Blinded by Scientism

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Should we then allow the belief in invisible purple unicorns only because POSSIBLY SOMETHING might exist out of our awareness?

Yes. We should. Should we encourage it? No. Should we, as people who believe in scientists, believe that they do exist? No. Should we permit the most general possibility of their existence beyond our realm of perception? Sure. Stop being a jackass and use your head.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

 

I would be hesitant to compare good science to religion. The unifying element among all religions - as far as I can tell - is faith based beliefs, usually including a belief in a mystical (and causally relevant) aspect of reality.

Any significantly advanced technology...

Seriously, though. I am of the belief that there is much mor ein the universe than we have dreamed of yet, and some of these natural forces are what we have in the past thought of as supernatural. We'll hopefully learn to harness them again someday; then we'll get the Mystical part back, but it will be just as scientific as electromagnetism.

But that's neither here nor there, actually. and it probably isn't even going to happen, despite the wannabe author in me. What IS here is that bad science does have the tendency to become stronger than good science, because it purports to give absolute answers to the big questions.

Plus, good science engages in bad science all the time without noticing it. Check out the works of Charles Fort... not to mention the much more verifiable position of the Royal Society back in the 1800s that rocks could never fall from the sky.

reply to post by Subconsciously Correct



I would like to see some positive verifiable instances of his future predictions coming true; also some positive evidence for his beloved Atlantis. Then science will be able to figure out how psychic powers work.

reply to post by Kaytagg


Make believe stories? You realize the Edgar Cayce readings were in the mid 20th century and were documented, right? Several know who he is. The man is a legend. I have had OBE's, so I do not need anyone to tell me if they are "real" or not. Believe what you want I guess.

See, this is where science fails. I have researched these topics extensively. This isn't something I stumbled upon on the internet. Science just says "it isn't true." Well, I challenge you, the "science is the only way" believer, to practice what you preach and actually research these topics to the extent that I have. Books, meditation, scholarly articles, the whole works. These are real events my friend. I guess I can't convince you, and you will just say "they are not real because science says so." Good luck I guess.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Subconsciously Correct]

To the last reply, Cayce himself said the future can be changed by what we do now, which only makes sense. It is no wonder why his predictions were money for several years, then mostly accurate as years passed, and recently are becoming less accurate. We have more time to change future events as life goes on. The man predicted things unprecedented and I do not see how science can explain it, so I'm sure it will just say "It is not true" ect.

reply to post by Subconsciously Correct


Alright, disregarding the fact that you misunderstood what was being called a myth, and the fact that it's questionable how well documented his successes were...

This is NOT "where science fails." It is where the scientific community fails. That is, if you're correct about there being something there. No, there probably hasn't been a solid, unbiased inquiry into Cayce. Maybe we should set one up. How do we do that, though?

If you've done the research, gather it all up. Show us an overwhelming corroboration between his predictions and the events that occurred, rather than just claiming there is one. There are 14000 of his predictions which remain; show me that 10000 came true, and I'll believe you. Show me that 7000 came true, and I'll look at more myself. Show me that 2000 came true, and my curiosity will be piqued. Show me that 3 are true, and I won't give a damn.

reply to post by Subconsciously Correct


Why don't you learn how science works, just for sh!ts and giggles, and then SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFY these things -- since you seem to be the expert on "OBEs" and what not.

Here's an idea.. use your OBE x-men powers to tell the ATS community which popular SCIFI series DVD boxset I have sitting on top of my DVD player right now. Hell, that's an easy one. Truthfully, you should have about a 1/25 chance of guessing this one. Bet you wont get it right though, even with your OBE abilities.

reply to post by Kaytagg


Despite the asshattery, I support this challenge. If you have time, name one of the books on my "these books formed me" bookshelf. One that isn't by Robert Anton Wilson.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct

 

Why don't you learn how science works, just for sh!ts and giggles, and then SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFY these things -- since you seem to be the expert on "OBEs" and what not.

