|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 5 hours
|
|
Oppenheimer?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: falcon]
#23392224 - 06/28/16 08:48 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quasimodo?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly] 1
#23392308 - 06/28/16 09:14 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Frappuccino?
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
andiamo!
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
I remember The Adiamo...
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
Alam not andiam
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
|
I stumbled upon this video today--a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson about intelligent design.
tl;dw Isaac Newton, in approaching the calculation of orbits in our solar system, invoked intelligent design when faced with the complexity of the problem. LaPlace later came along and expanded on Newton's calculus to further flesh out the subtle gravitational effects of the planets on each other. Tyson's supposition is that, given Newton's brilliance, he should have been able to figure this out for himself, but, "even if you're as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of god, and then your discovery stops."
|
Peyote Road
Stranger

Registered: 09/02/15
Posts: 3,527
Loc: Great Lakes State
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
falcon said:
Quote:
Hippocampus said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Perhaps, but I don't see mystics adding any non-personal knowledge to the body of mankind.
Pythagoras?
Liebniz, Kepler?
Tesla? Alternate the current much?
Faraday, that slacker!
Isaac Newton? He had a fervent and devout religiosity, plus he was an alchemist.
pLaTO, SOCRATes. if you look into history almost all the great ancient thinkers philosophers, scientists, etc had a mystical bent. it wasnt until the so called enlightenment in europe that science became associated with materialism and only materialistic science was considered worthy of respect. atheism is a Christian heresy, it developed out of a reaction to a certain religious mindset.
-------------------- The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Obviously we all know that some scientists are religious and some are not, but my question pertains to carrying the scientific mindset into all aspects of one's lives. As emotional beings it is not possible to be 100% logical all the time, but why would one not strive for that?
EVEN THE MOST RELIGIOUS SCIENTIST does not take his beliefs into the laboratory with him. What do I mean by that? Most modern religions teach that God can and does occasionally interfere with causation. Things such as fate, meant-to-be-ness and answered prayer require some external manipulation of people and events. Yet, in a lab, the fundamentalist researcher never says that I got such and such results because God willed it; or if he did, his paper would never get published and he would become a laughing stock - even among religious scientists.
Water at a specific pressure ALWAYS boils at the same temperature. Deviations from such denotes a flaw in the methodology or measuring equipment and is not indicative of supernatural forces.
My take is that religious scientists, even great ones, are not applying critical inquiry into their beliefs.
What is science and what is a scientist? What is a runner? the 'zen' answer is: Someone who is running!
Anyone who applies the scientific method, with controls, double blind studies, peer review, results that are repeatable, etc. the list of steps is readily available, is doing science ... at that time. It has nothing to do with beliefs about anything, per se, anymore than skiing does. That our culture glorifies 'Science' with a capitol 'S' has nothing to do with the simple procedural requirements that define it.
A mechanic who trouble shoots a mechanical problem a car has, is doing science, using a somewhat broader definition; as is 'Sherlock Holmes'; as both are evidence based, logical procedures.
Seems like much of the 'discussion' is simply folks arguing with their own beliefs about beliefs, like birds that fight their own reflections in a glass window.
The idea that scientific method should permeate all aspects of any human's life in order for them to have integrity is simply silly. As the OP himself knows, just look at all his posting about his "existential crisis". But he did manage to provoke lots of 'discussion'.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23403938 - 07/02/16 12:06 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23406112 - 07/03/16 05:37 AM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
who said what?:
Anyone who applies the scientific method, with controls, double blind studies, peer review, results that are repeatable, etc. the list of steps is readily available, is doing science ... at that time. It has nothing to do with beliefs about anything, per se, anymore than skiing does. That our culture glorifies 'Science' with a capitol 'S' has nothing to do with the simple procedural requirements that define it.
A mechanic who trouble shoots a mechanical problem a car has, is doing science, using a somewhat broader definition; as is 'Sherlock Holmes'; as both are evidence based, logical procedures. ...
the first example is one of Managing scientific process, scientist is not required the second example is of a mechanic outright, scientist not required.
is every person with a brush and paint an artist?
being involved with science so that you push the boundary of human knowledge takes more than just method.
It takes vision and imagination, occasionally having direct insight (idea first) or finding the idea by examining the data. The method is what is used to verify the idea (when the idea leads) and to help resolve patterns in data (when the data leads).
I agree that for administrators who enforce scientific method on their team, and for mechanics and technicians, it is not important to live and breathe the quest - there is room for religion for these people; but for scientists who find the patterns of new knowledge or who give birth to new ideas, it is not consistent to be religious in another way. A scientist may practice a creed, be good Christian, Muslim, or Jain etc. but they are not mentally or emotionally involved with religious cosmologies while doing their creative work.
These thoughts: "God, my head hurts." or "God give me strength." and even "Oh, God!" may punctuate and pepper the scientist's consciousness while dealing with people every day and still not make them religious.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
A scientist may practice a creed, be good Christian, Muslim, or Jain etc. but they are not mentally or emotionally involved with religious cosmologies while doing their creative work.
Good point. Humans disassociate and compartmentalize. As humans we may have both conscious & unconscious biases, some may interfere with some investigations, some not.
Another factor, not exactly a bias, is ego. Many scientists take up a position and then feel they must defend it all costs. Especially if they have published papers on the subject, or feel they are an authority. Many ideas that turned out to be right were first rejected by the scientific community, like for example: plate tectonics. I think some more recent controversies were around 'are birds dinosaurs?' and 'were dinosaurs warm blooded?'
