Book Burning

[Thorne]

Well, seems to me many scientists try to monopolise reality. If they do not have it in their books, it isn't there.

That's not quite it. If it cannot be measured, cannot be touched, cannot be seen, and does not appear to have any measurable effects on the universe around us, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Even if it does exist, if it has no effects upon us, then it might as well not exist. That doesn't mean that sometime down the road we won't develop a means to detect it, if it's there. And if we should do so we would certainly have to revise our hypotheses about the existence of gods. As would the religious.

I do not think so, there will always be more! Even if we manage to survive the next hundreds or thousands of years.

I tend to agree. But infinity is a funny thing. If humanity manages to survive long enough, who knows what is possible?

Wrong. There is enough research that proves that placebo works, even when you know it is placebo. You can learn to use that.

To some extent, perhaps. Though most of what I've read indicates that if the patient KNOWS it is a placebo it's unlikely to work. Most of the benefits from the placebo effect (as I understand it) seem to allow the body to relax, relieving stress, and letting the natural systems work to their full potential. Very similar to the effects of prayer, I believe.

And weapens, pollution, overpopulation...science helps us eat up the world.

And science will help us repair the damage we've done, if we allow it. Of course that would require sacrifice from everyone, something which is not likely to happen voluntarily.

Science isn't something mysterious that comes from above or out of nowhere! Scientists are people, and they are responsible for their results, and should be using their heads!

Very true. Science is a process. The scientific method is the best tool we have to make sure that science is done properly and that results mirror reality. Yes, scientists are people, and can be just as corrupt and dogmatic as any other people. But the method tends to expose such, eventually, and helps to insure that progress marches on. Sometimes there are steps backwards, and mostly the forward steps are baby steps, but the general movement is towards a better understanding of reality.

I do not buy the idea that if it is called scientific, then anything goes.

Neither do I.

[thir]

That's not quite it. If it cannot be measured, cannot be touched, cannot be seen, and does not appear to have any measurable effects on the universe around us, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.

I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.

Even if it does exist, if it has no effects upon us, then it might as well not exist.

Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?

That doesn't mean that sometime down the road we won't develop a means to detect it, if it's there. And if we should do so we would certainly have to revise our hypotheses about the existence of gods. As would the religious.
<snip>
If humanity manages to survive long enough, who knows what is possible?

What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.

most of what I've read indicates that if the patient KNOWS it is a placebo it's unlikely to work.

Surprisingly, this is not so: "However, placebos can also have a surprisingly positive effect on a patient who knows that the given treatment is without any active drug, as compared with a control group who knowingly did not get a placebo.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Most of the benefits from the placebo effect (as I understand it) seem to allow the body to relax, relieving stress, and letting the natural systems work to their full potential. Very similar to the effects of prayer, I believe.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works

And science will help us repair the damage we've done, if we allow it. Of course that would require sacrifice from everyone, something which is not likely to happen voluntarily.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.

General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation. That is a holy cow that needs slaughtering, and sommon sense - as of neccesity seperated from profit - kicking in instead.

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?

I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.

I think it is time to start thinking about what we actually need, and what we should not have or do, to control what happens with us and the globe instead of running along with all possible speed - blindfolded, because noone is interestes in anything but immediate profit.

Very true. Science is a process. The scientific method is the best tool we have to make sure that science is done properly and that results mirror reality.
Yes, scientists are people, and can be just as corrupt and dogmatic as any other people. But the method tends to expose such, eventually,

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?

and helps to insure that progress marches on.

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

Sometimes there are steps backwards, and mostly the forward steps are baby steps, but the general movement is towards a better understanding of reality.

I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.

[Thorne]

Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.

There is a difference, though. The EFFECTS of gravity, viruses (virii?) etc. could be seen, or touched, or measured. How do we measure the effects of God?

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.

Yes, which is why we cannot absolutely say that something does not exist, only that we do not YET have evidence for its existence.

I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.

True. But if we not only cannot measure it, but cannot see any effects of it?

Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?

In this case, we have been searching for those effects, and that evidence for thousands of years. People, including reputable scientists, are STILL searching for evidence of gods. That does not imply a lack of curiosity, does it?

What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.

I agree.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works

Kinda sounds like prayer. Which is fitting, since religion in general, and prayer in particular, do seem to act very similarly to a placebo.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.

I know a lot of scientists who would love to see some of that money!

General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.

Partly true. More accurate is that such research has become prohibitively expensive, as the cost of equipment soars. But I would ask you, where is the profit in sending rovers to Mars? Where is the profit in the Galileo probe at Jupiter, or any of the vast number of other missions probing our universe? In fact, it's the very LACK of profit that has the anti-science types protesting about the money invested in space research.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation.

