It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

page: 35
59
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: payt69

Other principles come into play as well, such as replicability and it should be unfalsifiable, for instance.


I think you mean "falsifiable," not "unfalsifiable." Falsifiability is a basic tenet of all scientific theories. In other words, if it were false, there has to be some test result that would prove it.

For example, Evolution is falsifiable because a pre-cambrian hippo fossil would falsify it. Relativity is falsifiable because measuring a speed of light other than c in a vacuum would falsify it.

Multi-verse theory, string theory, brane theory, holographic universe theory, etc. are all unfalsifiable, and therefore can at best be referred to as highly theoretical science. I personally think this is where science most resembles religion (although even here there are KEY differences, to be clear), but most of the complaints in this thread are focused on other things that tend to be common to all human institutions and which in no way undermine the importance of the differences between religion and science.



Yup that's what I meant, but the term confuses me sometimes
I corrected my post to reflect the proper term.
edit on 6201610 by payt69 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: birdxofxprey


- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."


Can you prove it doesn't work?


Reductionism always reminds me of the nightmare before christmas, in which Jack Skellington (the protagonist) tries to analize the meaning of Christmas by conducting experiments in a lab on Christmas ornaments, treats, gifts and a Christmas tree. Needless to say he's unable to work it out that way.

Reductionists still seem to be struggling though



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: birdxofxprey


- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."


Can you prove it doesn't work?


Science offers no "proof" that these claims are true, they are left unquestioned.
Unquestioned and nonetheless required foundational beliefs constitute orthodoxy.

Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Whether or not this is so depends on what one wants to learn. -

Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- It is worth asking whether or not the most useful observations are those made under artificially imposed (experimental) conditions like isolation and control. Nothing actually exists under such conditions, so the claim that observations made under such conditions are the most useful is not self-evidently true. -

Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
- Observation is always made from one perspective rather than another. It is not possible to observe something from no point of view, and it is impossible to observe something from all perspectives. Insofar as objective observation purports to be unbiased towards any specific point of view and valid from any perspective, objective observation is a fiction.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: payt69

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: birdxofxprey


- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."


Can you prove it doesn't work?


Reductionism always reminds me of the nightmare before christmas, in which Jack Skellington (the protagonist) tries to analize the meaning of Christmas by conducting experiments in a lab on Christmas ornaments, treats, gifts and a Christmas tree. Needless to say he's unable to work it out that way.

Reductionists still seem to be struggling though


Reductionism first requires a sufficient understanding of the initial phenomenon before it can be successfully portrayed through other phenomena. This explains the difficulties you mentioned.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: birdxofxprey

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: birdxofxprey


- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."


Can you prove it doesn't work?


Science offers no "proof" that these claims are true, they are left unquestioned.
Unquestioned and nonetheless required foundational beliefs constitute orthodoxy.

Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Whether or not this is so depends on what one wants to learn. -

Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- It is worth asking whether or not the most useful observations are those made under artificially imposed (experimental) conditions like isolation and control. Nothing actually exists under such conditions, so the claim that observations made under such conditions are the most useful is not self-evidently true. -

Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
- Observation is always made from one perspective rather than another. It is not possible to observe something from no point of view, and it is impossible to observe something from all perspectives. Insofar as objective observation purports to be unbiased towards any specific point of view and valid from any perspective, objective observation is a fiction.


In other words, no, you can't prove it doesn't work.

Good talk.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: payt69

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: birdxofxprey


- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."


Can you prove it doesn't work?


Reductionism always reminds me of the nightmare before christmas, in which Jack Skellington (the protagonist) tries to analize the meaning of Christmas by conducting experiments in a lab on Christmas ornaments, treats, gifts and a Christmas tree. Needless to say he's unable to work it out that way.

Reductionists still seem to be struggling though


Reductionism first requires a sufficient understanding of the initial phenomenon before it can be successfully portrayed through other phenomena. This explains the difficulties you mentioned.


Right, reductionism favors a bottom up kind of approach, instead of a top down.

When we relate this to consciousness, it presupposes that this bottom up approach is the only valid way to come to an answer.

It's kindof like examining the functionality of a radio by looking at it's individual parts, and then coming to the conclusion that 'music' is an emergent phenomenon of radio circuitry. In that case you remain unaware of radio waves, people who make radio programs and/or music, radio stations etc. To the reductionist, the radio is IT, and the electronics inside it expain the functionality of the radio.

