Home | Community | Message Board


Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Pseudo-Science
    #2118615 - 11/18/03 12:52 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

Contrary to popular myth, scientists are far from unbiased in their findings, especially when their continued funding depends on the results of their research. Often such results can have severe social ramifications; and i will address 4 of them in this thread.

1) There is no afterlife. The death experience is merely the effect of an illegal drug (DMT). A direct corollary is that "mind" and "consciousness" are purely mechanical functions of the brain. The existence of an afterlife is necessarily logically undecideable; yet governments throughout history have claimed proof either way in order to impose power. In this case, they claim to have proven the non-existence of an afterlife. Ppl that dont believe in life-after-death would be extremely hesitant about staging an armed revolution against a repressive govt, where they might get killed.

2) There is a superior sex. Darwin claimed that men were superior because they faced more competitive pressure. Now, Helen Fisher is making an equally rediculous claim in the opposite direction; and neuroscientists (the most obnoxious pseudo-scientific propagandists, alongside evolutionary psychologists) are backing her up. If it really could be concretely proven that there was a superior sex, then this would automatically build a much stronger case for racism and other forms of discrimination. Evolutionary psychology in general is IMAO very close to naziism.

3) The accelerating universe. This theory states that the universe remained crunched into a singularity (which came from nothing) for an indefinitely long time and then exploded; and the expansion continues to accelerate. In 100,000 million years all that will remain is a fading cloud of gamma rays. This is largely a macrocosmic version of nonexistence of afterlife; and this theory has obvious problems with the known laws of physics.

4) The world is a closed energy pareto equilibrium system. This idea has not been fomented so much by ppl claiming to be scientists as it has by IT salesmen. Put in laymens terms, what it means is that any indulgence on your part (ie. drugs) will have immediate and far-reaching negative repercussions on others around you and then others around them, etc., etc. Very few ppl would understand the title of this paragraph; yet it is one of the most pervasive dogmas in our society. And it easily explains the apparent popularity of the Bush junta and its autocratic nature. Ironically, this idea contradicts the assertion of "mind" as purely within the brain. Yet the populace seems to have accepted both beliefs as fact.

I hope i have made a point that "scientific research" can be politically motivated and should not be taken as fact. Your comments will be appreciated. Thx.




--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDavid_Scape
Anti Genius
Male

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 878
Loc: U.S. of muthafuckin A.
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2118658 - 11/18/03 01:10 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

" Contrary to popular myth, scientists are far from unbiased in their findings, especially when their continued funding depends on the results of their research. "

I think this is the only sentence i agree with. Everything else is generalizing WAY out of the ballpark. Scientists are a large group of people with a LARGE spectrum of individual oppinions.




--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: David_Scape]
    #2118679 - 11/18/03 01:22 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

I think this is the only sentence i agree with. Everything else is generalizing WAY out of the ballpark. Scientists are a large group of people with a LARGE spectrum of individual oppinions.




Correct. There are many scientists with many different views. However, i meant to address four particular "scientific theories" which have been widely popularized for what i believe to be purposes of social manipulation, and not to attack all science in general.



--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXibalba
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/00
Posts: 2,114
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2118688 - 11/18/03 01:25 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

Yeah, we've all seen the research sponsored by Philip Morris to show that tobacco is harmless, or the research sponsored by NIDA to show that marijuana is a horrible mind-destroying lung-rotting poison.

But I think attaching a political bias to theoretical astrophysics is a wee bit of a 'stretch.'

Overall, you seem to be attacking science you don't like, not on its failings as science but on the possible political applications of that science, in cases which disagree with your personal worldview.
This weakens your argument because your choice of examples clearly shows a leftist, spiritual, anti-authoritarian bias.
This guy is trying to make the same point you are, and his choice of examples makes his rightist, corporate, anti-environmental bias quite clear. You're both making a case for an impartiality in science which you aren't holding to yourselves.

#4 has me a bit lost. You're right, that's not a scientific idea- but who is supposedly pushing it; can you find an example?
You're saying "the idea that the world is a closed energy pareto equilibrium system easily explains the apparent popularity of the Bush junta and its autocratic nature." So... um... explain?





Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2118706 - 11/18/03 01:30 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

This theory states that the universe remained crunched into a singularity (which came from nothing) for an indefinitely long time

Cosmology says NOTHING about how long the Universe remained a singularity before exploding.



--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Swami]
    #2118717 - 11/18/03 01:36 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

Thats one of the big problems with the accelerating-universe theory. Anyway, the "oscillating universe" theory was consistent with the religious notion of cycles of death and rebirth; as such its repudiation as the accelerating universe has philosophical implications which i believe tie into the no-life-after-death memetic.


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2118735 - 11/18/03 01:44 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

No, it's not a problem at all.

Time didn't exist "before" the Big Bang, and in fact there was no existance to speak of anyway.

So to talk about "how long" the universe remained at a singularity "before" the big bang is completely pointless, because there was no "before" the big bang.


On the topic of pseudo-science:
I do agree that there is a lot of this going on these days. Most, if not all, of it is being done for political reasons (through money, in many cases).

One of the biggest problems I see is our relyance on the "credentials" system. If I have a PhD in astrophysics than I can tell just about anyone I want about anything I want and they are likely to believe me because of my "credentials".

Personally I don't put much faith in what titles and silly letters you add to your name. If you want me to listen to what you say, you better say something intelligent. I don't put up with intellectual fraud, and it's not hard to spot.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedjd586
Underpants Gnome

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 1,655
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2118739 - 11/18/03 01:48 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

Annapurna1 said:
Contrary to popular myth, scientists are far from unbiased in their findings, especially when their continued funding depends on the results of their research.




Interesting post.

I am a scientist by profession. I would have to say that scientist from every corner of science think of themselves as "nonbiased" but think of every other scienctist as "biased." If that makes any sense.

I scrutinize the work and finding of all scientists in my field as they scrutinize me. If we just accepted their work and findings as is we would still believe in concepts like spontaneous generation and what-not. So when a scientist proposes a hypothesis or theory, there are immediatly hundreds of other scientist testing and retesting the results to find flaws in the original scientist's work. And usually if there is any biases experiments done, the scientiffic community will instantly disreguard the experiment all together.

So, I would actually have to say that scientist on the whole are non-biased in their findings and that it is not a myth about us. If I were to be found biased about something I studied, I wouldn't be a creditable colleague amongst my peers.

All the example are good to prove your case in biased scientists, but as we speak right now, I assure you that there are scientist out there right now looking for flaws and biased structures in the cases you mentioned.


--------------------

Phase 1... collect underpants... phase 2...??? ... Phase 3 - PROFIT!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: djd586]
    #2118745 - 11/18/03 01:53 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

Weren't there a couple of "scandles" a couple years ago where major scientific journals published findings which were later admitted to be fraud?

I've heard that there's been discussion lately on if the peer-review system is breaking down, have you come into contact with this yet?


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Xibalba]
    #2118768 - 11/18/03 02:19 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

Overall, you seem to be attacking science you don't like, not on its failings as science but on the possible political applications of that science, in cases which disagree with your personal worldview.

First of all, cases 1 and 2 are very easy to attack on their failings as science. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife. If you read the Helen Fisher link then you know its very obviously wrong: it is impossible for a gene that lives on the X-chromosome to manifest itself in half of the women and none of the men. Let alone this idea of imposing two tiers of women. This is a trojan horse for racism, plain and simple.

Case 4 draws on a worldview of total interconnectedness being pushed by the IT/communications industry (actually a major branch of the military-industrial-complex). A classic example of this was the ATT adds that ended with "we're all connected". According to this idea, human beings are merely "nodes" in a "global brain" system; or if you prefer, cogs in a global clockwork mechanism. If any such "cog" starts doing drugs and spinning the wrong way as a result, it will disrupt the functioning of the entire system to the detriment of all others. Hence the other "cogs" recognize a need for absolute control.


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: trendal]
    #2118772 - 11/18/03 02:29 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

Time didn't exist "before" the Big Bang, and in fact there was no existance to speak of anyway.

