Jump to content

The New Religion


Recommended Posts

@Delano @Mel Hopkins

I have to agree with Mel. That your example using priest is flawed. You could have argued that by invoking their religious background they are represent a religious view and hence a representative of the church. However by definition they are not religion they are a facet of religion. And the part is not a proxy of the whole. The only instance that is true is for holograms. 

Mel it's your turn.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While years on the Standard Gregorian calendar are measured in relation to the presumed birth of Jesus, non-Christian communities often benchmark theirs against the birth, death or particularly significant episode in the life of their religious leaders:

Iran; Afganistan; Saudi Arabia ; India and Ethiopia. 

This is a reference from the book It's About Time pp 58 - 62 by Liz Evers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Delano said:

I have to agree with Mel. That your example using priest is flawed. You could have argued that by invoking their religious background they are represent a religious view and hence a representative of the church. However by definition they are not religion they are a facet of religion. And the part is not a proxy of the whole. The only instance that is true is for holograms. 

 

@Delano

 

I must agree with Del – science could be the new religion – especially if we’re to view religion as a sum of its parts and not necessarily its tenets.   

A little before I began working in broadcast journalism, I was reading scriptures. I remember saying I want to tell YOUR story like the disciples did in the bible. 

Long story short – a few weeks later I found myself sitting at the anchor desk of our local television station. The current weekend anchor and the news director set me up to do a demo reel. I got the news reporter job.  I was already employed so it was part-time, one day a week – Sunday.   I had NEVER even studied broadcast journalism. I was a writer who was curious and that’s it.

My second news story (a package) was a Catholic church closing.  The Roman Catholic Diocese of Wheeling–Charleston diocese was consolidating churches in a cost saving measure.  I laughed out loud thinking THE ALL has a wonderful sense of humor.   It was a story I didn’t want to do for two reasons – I despised Catholicism and I despised Catholicism. 

Still, it was my job that I asked for and I didn’t want to add to the parishioners’ pain.  To this day – I believe it was my best story ever…and I really sucked at broadcast news reporting in the beginning. 

But in interviewing the congregants, learning the history of the church and what it meant to those people -allowed me to lose the hate – and look at this religion through their eyes.

 I learned the people, their love for each other and the Supernatural was the religion …Some men made up some shit and told folks to worship their ideas but, in the end, religion is its believers -   So yes, science could be the new religion because all it needs are strong believers that the answers they seek will come if they exercise faith.

19 hours ago, Del said:

AD3  

 

@Delano

"The AD first meant “Anni Diocletiani” which related to the beginning of his reign at 284 AD. Diocletian’s laws, persecutions and punishments against the Christian community were severe. "

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

And MEL was wrong for challenging me on this issue.

@Pioneer1

:D  the only thing Mel was wrong about was dignifying  your half-witted response.   

I happened to be writing when I saw your bc/ad as  being part of science.  My head was about to explode because that was the furthest thing from truth. 

Saying AD/BC is used in science is about as bright as saying  English is a scientific language because the universal language is for  scientific studies is English.    None of it has anything to do with Christianity - it's a damn standard!  The only way scientists can keep tract of their discoveries is by using  standards.  


Is the demarcation of the Gregorian calendar determined by the birth of jesus - KINDA -but only the ignorant would stop there.  Is science governed by christianity -I guess if you're one of four people  who believes the sun revolves around the earth.    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:
18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

And MEL was wrong for challenging me on this issue.

@Pioneer1

:D  the only thing Mel was wrong about was dignifying  your half-witted response.   

I happened to be writing when I saw your bc/ad as  being part of science.  My head was about to explode because that was the furthest thing from truth. 

Saying AD/BC is used in science is about as bright as saying  English is a scientific language because the universal language is for  scientific studies is English.    None of it has anything to do with Christianity - it's a damn standard!  The only way scientists can keep tract of their discoveries is by using  standards.  


