Jump to content

The Science Delusion


Recommended Posts

@Mel Hopkins there's a slight misunderstanding. You can define it however you wish as can anyone. But what I was suggesting is that you use my definition. That includes priest. And I use your definition and exclude priest and discuss it from there other persons point of view. 

1 hour ago, Cynique said:

@DelNo.  Tell me what it says.

I  can not tell you what it says any more than I can tell you what to think. There may be a transcript online. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I watched the video and agree with the statement found on Wikipedia (sources cited) below. @Delano it also explains your confusion about science. 

 

"Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.[a]

 

Sheldrake's ideas have found support in the New Age movement from individuals such as Deepak Chopra."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2018 at 3:04 PM, Delano said:

Scientists are overwhelmingly atheist and a bit smugly so.

 

@Delano, for example, I don't know where you get the information to make this statement -- particularly the smugness part.  Did you read a survey that collected data on smugness, or is this statement based upon you anecdotal observations?  Early in this conversation you accused me of making generalizations.  Your statement about scientist is a bigoted generalization, but you can't see it. 

 

Usually when you accuse me of something of something are actually guilty of it yourself.  The faults you see in other I suspect is a crystal clear reflection of how you view yourself.

 

Your quote really underlies the contempt you seen to have for scientists.  The best example of you confusion of science is reflected in your agreement with Pioneer's statement,

 

"Absolutely science has become the new religion in the West!" 

 

I replied to pioneer's statement by writing:

 

 "Your categorization of science is completely wrong @Pioneer1. Science, unlike the world's great religions, would change a belief tomorrow if new information was presented that proved the current belief false."

 

You did supported Pioneers statement by writing:

 

"Do you realise how wrong you are. I'll give you some time to see if you can work it out."

 

Actually now that I reread you reaction I see that it is a smug as you accuse scientist to be.  Another example of you reflecting your own faults onto others.  

 

I replied to Pioneer with a reason why I disagreed with his statement, but your reply included the smug, passive-aggressive, and condescending; "I'll give you some time to see if you can work it out."  If you were interested in my understanding you would simply explain.

 

--------------

 

From the article Mel referenced:

 

"Science is continually refining and expanding our knowledge of the universe, and as it does, it leads to new questions for future investigation. Science will never be 'finished.'"

 

Science ≠ Religion

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Troy said:

Perhaps.  All scientists are flawed humans like the rest of us. 

Yes and like religion those flaws play out in their field.

The Bernoulli's were a mathematical family. There was a sibling rivalry that led to poisoning due to mathematical jealousy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...