So to talk about "how long" the universe remained at a singularity "before" the big bang is completely pointless, because there was no "before" the big bang.




That is a big problem because it would violate the conservation of mass-energy: since there was no existence, there could not have been any mass-energy content. And its too much of a cop-out to simply assert that the conservation of mass-energy didnt exist until after it had been violated.


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2118801 - 11/18/03 02:43 AM (13 years, 21 days ago)

That is a big problem because it would violate the conservation of mass-energy: since there was no existence, there could not have been any mass-energy content. And its too much of a cop-out to simply assert that the conservation of mass-energy didnt exist until after it had been violated.

Erm...right :smirk:

You are trying to think of the universe from an outside perspective. There is no outside perspective, not for us. At any rate, the physics of our universe have no relevance outside of our universe (if an "outside" exists).

Yes, there was a mass-energy content. It was all contained in the singularity, a point of infinite energy density. Infinite energy does not equal zero energy.

Again: you can't use the physics of our universe to describe conditions outside of our universe.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 10 months, 8 days
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2119636 - 11/18/03 01:54 PM (13 years, 21 days ago)

"1) There is no afterlife. The death experience is merely the effect of an illegal drug (DMT). A direct corollary is that "mind" and "consciousness" are purely mechanical functions of the brain. The existence of an afterlife is necessarily logically undecideable; yet governments throughout history have claimed proof either way in order to impose power. In this case, they claim to have proven the non-existence of an afterlife. Ppl that dont believe in life-after-death would be extremely hesitant about staging an armed revolution against a repressive govt, where they might get killed."

Well, a claim that an afterlife does not exist is not a scientific claim at all. A scientist who makes this claim is discussing his philosophic ideas, not his scientific ones. Just because he or she is a scientist, does not mean that everything they think or say is science.

"2) There is a superior sex. Darwin claimed that men were superior because they faced more competitive pressure. Now, Helen Fisher is making an equally rediculous claim in the opposite direction; and neuroscientists (the most obnoxious pseudo-scientific propagandists, alongside evolutionary psychologists) are backing her up. If it really could be concretely proven that there was a superior sex, then this would automatically build a much stronger case for racism and other forms of discrimination. Evolutionary psychology in general is IMAO very close to naziism."

Value is again, a philosophical idea, and not a scientific one. To say one thing is better than the other is to make a judgement based on opinion and not science. I don't think Helen Fisher is claiming that women are superior to men, I think that's she's attempting to document the differences in the male and female brain, which do likely exist, and have been documented. A recent article I read about how the male brain tends to be more interested in systems and analysis, and the female brain tends to be more interested in behaviour and social issues was careful to point out that this is really just an average. There are men and women whose minds tend to be more geared in the other direction. These statements are backed up with scientifically conducted studies.

"3) The accelerating universe. This theory states that the universe remained crunched into a singularity (which came from nothing) for an indefinitely long time and then exploded; and the expansion continues to accelerate. In 100,000 million years all that will remain is a fading cloud of gamma rays. This is largely a macrocosmic version of nonexistence of afterlife; and this theory has obvious problems with the known laws of physics."

I'm not sure that you fully understand the theory, but no physicist will tell you that they have a decent understanding of the universe. All science in this area is theoretical, and any scientist will tell you that something that cannot be tested is not to be accepted as "fact".

"4) The world is a closed energy pareto equilibrium system. This idea has not been fomented so much by ppl claiming to be scientists as it has by IT salesmen. Put in laymens terms, what it means is that any indulgence on your part (ie. drugs) will have immediate and far-reaching negative repercussions on others around you and then others around them, etc., etc. Very few ppl would understand the title of this paragraph; yet it is one of the most pervasive dogmas in our society. And it easily explains the apparent popularity of the Bush junta and its autocratic nature. Ironically, this idea contradicts the assertion of "mind" as purely within the brain. Yet the populace seems to have accepted both beliefs as fact."

This has nothing to do with science, as far as I can tell.

"I hope i have made a point that "scientific research" can be politically motivated and should not be taken as fact. Your comments will be appreciated. Thx."