Very bad indeed. And just where do you see that happening?

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?

Since we cannot (as yet) go backward in time, we are always moving forward. Whether or not such movement is better or worse is generally a matter for the historians to solve. Change is usually chaotic, and an be downright painful, even when it is for the benefit of all.

I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.

Darwin never implied that evolution was always moving forward. Evolution is a slow, natural process with many side branches and reversions. Sometimes species decline and go extinct, sometimes they evolve into other species. Tracing back the evolution of humanity we tend to assume that we are at a pinnacle, but that is just hubris. There is still more evolution to come, even for humans, and only future species will be able to determine whether we were a successful evolutionary branch or just another failed twig.

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?

Once again, scientists are people, just like politicians and priests. All we can say is that scientists, in general, are trying to find the truth, objective truth. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. Politicians and priests, however...

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

In this context I mean the search for reality. Progress means learning more about the way the world, the universe, actually works. And it is NOT inevitable. As long as we continue to study and to learn, we can hope to make progress. Everyone may not be happy with this progress, but to my mind it is better to understand the truth (reality) of how things work than not. And this is my biggest problem with dogmatic religions. They would have us stop the search, put away our telescopes and test tubes, and just accept that "God Did It".

I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.

Again, I know many scientists who would like to see some of that money.

And if you can accomplish ANYTHING in this life WITHOUT money, I'd like to know what it is. In my experience, without money you don't eat, you don't wear clothes, you don't travel. You die.

[thir]

We are at cross purposes in much of this. I meant to discuss science on its own terms, not compare it to religion in any way.

Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.
There is a difference, though. The EFFECTS of gravity, viruses (virii?) etc. could be seen, or touched, or measured. How do we measure the effects of God?

In former times nobody noticed gravity, and sickness was certainly not connected to small small beings in people's bodies. My whole point was that there was (and undoubtedly is) lots of stuff we are not researching because we haven't noticed it or thought of it yet.

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.
Yes, which is why we cannot absolutely say that something does not exist, only that we do not YET have evidence for its existence.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works
Kinda sounds like prayer. Which is fitting, since religion in general, and prayer in particular, do seem to act very similarly to a placebo.

I would not know about that. I only know there is more about mind-body connection than is researched at this point. And I think it comes from religion as culture, when body and mind was really seen as two different things.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.
I know a lot of scientists who would love to see some of that money!

You know what I mean. That the object of research is to make money, not to increase knowledge.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation.
Very bad indeed. And just where do you see that happening?

Animal use in reseach. Biological warfare. Weapens.

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?
Since we cannot (as yet) go backward in time, we are always moving forward. Whether or not such movement is better or worse is generally a matter for the historians to solve. Change is usually chaotic, and an be downright painful, even when it is for the benefit of all.

You used the word 'progress'. Did you mean anything by it?

Darwin never implied that evolution was always moving forward. Evolution is a slow, natural process with many side branches and reversions. Sometimes species decline and go extinct, sometimes they evolve into other species. Tracing back the evolution of humanity we tend to assume that we are at a pinnacle, but that is just hubris. There is still more evolution to come, even for humans, and only future species will be able to determine whether we were a successful evolutionary branch or just another failed twig.

Exactly so. So what is it with this 'progress'?

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?
Once again, scientists are people, just like politicians and priests. All we can say is that scientists, in general, are trying to find the truth, objective truth. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. Politicians and priests, however...

We? You are not talking for me here. Pure science, as was done in universities mostly, is cut off, and what is left is now sponsored by industries, and guess what they want? Science is not a quest for knowledge, but for products which can make money.

You talk as is scientists are mostly paladins, pure of heart as opposed to others, mysteriously totally objective regardless of their culture and their own situation - a trick which nobody else can manage. And what about what use their science is meant for? Do they have nothing to do with that?

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

In this context I mean the search for reality. Progress means learning more about the way the world, the universe, actually works. And it is NOT inevitable. As long as we continue to study and to learn, we can hope to make progress. Everyone may not be happy with this progress, but to my mind it is better to understand the truth (reality) of how things work than not.

So do you think we need to know more about biological warfare, for instance?
Or do you claim that all science is really useful?
In my opinion science is misused so much we really have to stop and use common sense instead of claiming that quest for knowledge is a holy cow noone may touch or even discuss.

And this is my biggest problem with dogmatic religions. They would have us stop the search, put away our telescopes and test tubes, and just accept that "God Did It".

True.
The biggest problem with dogmatic religions is that they cannot and will not keep it to themselves and let others be!