That's how they look at brains and EEG's. To the reductionist, brain activity is the image of consciousness and neurons are it's circuitry, and that's it.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: payt69

When we relate this to consciousness, it presupposes that this bottom up approach is the only valid way to come to an answer.

It's kindof like examining the functionality of a radio by looking at it's individual parts, and then coming to the conclusion that 'music' is an emergent phenomenon of radio circuitry. In that case you remain unaware of radio waves, people who make radio programs and/or music, radio stations etc. To the reductionist, the radio is IT, and the electronics inside it expain the functionality of the radio.


Except when I damage my radio, the plot of the play doesn't change. The music of the play doesn't change. The characters of the play doesn't change. The number of acts doesn't change. That's because the radio is a receiver for external signals, not that the play is an emergent property of the radio.

If consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, explain how stimulating or damaging parts of the brain can drastically alter personality, memory, level of consciousness and sensory experience. Explain why mental development is correlated with brain development. Explain why mental activity is correlated with brain activity. None of these questions can be answered convincingly with the model of the brain being the receiver of some external signal of consciousness.

Fact of the matter is, although we don't understand the brain fully, any test of "if consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then..." has come back as affirmative.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

I know you think your religion is good and theirs is bad, but most of those scriptures were written while they were being oppressed and ruled over by other people. Even holy war is supposed to be a battle within your mind. It boils down to interpretation. One can interpret and cherry pick old testament verses literally and murder anybody who worships other gods, or treat homosexuals unfairly. Or you can cherry pick verses in the Quaran to take literally and use it as justification to kill innocent people. Neither side is right, it depends how you interpret it.

Most moderate Muslims see the Quaran for the good verses and understand that it was written during war times. Similarly most moderate Christians see the old testament as out dated and understand that none of it should really be taken literally aside from the direct teachings of Jesus. That's why I find it funny when Christians scream about bad verses in the Quaran. 99% of them haven't even read the whole thing in context and their holy book contains things that are just as bad.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Whether or not this is so depends on what one wants to learn. -

The domain of science involves, strictly speaking, the physical world, and more specifically, that which can be measured, observed, and quantified.

Put most simply, it is a framework through which empirical observations can be gathered and understood. There is LITERALLY no other way to gain understanding about things which are falsifiable. (and if it's not falsifiable, it's NOT science).

We learn how long something is by MEASURING it. We learn what color something is by looking at it. We learn how fast something is going by measuring its speed. What other ways would you suggest?



Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- It is worth asking whether or not the most useful observations are those made under artificially imposed (experimental) conditions like isolation and control. Nothing actually exists under such conditions, so the claim that observations made under such conditions are the most useful is not self-evidently true. -

The purpose of isolation and control in experiments is to make sure we're actually measuring the thing we'd like to measure. Eliminating confounding factors is THE SINGLE MOST difficult thing to do in most any scientific trial. To use an example, how do you propose we test whether smoking causes cancer if we don't make some attempt to control for other health related factors? How do you even know what you're measuring?

We try to isolate and control, and yet still often the best we are able to make are statistical correlations. That should tell you something. That is, there is obvious merit in trying, but sometimes we simply cannot.



Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
- Observation is always made from one perspective rather than another. It is not possible to observe something from no point of view, and it is impossible to observe something from all perspectives. Insofar as objective observation purports to be unbiased towards any specific point of view and valid from any perspective, objective observation is a fiction.


And this is why any good research study will clearly list the factors that may have confounded its findings.Science actually has a process for this. Why would such a process exist if science assumed dogmatically that all observations were unbiased?
edit on 10-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
Science certainly is a belief system, its foundation is a commitment to the beliefs that:

- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."


No offense, but this doesn't require belief. It is demonstrated every day every time you use a product of science (ie your computer). Maybe more efficient ways will develop in the future, but I don't see how anything could be better than observing and testing things in reality. Do you have any idea how this could happen? You don't need blind belief to show that the scientific method works. It proves itself constantly.