You obviously have missed the point of this entire debate, or what i thought was a debate and now am questioning...

Science cannot explain it alone, and I challenged you to do so.

So I challenge you to explain it scientifically and you tell me to "scientifically verify these things?" Is that really your scientific argument? Man, I expected more from science alone.

reply to post by Solasis


I bet if I read more of your posts I might be able to guess.. here's a shot in the dark: Surely you're joking Mr feynman

That's probably wrong.. but if it's right, I just want everybody to know that it wasn't a lucky guess, rather I have special god gifted powers and you should donate money to me for being one of the chosen ones.

I never claimed I could OBE on command. i said I have OBE'd before. How could I prove that scientifically? Unless you see me OBE'ing you'll never believe me. If by some chance I spontaneously OBE (the only way I have ever done it...it happens more in my dream states after lots of meditation) then I will try and do so. As I said, I have never done it on command, and I hope I one day will.

reply to post by Subconsciously Correct


In all seriousness, subconsciously correct, do not let my stupidity and short patience interfere with any legitimate debate you're having with somebody else in the thread; I sincerely do not mean to disrupt or derail your discussions, and I apologize if you're taking this badly.. I'm not trying to sound rude, although it may come off that way because text hides the subtleties in tone, expression, etc, in conversation; But, you should know, I mean everything I say, and I think you are truly being misguided by embracing these --- what I consider to be --- crazy ideas and "evidence" of supernatural powers.

reply to post by Astyanax


Then by all means report me instead of attempting to threaten me with it? And actually it's very off topic as the thread is about the article and the points made there in you can't even be bothered to read. Wonder why that is...... Rather showing that.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct

 

Alright, disregarding the fact that you misunderstood what was being called a myth, and the fact that it's questionable how well documented his successes were...

This is NOT "where science fails." It is where the scientific community fails. That is, if you're correct about there being something there. No, there probably hasn't been a solid, unbiased inquiry into Cayce. Maybe we should set one up. How do we do that, though?

If you've done the research, gather it all up. Show us an overwhelming corroboration between his predictions and the events that occurred, rather than just claiming there is one. There are 14000 of his predictions which remain; show me that 10000 came true, and I'll believe you. Show me that 7000 came true, and I'll look at more myself. Show me that 2000 came true, and my curiosity will be piqued. Show me that 3 are true, and I won't give a damn.

Sure, will do. This is time consuming and will have to wait till the weekend when I am out of school and off campus.

PS - I used to not believe in spirituality at all, so it is not like I am biased. It wasn't until I performed research, experienced these events, ect. that I began to slowly believe and now fully believe all is connected. I do not expect you to believe me, and I do not expect you to believe me even if I show evidence you ask for. You will believe as you wish, but at your request I will do it this weekend. I'm off to finish my hw for the rest of tonight.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by Subconsciously Correct

 

In all seriousness, subconsciously correct, do not let my stupidity and short patience interfere with any legitimate debate you're having with somebody else in the thread; I sincerely do not mean to disrupt or derail your discussions, and I apologize if you're taking this badly.. I'm not trying to sound rude, although it may come off that way because text hides the subtleties in tone, expression, etc, in conversation; But, you should know, I mean everything I say, and I think you are truly being misguided by embracing these --- what I consider to be --- crazy ideas and "evidence" of supernatural powers.

Hey, I'm not offended. I used to be an atheist after all. I used to be on your side of the fence, and I used to think people were 'whackos" and still believe some are in their own sense. I don't see how OBE's is crazy at all. It is something spontaneous I have experienced and several others have for thousands of years (some can do it on command, and that makes me jealous).

It's not like I'm saying I can fly and light stuff on fire here. Precognition and OBE's are nothing new and not out of the ordinary. It just can't be explained alone by science so people choose to believe it is weird. That is ok, and I respect it.

reply to post by OnceReturned

And Asty, you know very well your challenge is impossible. Or at least, solving it would be substantially more than a footnote in history.