And some discoveries like penicillin are partly accidental.
Seems the history of science and paradigm shifts provides much food for thought.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
is every person with a brush and paint an artist?
that's an interesting question.
frequently it is answered simplisticaly in a capitalist society, by the answer: "Can you sell it?"
Also we call so called 'art' by 'primitive' or native peoples 'art', when it was never meant to be put in museums, galleries, or hung over a couch, let alone sold.
I was attempting to distinguish process/activity/verb from noun/identity/object as when we nominalize or reify we often tend to idealize. We see this, I think, today in the case of science and technology in the case of people who think science and technology will solve all 'our' problems. And we end up with phrases like 'the progress of science'. In the event some fool 'presses the button' some day, should there be any survivors, that phrase might well be considered taboo. The current and future results of pollution, fracking, GMOs, cloning, etc. etc. ... remain beyond our present comprehension, but seem significant enough to already question the phrase 'the glorious upward progress of science'.
Some will of course question whether one can separate the results of application of science and technology from the theoretical. I suspect there are examples supporting both view points.
Edited by laughingdog (07/04/16 12:16 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23410300 - 07/04/16 12:54 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
hold on a minute. often the art in primitive societies is magnificent, infused with vitality expression and epiphany.
also GMO so far has not been unhealthy jut terrible politics and oppression of farmers who are sued by monsanto. GMO experimentation warrants controlled environment testing on a scale not yet observed, so there again is a political frakas.
And now you can get medical stem cell treatments that are completely unverified because clinics can buy the equipment. The religion in these sciences is money. money. money.
anyway you want to do science - start keeping a log, get good at it and keep it up. documentation is primo!
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
I too enjoy the ‘art’ of native peoples. The point was it served a different function is those societies, they didn’t call it ‘art’. The potlatch indians even used to burn their stuff till the whites made it illegal to burn it.
I agree that like ego, money can be a corrupting factor. A nice exception was Jonas Salk.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Jonas+Salk&view=detailv2&&id=5695894BD89D01093119B789671BC1DAAB2EF4C2&selectedIndex=0&ccid=7vLmkyME&simid=608018931811093966&thid=OIP.Meef2e69323042f9cdfa6e082d9a00517o2&ajaxhist=0
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23410584 - 07/04/16 02:29 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
the art on cave walls is often deeply profound the purpose in creating it differs how from the purpose of putting paint on canvas for someone like Jackson Pollock?
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: the art on cave walls is often deeply profound the purpose in creating it differs how from the purpose of putting paint on canvas for someone like Jackson Pollock?
certainly
the cave art is a mystery, I have never seen it in person, as you say, they say: to actually see it, is emotionally moving.
this book has some insight: "The Oldest Enigma of Humanity: The Key to the Mystery of the Paleolithic Cave Paintings" by Bertrand David (Author), Jean-Jacques Lefrère (Author)
also
http://pleistocenecoalition.com/newsletter/may-june2010.pdf
also
"What Is Paleolithic Art?: Cave Paintings and the Dawn of Human Creativity" by Jean Clottes, ISBN-10: 022626663X ISBN-13: 978-0226266633
As regards Pollock, he was full of wonderful contradictions:
partly he was into 'pure process' or the joy of creating taking precedence over product. I wonder if he destroyed any. He did have some sense of visual discrimination. Francis Bacon did destroy those works that didn't meet his standards.
but Pollock was also alcoholic, so not exactly pure spontaneous joy
and documentaries also show Pollock unable to integrate the sudden fame that was thrust upon him, and struggling with evaluating his own 'importance'. Unable to separate himself from his image. One might think an artist of all people 'should' be able to do this. But fame is a dangerous snake. Warhol on the other hand made playing with image his playground.
Rene Magritte is considered a surrealist, but did not consider himself one.
Art seems a regular 'Emperor's clothes' sort of affair on the one hand, and part of our natural cognitive development if you look at kid's drawings, up to the age of about 6.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23410739 - 07/04/16 03:19 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said: ... but Pollock was also alcoholic, so not exactly pure spontaneous joy ...
this is also "moral" prejudice
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
Quote:
laughingdog said: ... but Pollock was also alcoholic, so not exactly pure spontaneous joy ...
this is also "moral" prejudice
I didn't say he was "BAD"
I stated addiction to substance for emotional effect, does not equal spontaneously arising happiness.
Aviva Gold ( http://www.paintingfromthesource.com/ ) teaches a method of re-accessing our innate creativity, without drugs. No need to put Pollack on a pedestal, or fight a 'straw-man' & put me on a dunce chair.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23410987 - 07/04/16 04:37 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
you denigrated a genius by calling up alcoholism. I find that a bit off platform for a shroomerite.
in any case the whole issue about art is a tangent, but exploring it reveals prejudice, and the same prejudice affects the judgement of scientists. My main point is that the business of science is populated by sloggers, or haulers, and people who break through finding new patterns or what is beyond the edge of the known universe. The sloggers and haulers manage the business and can be of any religion - the ones who break through actually expanding science are also of any religion but they are absorbed in theoretical science more than any other kinds of theory.
the same could be said of Jackson Pollock, who was immersed in his own unique abstraction, and who pushed in a direction that was heretofore unknown.
I think that is more godlike than any religion, but it is not any religion or god.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
|