Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Science Delusion

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolfie0827
 


You need to read the research on transmitting the particle through a wall, it does not at all suggest what you want it to.




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolfie0827
 

I'm afraid you've been misled by the pseudoscientists and charlatans who prey on folk who dream of a better life in a happier world. Such people are evil; they exploit the humanity and credulity of people like yourself by spreading the lies and misconceptions they call science.

Almost every word you have posted in this thread has been drawn from such sources. Not a word of it is true.


a new book by a Cambridge Professor

Rupert Sheldrake is not a professor at Cambridge or any other university. His views are not scientific and they are not, as far as I know, endorsed by any reputable scientist.


Quantum Physics already implies (that 'morphic resonance') exists.

It certainly does not.

Quantum mechanics portrays a world in which things we consider bizarre or impossible sometimes happen, or seem to. However, most of the narratives the new age community likes best about quantum mechanics, such as multiple realities and mind over matter, are just attempts to make sense of the apparently nonsensical predictions of the science. They are pure speculation, not scientific fact.

For example, a lot of new-age types and fellow travellers like to claim that, as observation sometimes determines the type of result obtained in a quantum experiment, consciousness has to be the ultimate reality and mind must create the universe. But if this were true, surely the observer effect would be controllable. In fact, the outcome of a quantum experiment can only be estimated beforehand; in the quantum world, mind actually has less power over matter than in the classical world, where an experimental outcome can often be predicted with near-hundred-percent confidence.


transmitting particles through a wall as per thread in this forum, changing spin and or charge at a distance between two separate particles at a distance.

Unusual quantum effects are not caused by any kind of 'morphic resonance' but are the natural result of physical laws that operate in the real world. They occur whether or not living beings are involved.


Carl Jung and his "Sinchrynicity" which in psychology is an accepted fact. Look it up, it involves racial/community (meaning outside the brain) memory.

You mean synchronicity, aka coincidence. Synchronicity is not an 'accepted fact' in psychology; it has no place at all in modern psychology. Neither have the ideas of Jung, though I, personally, find them attractive and inspiring. By the way, 'race memory' does not comprise actual memories; what Jung meant by that phrase was that the experiences of our ancestors, not just human but animal, is coded into our minds as instinctive drives, fears, etc.


Anything effecting the quantum particles effects the atoms it is a part of thus effecting the whole. When this happens the make up of the whole system can be effected.

Incorrect. The less probable configurations of large objects are eliminated by interaction between the quantum states of their component atoms and molecules. This is why a wardrobe never looks like a toilet to us.


there is no universal constants only what we measure, and when we measure.

You are greatly mistaken. The speed of light in vacuum, c, is always the same no matter how we measure it. Planck's constant h, which determines the ratio between the energy of a particle and the frequency of its associated wave, is another such invariable. Other quantities that never change no matter how they are measured include Newton's gravitational constant, Avogadro's number, Boltzmann's constant, the rest masses of protons, neutrons and electrons, the fine structure constant, etc. The real world and its structure exist beyond human opinion.


How does this not jive with the scientific data that has been excepted by the scientific community?

I fear you have been badly misled about just what is and what is not 'accepted by the scientific community'! The lesson here is that one needs to learn one's science from authoritative scientific sources, not new age books and web sites.

edit on 16/4/12 by Astyanax because: of details.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by BedlamMore, it should be easy for him to prove it. Surely generations of kids learning English grammar have made it a snap these days, by his theory they ought to pick up the book and know it! Oh, wait, they don't. Same with math - it still takes about the same time to learn the same things. Alas.


They learn more in less time.

In my Grandparent's day, Geography meant rote learning all the countries and all the towns in those countries. When I went to school it was less about that and more about learning the complex processes which help shape the earth.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
His explorations into the liminal areas of science are particularly unpopular with dogmatic sceptics, who regard the work as ‘pseudoscience’ and “outside the scope of scientific experiment’.


Its very easy to shut those dogmatic skeptics up. Just provide the evidence that shows this morphic resonance exists.
Yeah.. That's very easy in theory.. But in practice, these so-called 'skeptics' refuse to look at anything related to such topics, including scientific evidence. It will get called 'unscientific' or 'pseudoscience' before anything is looked at in an objective manner.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


You either have scientific evidence or you don't. To date, no scientific evidence of any statistical significance has been presented. You can cry "suppression" and "dogma" all you like but until scientific evidence is presented, don't be suprised when such wild claims fall on deaf ears.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 

Nonsense... Go look at research from Rupert Sheldrake.

You're exactly proving the point.. Let me quote something...