Thus, science has little concern for (and sometimes denies the importance of) topics such as:
- The existence of God
- Life after death
- Personal experience/observation that is not accessible to an "objective" third party
- Value judgments


Science doesn't deny those things. Science has no comment, since there is no way to test or experiment with the existence of god, or life after death. Personal experience also does not count because humans can lie, so it can't be considered reliable when it comes to proof. Value judgements is completely unrelated to science. I'm not sure what you mean by that.


But the most distinguishing feature of science that resembles religion is orthodoxy.
Ideas, theories or hypotheses that challenge accepted orthodoxy are not well accepted.


This is flat out false. Science updates itself when new data is discovered. What matters is the actual data and facts. If they are accurate then there is no problem with accepting it.


Immanuel Velikovsky's work is a good example of this. Admittedly, many (or most) of Velikovsky's alleged facts were not correct.

Well there you go. If the facts were not correct, then yes, scientists are skeptical. There is a reason why scientific knowledge takes time to develop. It's easy to say in hindsight that he was correct, but without empirical proof, skepticism makes sense in science. This is why it is NOT like a religion. Ideas take time to develop. If you can't prove it, science doesn't acknowledge it.


Well into the 1970s the scientific community ridiculed Velikovsky, ostracized him, and even tried to prevent publication of his work and deny him academic employment. The scientific community's attitude towards Velikovsky was significantly quieted when the Shoemaker-Levy comet struck Jupiter in the 1990s.


According to his wiki, his Worlds in Collision pamplet was published in 1950. It seems like his papers had a creationist slant, which is why they were controversial. Remember he was originally a psychiatrist, and his papers had very little data that could be verified empirically. He wasn't an astrophysicist. They were dropped and transferred to another publisher in 1952, and his other one was published in that year as well.

Anyways, it's a good thing that science is very skeptical of claims like this. It is held to high standards of scrutiny which is why it was tough to get published at first.


Here's the point - if one wants to be accepted as a legitimate employable academically respectable scientist, there are specific beliefs which one must accept. Failure to do so precludes becoming or remaining part of the scientific community.


No, you just need verifiable testable data. That was why he had trouble publishing. Plus his creationism work and references didn't help his cause.


The overwhelming majority of professional scientists claim to be "atheists."


That is false. The last poll I saw had just over 50% of scientists believing in god. That may be true of TOP scientists, but not all scientists as a whole.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I agree completely with Barc's post, above.

The existence of God does not fall within the purview of science. Neither does life after death, nor morality/ethics (although on the latter, there are fields, such as anthropology or biology, which may be helpful in aiding one's understanding of various cultural or evolutionary precedents). These things are not science because they are not falsifiable.

This is why I cringe when I hear people like Stephen Hawking trying to answer whether there is a God -- because he is claiming empirical evidence against something which cannot even be measured, let alone falsified. Unfortunately, there are people who misuse evidence in any field, for their own personal aims (which in Hawking's case is likely a desire to drive his media interests), and none of this undermines the salient differences between science and religion, which exist in spite of such claims.
edit on 10-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

If consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, explain how stimulating or damaging parts of the brain can drastically alter personality, memory, level of consciousness and sensory experience. Explain why mental development is correlated with brain development. Explain why mental activity is correlated with brain activity. None of these questions can be answered convincingly with the model of the brain being the receiver of some external signal of consciousness.

Fact of the matter is, although we don't understand the brain fully, any test of "if consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then..." has come back as affirmative.


Let's assume that the brain is the localized image of consciousness, kindof like an alter of consciousness at large, then surely affecting that brain in the ways you mention (growth, damage, etc) will indeed alter our experience.

If we imagine consciousness as a river, and the brain as a whirlpool in that river, then affecting the whirlpool will change it's shape and/or behaviour, or even causes it to cease to exist at all (death).

So all the things you describe can be explained in those terms, and do not point exclusively to consciousness as an emergent phenomenon.

In fact studies show that dampening down the functionality of certain parts of the brain actually induce profound experiences.

www.bbc.com...

So if that is true, then brain damage should also be able to do the same thing under the right circumstances. And sure enough that is exactly what has been reported over and over again. Here's an interesting study in that regard:

www.cell.com...(10)00052-8

So we're seeing exactly the opposite to what we'd expect if consciousness was an emergent property of the brain. Instead of reduced consciousness, hightened states of consciousness and highly lucid experiences are being reported (sometimes described as 'more real than everyday reality') in the face of sometimes severe brain damage and other causes of reduced brain integrity.

