Jump to content
Delano

The Science Delusion

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Troy said:

 

@zaji, would you care to share your source; since you already found the answer; it is just a matter of copying and pasting a URL

 

@Troy, I would need to go back and search TED's website where I found their commentary on it. When I have a moment, I will do so. Can't right now. In the middle of some things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Troy said:

aji, would you care to share your source; since you already found the answer; it is just a matter of copying and pasting a URL

The amount of time you spent asking the question is more than the time it would have taken to find the answer. Didn't you create your own search engine. 

Tedie had an astrologer give a talk and it wasn't banned. Isn't Ted suppose to discuss ideas. They could have chosen to refute some of his points. I don't agree with all of his points. Yet his position raises am interesting question about science or rather scientists. 

It's interesting that Zahir understands my point yet you do not. Why do you suppose that's the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Delano as previously mentioned the time I spent talking to you here was invested in an attempt to work on communicating with you more effectively.  Communication seems to break down whenever you think I disagree with you.   No I did not create my own search engine, I simply configured a product that Google used to sell. Regarding Zaji understanding you, I dunno she understood my request straight away... I guess I could ask you the same question  Maybe Zaji can serve as our interpreter :-)

 

@zaji, I appreciate that whenever you get a chance is fine--thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Troy said:

Regarding Zaji understanding you, I dunno she understood my request straight away... I guess I could ask you the same question 

If someone else understand what I wrote and you don't .Then perhaps it is not my inability to communicate...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but it seems unlikely.  Del do you believe you write with perfect fidelity and clarity at all times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not understanding me isn't a function of my writing. 

 

Does anyone write with perfect clarity and fidelity. 

 

That statement by you is symptomatic of our communication problems. You make some gross generalizations. Like saying an opinion is wrong.  A science as a society is different from society.  If I call you on it you get defensive. Sometimes you come across authoritative. Maybe that's just my perception. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

On 2/17/2018 at 4:10 PM, Troy said:

The video was interesting.  It does not seem like it would be something that TED would ban.  Do we actually know this to be the case? 

 

@Troy   You've made somewhat of a qualified statement, here.    But  It's as if you'd like to refute "banning or censorship"  based on the information we supply to you. 

To avoid confirmation bias, it's best to look for several sources of your own. 

For example,  one of several sources I used was the link in the video itself to arrive at the censorship conclusion.     

 

 @zaji was gracious enough to even provide you with her arc of thinking on how she arrived at her conclusion of censorship.   

 

But that doesn't support your stated belief that "It doesn't seem like it would be something TED would ban"

So in answer to your question, yes, I know it to be the case based on evidence I've seen.   I think  that @Delano, @zaji  know too.   


So, maybe if you find something different it will make for an eye-opening even fascinating discussion.   

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:


 

 

@Troy   You've made somewhat of a qualified statement, here.    But  It's as if you'd like to refute "banning or censorship"  based on the information we supply to you. 

To avoid confirmation bias, it's best to look for several sources of your own. 

For example,  one of several sources I used was the link in the video itself to arrive at the censorship conclusion.     

 

 @zaji was gracious enough to even provide you with her arc of thinking on how she arrived at her conclusion of censorship.   

 

But that doesn't support your stated belief that "It doesn't seem like it would be something TED would ban"

So in answer to your question, yes, I know it to be the case based on evidence I've seen.   I think  that @Delano, @zaji  know too.   


So, maybe if you find something different it will make for an eye-opening even fascinating discussion.   

 

 

 

@Mel Hopkins, I agree 100%. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't believe whether this video was banned or not has become a bone of contention.  Explain to me the relevancy of debating that. It's like my tendency to be argumentative has become contagious.  i guess it's inevitable that personality clashes manifest themselves in these discussions, and at some point the accusations peppering this post have distracted from the more interesting topic of science dogma. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The banning of the clip is a very good example of scientific dogma. And dogma  is in fact the topic of the clip. Banning it really makes Rupert Sheldrake's case more than anything else. In addition I have seen Ted Talks that were in no way science. Melissa Gilbert Talking about her wildly popular book Eat Pray Love and a "talk" by Reggie Watts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's is dogmatic about banning a religious clip that is publicly posted?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, you are right @Cynique I'm sorry for the hand I had in continuing this "debate."  Thanks for being a much needed sane voice of reason :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cynique said:

What's is dogmatic about banning a religious clip that is publicly posted?   

Have you watched the clip by Rupert Sheldrake?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Delano said:

. 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. 

@Delano  Ok, you go first.  This way I can get up to speed as to what we will accomplish. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

@Delano  Ok, you go first.  This way I can get up to speed as to what we will accomplish. 

It's an exercise on being open minded and seeing if you can see the other person's point of view. It also deepens the conversation. 

Also it is in the religion topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read s two books about what actually happens in the scientific community. The reality is more interesting than the fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So religion and science are similar in that, in the wrong hands both can cause great harm. But, this is true for almost anything.  Of course this does not make science a religion or vice-versa.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×