incite a revolt against him, but I'll believe that too.

I've probably just bored everyone to tears, but if you have a good night's sleep then . . . you're welcome.




(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 3:16:28 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
Chopra is just one guy. I'm not fold of him myself.

The principle researchers in the field are only interested in the facts, not in selling a world-view.

K.

(in reply to Determinist)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 5:07:54 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Chopra is just one guy. I'm not fold of him myself.

I'm also not fond of him.

K.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 6:03:01 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
First, I do not think science will ever prove the existence of God because of [his] continued inability to actually define God.
In his ever-historical and ever-present social, economic and political insecurities, man created God just as he created religion and the church.

Technically "does a supernatural entity exist?" cannot be answered by science. It is outside the domain of science. What can be said is no evidence of such has ever been encountered.


Aren't there claims that "absence of proof isn't proof of absence?"


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 6:04:01 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you're left postulating a method of action by a unknown and undetectable force. That ain't science.

I'm still awake, and the question has occurred to me whether you would raise the same objection to quantum entanglement.

If your answer is yes, then the complaint is irrational. If your answer is no, then tell us what the force is and it's method of action. If your answer would be that a force and method of action don't apply in the entanglement situation, then you have no complaint against Psi. As I pointed out previously, the definition of "telepathy" as a "communication between minds" has been rejected precisely because it suggests an unknown method of action by some unknown force, just as does a "communication" interpretation of entanglement. In both cases, there is no evidence of communication. The information can only be observed by looking at the correlations between the two particles, or between the two minds.

Quantum entanglement doesn't need energy because what ever happened to the two quanta happened while they were close together.

To make it simple, QE is when two subatomic particles are brought together or generated together so that they interact. They are then seperated, without being observed. When the observation is made the two particles will have opposite states, in regards to spin or charge etc.. The interaction occured when they were close together but is not obsered until later.

There has been a lot of hype about QE in the whacko community but it really is a pretty basic concept and is really part and parcel of the uncertainty principle.

Applying any aspect of QM at the macro scale is fundamentally flawed.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 6:09:22 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
First, I do not think science will ever prove the existence of God because of [his] continued inability to actually define God.
In his ever-historical and ever-present social, economic and political insecurities, man created God just as he created religion and the church.

Technically "does a supernatural entity exist?" cannot be answered by science. It is outside the domain of science. What can be said is no evidence of such has ever been encountered.


Aren't there claims that "absence of proof isn't proof of absence?"


That is of course correct. but I did not make any contrary claim.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 6:11:27 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Applying any aspect of QM at the macro scale is fundamentally flawed.

Quantum entanglement in the motion of macroscopic solid bodies has implications both for quantum technologies and foundational studies of the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds... Our results show that entanglement can persist in the classical context of moving macroscopic solids in ambient conditions. ~Science

K.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 6:15:44 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Applying any aspect of QM at the macro scale is fundamentally flawed.

Quantum entanglement in the motion of macroscopic solid bodies has implications both for quantum technologies and foundational studies of the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds... Our results show that entanglement can persist in the classical context of moving macroscopic solids in ambient conditions. ~Science

K.


Interesting. But it is still millimeter sized crystals at millimetric distances. It still doesn't support psi which still requires interaction at much greater distances. Also keep in mind QE always means the two things have opposite states which means it cannot be what youthink it could be.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 4/23/2013 6:16:10 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 6:25:27 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
First, I do not think science will ever prove the existence of God because of [his] continued inability to actually define God.
In his ever-historical and ever-present social, economic and political insecurities, man created God just as he created religion and the church.

Technically "does a supernatural entity exist?" cannot be answered by science. It is outside the domain of science. What can be said is no evidence of such has ever been encountered.

Aren't there claims that "absence of proof isn't proof of absence?"

That is of course correct. but I did not make any contrary claim.


Post#70:
    quote:

    No, thanks. I did enough of that stuff in my, mostly forgotten, youth.
    However back in reality mystical claptrap remains not science and not real.


How do you get to the part of it not being real? We agree that, at least at this point in time, it isn't science. It may never be, or it may turn out to be science and that we don't know yet how to measure it.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity - 4/23/2013 6:29:06 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
First, I do not think science will ever prove the existence of God because of [his] continued inability to actually define God.
In his ever-historical and ever-present social, economic and political insecurities, man created God just as he created religion and the church.

Technically "does a supernatural entity exist?" cannot be answered by science. It is outside the domain of science. What can be said is no evidence of such has ever been encountered.

Aren't there claims that "absence of proof isn't proof of absence?"

That is of course correct. but I did not make any contrary claim.


Post#70:
    quote:

    No, thanks. I did enough of that stuff in my, mostly forgotten, youth.
    However back in reality mystical claptrap remains not science and not real.



How do you get to the part of it not being real? We agree that, at least at this point in time, it isn't science. It may never be, or it may turn out to be science and that we don't know yet how to measure it.

Something for which there is no positive evidence and all the laws of physics say cannot be does not strike me as something that could be. however if you want every phrase of mine to be absolutely correct "However back in reality mystical claptrap remains not science and not observed ever by anyone." Happy?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Society for the Suppression of Curiosity Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109