I think that's pretty tough to explain if consciousness is indeed an emergent property of brains.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: payt69

This requires great leaps in logic, over complications and many untestable assumptions to get the data to fit a model that does not give us any more explanatory power. Occam's Razor easily cuts this model down.

Let me ask you: why would any reasonable scientist accept this dualism model over the emergent model?
edit on 10-6-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: payt69

This requires great leaps in logic, over complications and many untestable assumptions to get the data to fit a model that does not give us any more explanatory power. Occam's Razor easily cuts this model down.

Let me ask you: why would any reasonable scientist accept this dualism model over the emergent model?


I beg to differ. To postulate that there's an external universe out there, outside of consciousness, which we can somehow perceive with an instrument called a brain is actually a much more inflationary. Let's have a look at Kastrup's 4 points of increasingly inflationary statements about reality that are entailed by materialism: (see here: www.bernardokastrup.com...)

1:Your conscious perceptions exist;
2:The conscious perceptions of other living entities different from your own, also exist;
3:There are things that exist independently of, and outside, conscious perception;
4:Things that exist independently of, and outside conscious perception generate conscious perception.

See the thing is: by postulating that there are streams of consciousness (alters, or whirlpools if you will) in consciousness at large, I've accounted for the totality of my experience. I have my own localized point of view (the whirlpool, which consists of nothing but water, much like a localized stream of consciousness consists of nothing but consciousness), and for me there's no need to invoke points 3 and 4. I am still allowing for other streams of consciousness which are beyond the perception of my local 'whirlpool'.

Materialists however do have to invoke points 3 and 4 for materialism to be true. They need to invoke an external world in which seperate entities exist which generate consciousness and conscious perception themselves.

That's why any true skeptic -who cares about invoking as few entities as possible to explain a phenomenon- would take this explanation seriously.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: payt69

Your argument is analogous to this in the way it attempts to force fit a model that makes extra untestable assumptions to the data whilst offering no further explanatory power:

The result of a coin toss is not actually chance, but chosen by a mystical, unobservable cosmic force according to a predetermined pattern that is indistinguishable from chance.

So I ask you again: Why would any reasonable scientist accept this dualism model over the emergent model? Or rather, why would any reasonable scientist pick the magical intelligence coin toss model over chance, as the data suggests?

Furthermore: What useful predictions does the dualism model make? What tests can be performed to rule out emergentism for dualism? How can this magical consciousness force be measures?
edit on 10-6-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: payt69

Your argument is analogous to this in the way it attempts to force fit a model that makes extra untestable assumptions to the data whilst offering no further explanatory power:

The result of a coin toss is not actually chance, but chosen by a mystical, unobservable cosmic force according to a predetermined pattern that is indistinguishable from chance.


What makes you think so? I'm sticking to what we know: consciousness. It's you who has to invoke an entire universe external to consciousness, which is pretty much analogous the magical force you're referring to here.


So I ask you again: Why would any reasonable scientist accept this dualism model over the emergent model? Or rather, why would any reasonable scientist pick the magical intelligence coin toss model over chance, as the data suggests?

Furthermore: What useful predictions does the dualism model make? What tests can be performed to rule out emergentism for dualism? How can this magical consciousness force be measures?


I've addressed that in my previous post (see the 4 points). if you don't understand what that's saying, let me know and I'll try to explain further.

The prediction it makes is also addressed by a former post, being that contrary to the predictions of the emergent model, what we're actually seeing Instead of reduced consciousness, hightened states of consciousness and highly lucid experiences are being reported (sometimes described as 'more real than everyday reality') in the face of sometimes severe brain damage and other causes of reduced brain integrity.

What you're referring to as 'magical consciousness force' is just your everyday consciousness in which all your experiences are seen/witnessed to be happening.

This is not dualistic either, as it states that consciousness is all there is. Dualism seems to be an assumption on your part, but I don't think I insinuated such a concept.

materialism on the other hand does suggest dualism in the sense of there being an external material universe outside of consciousmess, which in my accounting makes 2.
edit on 6201610 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: payt69

You're quoting a random computer engineer with no credentials in order to frame a false dichotomy. I'm not interested in any of that. Go find me a neuroscientist or neurologist who's active in their field if you wish to appeal to an authority.