You haven't whatsoever. There have been poorly conducted scientific studies that have been policitally motivated, but that is flawed science.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Phluck]
    #2119747 - 11/18/03 02:27 PM (13 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

"1) There is no afterlife. The death experience is merely the effect of an illegal drug (DMT). A direct corollary is that "mind" and "consciousness" are purely mechanical functions of the brain. The existence of an afterlife is necessarily logically undecideable; yet governments throughout history have claimed proof either way in order to impose power. In this case, they claim to have proven the non-existence of an afterlife. Ppl that dont believe in life-after-death would be extremely hesitant about staging an armed revolution against a repressive govt, where they might get killed."

Well, a claim that an afterlife does not exist is not a scientific claim at all. A scientist who makes this claim is discussing his philosophic ideas, not his scientific ones. Just because he or she is a scientist, does not mean that everything they think or say is science.




The neuroscientists dont make that claim up front; but they imply it by dismissing the death experience as the effects of DMT and with statements such as "mind is what the brain does".

Quote:

"2) There is a superior sex. Darwin claimed that men were superior because they faced more competitive pressure. Now, Helen Fisher is making an equally rediculous claim in the opposite direction; and neuroscientists (the most obnoxious pseudo-scientific propagandists, alongside evolutionary psychologists) are backing her up. If it really could be concretely proven that there was a superior sex, then this would automatically build a much stronger case for racism and other forms of discrimination. Evolutionary psychology in general is IMAO very close to naziism."

Value is again, a philosophical idea, and not a scientific one. To say one thing is better than the other is to make a judgement based on opinion and not science. I don't think Helen Fisher is claiming that women are superior to men, I think that's she's attempting to document the differences in the male and female brain, which do likely exist, and have been documented. A recent article I read about how the male brain tends to be more interested in systems and analysis, and the female brain tends to be more interested in behaviour and social issues was careful to point out that this is really just an average. There are men and women whose minds tend to be more geared in the other direction. These statements are backed up with scientifically conducted studies.




Even worse than claiming that women are superior to men, Fisher is imposing two tiers of women. And she bases this on very obviously bogus genetic argument. The fact that different studies on this subject have yielded such different results casts doubt on their validity.

Quote:

"I hope i have made a point that "scientific research" can be politically motivated and should not be taken as fact. Your comments will be appreciated. Thx."

You haven't whatsoever. There have been poorly conducted scientific studies that have been policitally motivated, but that is flawed science




Maybe, maybe not. But pls note the quotes around "scientific reseach" and the title of the thread.





--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Pseudo-Science [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2119765 - 11/18/03 02:30 PM (13 years, 21 days ago)

The neuroscientists dont make that claim up front; but they imply it by dismissing the death experience as the effects of DMT and with statements such as "mind is what the brain does".

Again you are trying to read where there are no words.

Neuroscientists, and most scientists in general, do not try to argue with the idea of an afterlife. Why? There's no way to proove it one way or the other.

Saying that the death process may be the result of DMT released in the brain does not imply that there is no afterlife. The existence of an afterlife is beyond the probing tools of science right now. That's why we leave it up to the philosophers :wink:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Poid 4,233 87 02/15/09 01:50 PM
by Recondicom
* Neurological Science And Evidence Of The Non-Existence Of A Soul
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
DiploidM 8,584 134 06/04/05 11:28 PM
by psyillyazul
* scientists are like kids playing video games
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Sophistic Radiance 2,964 60 11/16/07 11:27 AM
by Icelander
* Ideas on Philosophy of Science
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Time Slave 7,507 152 04/26/09 10:54 PM
by Mr. Mushrooms
* Is science becoming more philosophical?
( 1 2 all )
Silversoul 1,980 22 06/23/06 02:36 AM
by SneezingPenis
* Science as Philosophy Economist 1,075 7 07/27/07 11:46 AM
by Rhizoid
* The philosophy of science - What is it?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
flangenips 2,650 66 02/10/09 05:09 PM
by flangenips
* The Official Science Bashing Thread
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 3,228 52 12/29/05 02:04 AM
by dr0mni

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, DividedQuantum
1,163 topic views. 2 members, 3 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.127 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.