With respect to (a) materialism held as an empirical hypothesis about the world, the evidence against it is overwhelming. With respect to (b) materialism held as an ideology, evidence against it is logically impossible. A complicating factor is that the fundamaterialist typically holds the metabelief that his belief in materialism is not ideological, but empirical. That is, he misclassifies himself under (a), while his behavior clearly falls under (b). The debunker and skeptic believes that he is being "scientific" in ignoring and rejecting the evidence against materialism. He claims that the evidence is weak, that it is not compelling, that it can be easily explained away by the materialist paradigm. But when asked what kind of evidence it would take to convince him that materialism is empirically false, he is, like my colleague, usually at a loss for what to say. If he's not familiar with the data, he'll come up with a criterion of evidence which in fact has already been met. When it is pointed out to him that there exist many well-documented cases which satisfy his proposed criterion, he will simply make his criterion more stringent, and at some point he crosses the line between the reasonable demand for scientific evidence and the unreasonable (and unscientific) demand for logical proof.
--------------------------------------
Science is a methodological process of discovering truths about reality. Insofar as science is an objective process of discovery, it is, and must be, metaphysically neutral. Insofar as science is not metaphysically neutral, but instead weds itself to a particular metaphysical theory, such as materialism, it cannot be an objective process for discovery. There is much confusion on this point, because many people equate science with materialist metaphysics, and phenomena which fall outside the scope of such metaphysics, and hence cannot be explained in physical terms, are called "unscientific". This is a most unfortunate usage of the term. For if souls and spirits are in fact a part of reality, and science is conceived epistemologically as a systematic investigation of reality, then there is no reason why science cannot devise appropriate methods to investigate souls and spirits. But if science is defined in terms of materialist metaphysics, then, if souls and spirits are real, science, thus defined, will not be able to deal with them. But this would be, not because souls and spirits are unreal, but rather because this definition of science (in terms of materialist metaphysics) has semantically excluded nonphysical realities from it scope.

Sound familiar...? Continued:


I wish to insist, it is science itself, understood epistemologically as a metaphysically neutral method of inquiry, which has discovered the limitations of materialism. After all, the primary researchers in the field are not philosophers or theologians, but well-trained scientists and physicians, who, using standard scientific methodology, have been forced by their data to conclude that materialism cannot be the whole truth.

I stress this semantic point about how the word "scientific" should be used in part because the term carries a lot of emotional weight. To be labeled "unscientific" is sufficient for having one's work or one's self dismissed and ignored by the academic establishment. And I think this is part of the reason academics are in fact dismissive of the research on the NDE. The reasoning goes something like this: to be scientific is good; to be unscientific is bad. Science = materialism. To believe in souls and spirits, or even to talk about souls and spirits, is to talk about and/or believe in something which is not materialistic. Therefore it is unscientific, which is bad, and hence we shouldn't waste any time on it. I believe that most of my colleagues think like this. The false premise, upon which the argument hangs, is the equating of science with materialism, an equation so deeply ingrained that it is difficult to root out. But I think even the most die-hard materialist ought to grant the following hypothetical: if souls, etc. are real, that is if non-material objects exist, then it should be possible to study them, to acquire data about them, to construct generalizations and theories about them, etc., which is to say, it should be possible to study them scientifically. Hence science ought to be construed as a method of inquiry only, not as a metaphysical theory which stipulates by definition what there is, and what can or cannot exist.

Source

Go take your bias somewhere else.
edit on 16-4-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


I said "scientific evidence", not websites like "UFO Skeptic". The fact that you cannot differentiate between scientific evidence and psuedo-scientific "evidence" is not the problem of the so-called "skeptics". Again, support your claims with scientific evidence if you wish to persevere with them.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 

I told you where to find evidence.. But yet again, you ignore it.. I'll do you a favor, but minds like yours are the problem of humanity. Here are two.






posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


People who subscribe to all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas have an awful habit of dismissing scientific method and research out of hand because it's findings to date don't line up with their personal belief system. To me, that's somewhere between wilful ignorance and delusion. You've taken it one step further by insinuating that there is indeed scientific evidence to support your beliefs but the "skeptics" refuse to acknowledge it. I have asked you two times already so this will be my third: post up the scientific evidence that supports your assertions. Papers from legitimate, peer-reviewed journals is scientific evidence. Unsourced Youtube videos, websites and all that stuff is not. You claim to have the former so post it up for all to see.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie0827 or is it something else?


I'm going to vote "something else", and that something else would be "they've always done that trick with the grubs since we really started observing them". Oh, and "you use tools yourself and are fairly closely related".



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
Ok, lets go old school (probably older than you and you take it for granted), Carl Jung and his "Sinchrynicity" which in psychology is an accepted fact.


I don't think synchronicity is actually 'accepted fact', but if so, wouldn't you have to accept Jung's theory that UFOs are nothing more than an externalization of societal angst? There aren't any aliens. Sorry, aliens, you got Junged.

At any rate, there are a great many soft and mooshy accepted facts in psychology which do not properly translate into physics. They're not even universals among people.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
reply to post by dragonridr
 

Anything effecting the quantum particles effects the atoms it is a part of thus effecting the whole. When this happens the make up of the whole system can be effected. And just how does this not jive with the scientific data that has been excepted by the scientific community?