And if you can accomplish ANYTHING in this life WITHOUT money, I'd like to know what it is. In my experience, without money you don't eat, you don't wear clothes, you don't travel. You die

Money is power, not just survival. And there are power mongers out there who wants to control everything.

[Thorne]

In former times nobody noticed gravity, and sickness was certainly not connected to small small beings in people's bodies. My whole point was that there was (and undoubtedly is) lots of stuff we are not researching because we haven't noticed it or thought of it yet.

How do you NOT notice gravity? What goes up, comes back down. You may not know why, may not even know how to measure it, but you know it happens. Yes, people take it for granted, but the effects are still seen. Same with sickness. Whether they knew what caused it or not, the effects of sickness were known, seen, showing its presence to everyone.

Still, it can be true that there are things we haven't noticed yet, because they have no effect on us. They don't interact with the world as we know it. This does not, however, mean they are gods, or that there are gods at all. Just things we don't know. Yet.

I only know there is more about mind-body connection than is researched at this point. And I think it comes from religion as culture, when body and mind was really seen as two different things.

Such as? I mean, if you know there is more you must have some idea of what they're missing. As far as I have been able to determine, if there's something real happening, they're researching it somewhere. Out of body experiences? They have, and are, researching. Near death experiences? They have, and still are, researching. But even if we could accept some of these mind-body connections you mention, how are they evidence for gods? Just because we don't understand something does not mean gods are responsible. All it means is that we don't know!

the object of research is to make money, not to increase knowledge.

That's a rather simplistic view. Yes, the HOPE of some who fund research is to learn new ways to make money. But not all, not by a long shot. And it's not a guarantee, either. Sometimes the results of research are negative, which is still good for science and knowledge, but not so much for making money.

Animal use in reseach. Biological warfare. Weapens.

I have personally benefited from the results of animal use in research. Chances are almost anyone who has taken medicine of any kind has benefited from such research. If it ultimately saves human lives I don't care how many lab rats and rhesus monkeys have to die. And having worked for a company which used lab rats in its research, I can tell you that some of those who work with them struggle with what has to be done every day.

As for biological weapons, or any weapons, yes, the ultimate aim is to find more efficient ways of killing people. Blame your elected officials, not the scientists they hire to make the weapons.

You used the word 'progress'. Did you mean anything by it?

Yes, I meant it in the context of moving forward, advancing our understanding. It's not necessarily good or bad, just a general movement towards more understanding.

We? You are not talking for me here. Pure science, as was done in universities mostly, is cut off, and what is left is now sponsored by industries, and guess what they want? Science is not a quest for knowledge, but for products which can make money.

Again I disagree. And again I point to the science going on right now in space. We are gaining vast amounts of information and understanding of our universe, with no prospects of financial gain at all. What of those studying earthquakes and volcanoes. Where's the profit there? Or weather. Or anthropology. Or any number of other sciences. And universities are still doing pure research. It's just that so much of it involves things which have very little connection to our daily lives that we seldom hear about it.

True, industries use scientific research to find new ways to make money. So what? That's what they're in business for. Why is it wrong for them to make money?

You talk as is scientists are mostly paladins, pure of heart as opposed to others, mysteriously totally objective regardless of their culture and their own situation - a trick which nobody else can manage. And what about what use their science is meant for? Do they have nothing to do with that?

LOL! No, scientists are no more noble than anyone else. They're not necessarily smarter than everyone else. Except possibly in their field of study. And the uses their science is meant for is not necessarily the uses to which they are put. Einstein did not develop his theory of relativity so that other scientists could make atomic weapons. Alfred Nobel did not develop dynamite so that it could be used to kill soldiers. Others took that knowledge and perverted it, if you will. Some of those others were scientists. Some were soldiers. Some were politicians. It takes ALL kinds.

In my opinion science is misused so much we really have to stop and use common sense instead of claiming that quest for knowledge is a holy cow noone may touch or even discuss.

And whose common sense shall we use? Shall we accept the "common sense" of some religious people who claim that women should be persecuted for the sin of Eve? Shall we use the "common sense" of those who feel that Africans are inherently inferior and not good for anything but slave labor? There is nothing so uncommon as common sense.

Ideally, science is the search for truth. Objective truth. Yes, it can be perverted. Yes, it can be dangerous. Like any other human activity, science is far from infallible. But it is a far better method of determining how things really work than any other endeavor to date.

Money is power, not just survival. And there are power mongers out there who wants to control everything.

Yes, there are, and they will use any means possible, including science and religion and the media, to get and maintain that control. In fact, religion has long been the best means of controlling a population. And getting money from them. Why aren't you complaining about that?

How about freedom of speech? Does it also contain freedom from speech, meaning you cannot create situations that force people to listen?

I would have to say yes!