Why Do I Believe in the Scientfic Method?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

there is another assumption at work in that pdf. That humans are necessary or important to the universe in some way. So yes, god could exist if humans are important, but everything we know about the universe suggests that we are merely just a fluke because a bunch of variables aligned to develop us through evolution.

Does not quantum mechanics tell us that a observer is necessary ? If not then what does quantum mechanics tell us ?

Science starts with the most basic things possible and builds from there. So science starts at the dawn of the universe (or rather as far back as we can look which is the Big Bang even if that isn't necessarily the dawn of the universe) and works its way forward on how we got to where we are.

So start with the basics of quantum mechanics and ask yourself who or what was observing the beginning's of stuff ? You can call it a big bang but even that part has differing camps but we can both agree that it was a big deal . The why's has more of a personal nature of God from my perspective and only He can honestly answer that . It (the answers) comes within the small details inside scripture and is linked to love .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Does not quantum mechanics tell us that a observer is necessary ? If not then what does quantum mechanics tell us ?

This is a misunderstanding of the observer effect. This article explains your error better than I can.
Consciousness and the misunderstood observer effect

These are all incorrect interpretations of the observer effect. In each one, there is an underlying assumption of a conscious observer altering or fulfilling the results in the real universe with their perception or knowledge. In the double slit experiment, the observer has an effect by knowing which slit an electron or photon passes through. In Bishop Berkley’s tree falling in the forest, the sound is only present if there is a human ear to hear it. In Schrodinger’s Cat, the state of the cat is undetermined until the box is opened and a person looks inside.

To think about how the observer is vaguely or incorrectly specified, we should ask ourselves, “When precisely does the observation actually occur?” Is it when the photons from the slit-detector first reach the light-sensitive molecules in our retina? Or when sound stimulates the ear drum? When that causes an electrical signal in the optic nerve or the cochlea? When that signal reaches the occipital cortex or temporal lobe? When it is transmitted to the frontal cortex? Or only when the (likely nonexistant) soul is informed?

Is consciousness required for the observation? Experiments with severing the corpus callosum demonstrate that one half of the brain can identify an image without the conscious awareness of the other half. So, the answer seems to be that consciousness is not required for observation. Or, at best, that “consciousness” is so poorly understood that saying it is *required* for the universe (or any part of it) to exist, is simply another form of “god of the gaps” mysticism.

So start with the basics of quantum mechanics and ask yourself who or what was observing the beginning's of stuff ? You can call it a big bang but even that part has differing camps but we can both agree that it was a big deal . The why's has more of a personal nature of God from my perspective and only He can honestly answer that . It (the answers) comes within the small details inside scripture and is linked to love .

Again you are fundamentally misunderstanding what Quantum Mechanics calls an observation.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Why do you, Astrocyte, believe in the scientific method, when most science is false...here politics and ego play a part (emotions too, ?).

As to everything else, there is an idea from literature that may teach us that "It's a mad world. Mad as bedlam, boy"!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you self aware ? If you can observe the you that you are then what is observation ? Seems to me that even with out sight and sound one can observe the self . So observing requires a conscious being . It requires a imagination that starts with a self .

There is no 'observer' - because really there are no things, an 'observer' is a concept. Reality is not made of things.
There is no observer but there is observing.
Seeing, observing is happening - yet there isn't 'something' seeing.

The assumption is that you are doing seeing - this makes two. There is no you doing seeing. There is simply seeing/observing.
This video is just 2 minutes long but should clear things up.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Language is or can be ambiguous at times to specifics and your vid is a good example . I bumped into this vid " Stuart Hameroff on Singularity 1 on 1: Consciousness is More than Computation!.
Dr. Stuart Hameroff is a Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. Together with British quantum physicist Sir Roger Penrose, Hameroff is the co-author of the controversial Orch OR model of consciousness ... " its more a look into the hard mechanics of some of the how's and why's of consciousness but seems to move towards the ideal answer to try to understand what is reality . I find it a very interesting subject and there are many YT vids that delve into it .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you self aware ? If you can observe the you that you are then what is observation ? Seems to me that even with out sight and sound one can observe the self . So observing requires a conscious being . It requires a imagination that starts with a self .

Not in Quantum Mechanics it doesn't. This is you yet again misconstruing the scientific usage of a word with the layman version.

a reply to: Astrocyte

The beautiful thing about the Sci. Method is belief is not necessary. It works whether you believe in it or not. When used properly it works everytime.

a reply to: rickymouse

I concur that science is broken and I too see the flaws in methodology when reading study/research papers, particularly in the calculation of statistics; here, anything goes.

www.cracked.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: rickymouse

I concur that science is broken and I too see the flaws in methodology when reading study/research papers, particularly in the calculation of statistics; here, anything goes.

www.cracked.com...