And that, Once, is my answer to the 'scientism' accusation in a nutshell.

As you know very well.

reply to post by Subconsciously Correct


Well find whoever can do an OBE on command, and tell them to tell you what popular SCIFI dvd box set is sitting ontop of my dvd player. Then, maybe, I'll believe in this junk.

reply to post by Subconsciously Correct


Holy crap, I didn't expect you to actually agree to it! I'm so used to people going "do the research yourself!"

I'll help you out in anyway I can, since you're willing to actually do this. I'll even drop the parameters for my willingness to look a whole lot deeper -- if we can find just 100 truly verifiable fulfilled prophecies, I'll dig much, much deeper. I've got schoolwork too, so no rush.

I have to say, I am deeply impressed, and sorry about any rudeness I directed towards you.

Plus, I am the sort of person who can be convinced by evidence -- it just has to be solid evidence. The only dogma I have that I'm both aware of and not willing to attempt to revise is a need for proof. and a need for cooperation on both sides of the fence

But, no, seriously, if I can help you out with this this weekend, let me know.

reply to post by Wertdagf


I just want to ask something; You mentioned before that we have technology to be able to "View" peoples thoughts, whilst describing how we use technology to map out neural pathways.

How did you come to the conclusion that we can "see" thoughts? As this is not what a scan will tell anyone. The scans signify which parts of the brain are becoming active at any given time due to any given stimulus. This means that you can track and trace the neuropathways and their paths through the different brain centres, but you cannot decipher what is going inside those pathways, therefor you cannot "see" anything except chemical and heat signatures.

It just seems to me that you have a lot of faith in science and seem to love boasting about it's progression and leaps etc, whilst not even fully understanding what the technology can do - does this not make you ignorant.

So i read you saying all these things about "man in the sky" and having to be "tucked in to bed at night by God" and i wonder, if you don't even have a basic understanding of how any brain scan works, or the results thereof, how can you be sure that you even understand or comprehend the idea of a creating entity?

When science poses more questions than answers, how can you even try and compare the idea of a phylosophical God, to a flawed language (science) that struggles to understand and describe the basic fundamentals of our universe?

I am of equal weighting as far as science and religion are concerned. Neither one nor the other contains ALL the answers that are posed by any questions. However, i enjoy phylosophy and Theology as well as learning and reading about new technological scientific advances.

There's no need to "bag" out other peoples religions or ideologies, just accept that everyone here has their own opinion and by picking them to peices you just paint yourself as an evangelical "atheist" who uses "science" as a launching pad for arguments against peoples religions and personal phylosophies..

Chill bro

reply to post by FeralMonkeyMagic


The differance here is that the apocolypse will be televised. I can stand in my tower, because its all coming to my frount door.

How long ago was the technology you described created and used to decipher thoughts? How much time do you think it will take to accomplish the things i have spoken of?

Im at the destination of the argument. All of you kids can play around with the superficial nature of this logic and waste your time trying to prove negitives. Running around saying all discoverys made by logic are fallible because there MIGHT be something outside of the system is redundant and useless.

Enjoy your Post-trumatic science disorder.

reply to post by Wertdagf


What? No, the point isn't that all conclusions made by logic are fallible. The point is that there are some conclusions that are true which logic can't reach. Is THAT where this whole dispute has come from? You misunderstood what was being said? Yeesh.

Plus, we don't have the technology yet. They only just now managed to prove that they could resolve thoughtscans into information understandable by those-who-are-not-the-thinker with a whooooooooooooooooooooole lot of work. And it's not very complicated information that they can get out of it yet. The tech you claim is probably at least a decade off; probably much much more.

www.npr.org...

reply to post by Solasis


So how exactly does this help anyones position on anything? what use is this information?

Truths like.....

snowcone consuming invisible purple fart collecting unicorns?

God sneezed out all of reality?

The archeitech turned on the reality machine and started the program?

The great universe egg hatched reality into being?

That whole buddist lotus flower bull&%^* with the midgit?