This statement doesn't actually make sense. It sounds like something Geordi LaForge would say just before he reversed the polarity of the encabulator.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie0827

Thus there is no universal constants only what we measure, and when we measure.


I think Mr Planck would like to have a word with you. Of course there are. Why are they what they are, aye, THAT's the real question.




Yes and no, that there is a "database" that started with almost nothing but is constantly added too, and the statistical weight goes to the most efficient, but that not all goes there.


That route leads to an infinite reduction. What stores the database? What caused it to be there? Then what caused THAT to create the thing that created the database? Pretty soon it's turtles all the way down.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
reply to post by Bedlam
 


No according to him it should only make it easier for them, how they handle it is up to them...



But that's exactly my point. It DOESN'T seem to be making it easier for them. And if it did, it should be very VERY easy to test for. Did he? A handful of grad students and some flatworms would tell the tale. You'd think that he'd be leaping at the chance. Hell, you could probably do a metastudy and find your answer. For example - do the undergrads at school [x] taking animal behavior do some sort of time-honored flatworm teaching exercise that's gone on for years? Well, if so, there should have been a notable decrease in maze-running times over the decades. Is there? Bet not.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by vasaga
 


People who subscribe to all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas have an awful habit of dismissing scientific method and research out of hand because it's findings to date don't line up with their personal belief system. To me, that's somewhere between wilful ignorance and delusion. You've taken it one step further by insinuating that there is indeed scientific evidence to support your beliefs but the "skeptics" refuse to acknowledge it. I have asked you two times already so this will be my third: post up the scientific evidence that supports your assertions. Papers from legitimate, peer-reviewed journals is scientific evidence. Unsourced Youtube videos, websites and all that stuff is not. You claim to have the former so post it up for all to see.
Yeah because looking up a name or listening and looking up the papers presented for yourself is too much work right...? This is slowly sounding a lot like I quoted before...


But when asked what kind of evidence it would take to convince him that materialism is empirically false, he is, like my colleague, usually at a loss for what to say. If he's not familiar with the data, he'll come up with a criterion of evidence which in fact has already been met. When it is pointed out to him that there exist many well-documented cases which satisfy his proposed criterion, he will simply make his criterion more stringent, and at some point he crosses the line between the reasonable demand for scientific evidence and the unreasonable (and unscientific) demand for logical proof.


Second favor.. Here's one of your sources mister so-called skeptic.. Biased sheeple would be a better description than skeptic...
Here

Or

Here

Or

Here

Now I'm gonna wait for you to find yet another excuse as to why these don't qualify.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

Sorry all ready have, and it suggests the particle does not actually pass through the wall, it gets to the wall and using the light as a guide on the other side, just appears on the other side in the light path.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Wolfie0827
 


a new book by a Cambridge Professor

Rupert Sheldrake is not a professor at Cambridge or any other university. His views are not scientific and they are not, as far as I know, endorsed by any reputable scientist.




Sorry, I stated that wrong, He was a Cambridge professor, And he does still work for them, They fund most of his work, Read the article, Second, check the Cambridge website and look up faculty you will find him listed. This in my opinion makes all the rest of your argument mute.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

there is no universal constants only what we measure, and when we measure. You are greatly mistaken. The speed of light in vacuum, c, is always the same no matter how we measure it. Planck's constant h, which determines the ratio between the energy of a particle and the frequency of its associated wave, is another such invariable. Other quantities that never change no matter how they are measured include Newton's gravitational constant, Avogadro's number, Boltzmann's constant, the rest masses of protons, neutrons and electrons, the fine structure constant, etc. The real world and its structure exist beyond human opinion.


Sorry, but the speed of light various from measurement to measurement but is averaged to what we call the constant, ask any physics grad student, if they paid attention they can tell you this.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

How does this not jive with the scientific data that has been excepted by the scientific community? I fear you have been badly misled about just what is and what is not 'accepted by the scientific community'! The lesson here is that one needs to learn one's science from authoritative scientific sources, not new age books and web sites.


No New-age crap here, I think the new-agers are a bunch of "feel good crackpots"

Now for learning my Science from Reputable sources"
2 years Consumer Law from OSU
2 Years General Physics from OSU
2 Years Computer Science from OSU
2 1/2 years Psychology from OSU
1 year Philosophy from OSU

I'm assuming you think one of the top Universities in the country (Ohio State University) is reputable enough?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie0827

Sorry, but the speed of light various from measurement to measurement but is averaged to what we call the constant, ask any physics grad student, if they paid attention they can tell you this.


The measurements vary from measurement to measurement, because any measurement is subject to limits of accuracy and precision. Any science student can tell you that, generally in high school, if they paid any attention.





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
44
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join