The prediction it makes is also addressed by a former post, being that contrary to the predictions of the emergent model, what we're actually seeing Instead of reduced consciousness, hightened states of consciousness and highly lucid experiences are being reported


1) Where is this data?

2) And how do you dismiss the mountain of empirical evidence that correlates brain damage with reduced mental states?

3) And if this mystical source of consciousness is not dualism dressed up in a cheap dress, what is the source?

And you still haven't answered any of my previous questions.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: payt69

You're quoting a random computer engineer with no credentials in order to frame a false dichotomy. I'm not interested in any of that. Go find me a neuroscientist or neurologist who's active in their field if you wish to appeal to an authority.


lol.. how disappointing.. you want an appeal to authority from me? I think Bernardo Kastrups' writings stand on their own merits. For all I know he and I may be wrong, but I've yet to see any evidence of that


If you find something wrong in what he states, feel free to point it out.


1) Where is this data?

2) And how do you dismiss the mountain of empirical evidence that correlates brain damage with reduced mental states?

3) And if this mystical source of consciousness is not dualism dressed up in a cheap dress, what is the source?

And you still haven't answered any of my previous questions.


1: Here's an example: www.scientificamerican.com...
and this: www.pnas.org...

2: I'm not dismissing anything. But you're begging the question: what is a mental state? I suppose you're suggesting that mental states are part of the makeup of consciousness, whereas I'm suggesting that mental states are perceived IN consciousness (as they are part of the whirlpool and the way if functions IN the river) Like I said, if you affect the whirlpool, you'll affect the way it functions. But that doesn't undermine the way the 'whirlpool' relates to the 'river'. Nor does it provide evidence that consciousness is generated by the matter of the brain.

3: If there'd be a source of consciousness, it'd be dualism indeed. All we know is there IS consciousness, and I take it as a philosophical point of departure. I can only go by what I can infer from experience, and from that I know that there IS something which experiences, and that's what we call consciousness.


edit on 6201610 by payt69 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6201610 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Some problems with Kastrup's assertions are as follows:

1) The idea that consciousness exists as something other than a physical manifestion of brain fuction is not falsifiable. Therefore, it is not science. It is philosophy, even if there exists some science to support it.
2) Science is interested in things which can be investigated physically. Therefore, any testable hypothesis will undoubtedly involve the physical brain structures.
3) In short, all scientists can say is that the only component of consciousness which can be proven to exist is the physical brain.

Any good scientist will remain mute on the topic of whether there exists something beyond the physical body, except to say that it cannot be proven or substantiated empirically and therefore is not a suitable topic for scientific inquiry.


I am beginning to think that one of the main reasons so many people seem to think science is like a religion is because we lack sufficient education in our primary schools to give people a solid understanding of the proper role for science vs. philosophy with regard to our attempt to understand the world around us.

Science can only test that which is physical, and can only theorize convincingly upon that which is falsifiable.
edit on 10-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

I know you think your religion is good and theirs is bad, but most of those scriptures were written while they were being oppressed and ruled over by other people. Even holy war is supposed to be a battle within your mind. It boils down to interpretation. One can interpret and cherry pick old testament verses literally and murder anybody who worships other gods, or treat homosexuals unfairly. Or you can cherry pick verses in the Quaran to take literally and use it as justification to kill innocent people. Neither side is right, it depends how you interpret it.

Most moderate Muslims see the Quaran for the good verses and understand that it was written during war times. Similarly most moderate Christians see the old testament as out dated and understand that none of it should really be taken literally aside from the direct teachings of Jesus. That's why I find it funny when Christians scream about bad verses in the Quaran. 99% of them haven't even read the whole thing in context and their holy book contains things that are just as bad.


Firstly, you wrongly assume that I have a religion to speak of, and that I was not just making a contrast between the teaching of Islam vice Christianity..Secondly this has clearly derailed from the OPs thread and would be better discussed on a Christianity vs Islam thread, if you choose to make one I would happily show you the error of your ways in regards to the misconceptions you have been told about Islam (notice i never said Muslims?)



new topics




 
59
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join