I would have to say that that cracked article is pretty accurate. But there is always some truth to research, often the conclusion is masked to make it look more relevant than it is though.

I just read that California has deemed that coffee is a carcinogen because of a chemical in it....it doesn't matter that many chemicals in it are actually anticancer, they focus on one chemical and even the court there substantuated the claim they made. Coffee is way more anticancer than it is cancerous. So by focusing on one chemical in it, they have classified coffee as bad for you. I guess since coffee is a nootropic which makes you be able to reason better, making people is beneficial to the people taking all of the research money. Things that make us smarter are a threat to their continued funding, things that make you compliant and believe science like red wine, that is good for you. Doesn't matter if most wine does not contain much revesterol, and that revestoral levels are higher in coffee than commercial wines, the wine makes you believe them without question since you cannot properly see the whole picture.

That is just one piece of trash I have seen, don't even get me started on the Avacado.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: rickymouse

I concur that science is broken and I too see the flaws in methodology when reading study/research papers, particularly in the calculation of statistics; here, anything goes.

www.cracked.com...

Not all science is correct (that is a given as after all science is performed by humans and even scientists have character flaws), but you should beware of using research like that to try to "prove" that all science is flawed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: rickymouse

I concur that science is broken and I too see the flaws in methodology when reading study/research papers, particularly in the calculation of statistics; here, anything goes.

www.cracked.com...

Not all science is correct (that is a given as after all science is performed by humans and even scientists have character flaws), but you should beware of using research like that to try to "prove" that all science is flawed.

I didn't say "all" science was flawed, just that it is broken in many ways and we should be vigilant in pointing out the flaws.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: rickymouse

I concur that science is broken and I too see the flaws in methodology when reading study/research papers, particularly in the calculation of statistics; here, anything goes.

www.cracked.com...

I would have to say that that cracked article is pretty accurate. But there is always some truth to research, often the conclusion is masked to make it look more relevant than it is though.

I just read that California has deemed that coffee is a carcinogen because of a chemical in it....it doesn't matter that many chemicals in it are actually anticancer, they focus on one chemical and even the court there substantuated the claim they made. Coffee is way more anticancer than it is cancerous. So by focusing on one chemical in it, they have classified coffee as bad for you. I guess since coffee is a nootropic which makes you be able to reason better, making people is beneficial to the people taking all of the research money. Things that make us smarter are a threat to their continued funding, things that make you compliant and believe science like red wine, that is good for you. Doesn't matter if most wine does not contain much revesterol, and that revestoral levels are higher in coffee than commercial wines, the wine makes you believe them without question since you cannot properly see the whole picture.

That is just one piece of trash I have seen, don't even get me started on the Avacado.

Please do start on the avocado and then we can move onto the cholesterol hoax.

a reply to: Astrocyte


Can you go in to a trance and traverse your unconscious like Jung, i am studying different methods of "active imagination" and would appreciate your input.

a reply to: InTheLight

I'm not accusing you of anything; just that stuff like that is used by people on ATS to push fringe theories. Like saying that because mainstream science is flawed that means this alternate idea I have is more credible. It doesn't work like that and is a logical fallacy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

I'm not accusing you of anything; just that stuff like that is used by people on ATS to push fringe theories. Like saying that because mainstream science is flawed that means this alternate idea I have is more credible. It doesn't work like that and is a logical fallacy.

So, if they push fringe theories why not just debunk those theories instead of curtailing others' opinions?

a reply to: InTheLight

That's what I'm getting at. If you are going to post a fringe theory, then you need to prove your fringe theory, not debunk something else and assume an "either/or" situation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

That's what I'm getting at. If you are going to post a fringe theory, then you need to prove your fringe theory, not debunk something else and assume an "either/or" situation.

It's neither/nor, the examples given are exact instances of how science is broken; broken methodology; specifics, so no need to debunk.

a reply to: InTheLight

It's not "broken"; it's flawed. But everything is flawed because there is no such thing as perfection in reality. Though, currently, it is the best methodology of discovery that we have.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

It's not "broken"; it's flawed. But everything is flawed because there is no such thing as perfection in reality. Though, currently, it is the best methodology of discovery that we have.

It is broken when politics, ego and status play a part in not bringing to light the flaws/inaccuracies.