Is the demarcation of the Gregorian calendar determined by the birth of jesus - KINDA -but only the ignorant would stop there.  Is science governed by christianity -I guess if you're one of four people  who believes the sun revolves around the earth.    

Right. i just noticed that myself while skimming over the thread.  Pioneer's "pretty sure" statement of "fact" was a prime example of having "knowledge" but not "comprehension".  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Cynique said:

Right. i just noticed that myself while skimming over the thread.  Pioneer's "pretty sure" statement of "fact" was a prime example of having "knowledge" but not "comprehension".  

"He who knows not, and known not that he knows not, is a fool!"  :lol:

 

OMG!!! That's it!  That's why I reached for the duct tape!  Pioneer's statement lacks context! 

"I USED TO believe the knowledge was just information and facts... unless that information and facts comes with a proper understanding then it's still not knowing."

Thank you, @Cynique you've cleared up the mystery!   "knowledge is the basis of understanding" but you have to do the work.  You can't just slap a fact up in this forum and think you're going to get a sticker! 

Nope , not gonna happen LOL...
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

OMG!!! That's it!  That's why I reached for the duct tape!  Pioneer's statement lacks context! 

"I USED TO believe the knowledge was just information and facts... unless that information and facts comes with a proper understanding then it's still not knowing."

Thank you, @Cynique you've cleared up the mystery!   "knowledge is the basis of understanding" but you have to do the work.  You can't just slap a fact up in this forum and think you're going to get a sticker! 

Nope , not gonna happen LOL...
 

Well done @Mel Hopkins @Cynique 

Note this well @Pioneer1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Delano said:

Are you disputing that the numeric value of most calendar years is based on religion  .

 

@Delano, I'm not sure what you mean by "numeric value of most calendars"  -

if you're referring to dating conventions ,however, I will say "kind of".   This is based on the fact western civilization is only at 2018 years...whereas civilization has been here far longer  AND the calendar year is made up of 12 MOON-THS.   The 12 months are based on roman politics - since they had to determine when taxes were to be paid.   It was initially 10 months - i.e. DEC-ember (dec being the numeral prefix for10) also the months and days of of the week are named for roman /greek god/esses .   

 

@Cynique also raises a great point of note that we still recognize the seasons as did the monk who came up with current calendar era.   - The christian monk couldn't ignore the very Pagan belief of the science of nature. 

In any event, the assumption  that using the current dating conventions means christianity is wedded to science is absurd.   Even NASA  steers clear of  BC/AD  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Delano said:

While years on the Standard Gregorian calendar are measured in relation to the presumed birth of Jesus, non-Christian communities often benchmark theirs against the birth, death or particularly significant episode in the life of their religious leaders:

Iran; Afganistan; Saudi Arabia ; India and Ethiopia. 

This is a reference from the book It's About Time pp 58 - 62 by Liz Evers. 

The numerical value of the year. I am familiar with the calculation of the month the naming and order of days of the week, the adjustment of the calendar, civilizations  that used a non 7 day week. Since this is mostly astronomical. As are Easter Passover Chinese New Year, the Kumbh Mela and other holydays.

@Mel Hopkins @Pioneer1

Edited by Delano
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

OMG!!! That's it!  That's why I reached for the duct tape!  Pioneer's statement lacks context! 

"I USED TO believe the knowledge was just information and facts... unless that information and facts comes with a proper understanding then it's still not knowing."

Thank you, @Cynique you've cleared up the mystery!   "knowledge is the basis of understanding" but you have to do the work.  You can't just slap a fact up in this forum and think you're going to get a sticker! 

Nope , not gonna happen LOL...
 

 

I couldn't have said it better. @Mel Hopkins @Cynique @Troy @zaji @Pioneer1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I couldn't have said it better

 


Lol, I bet I can not only SAY it better but SHOW AND PROVE them both to be frauds.
 


*First Cynique makes an ERRONEOUS statement by saying religion is NEVER espoused to science.
And I proved her WRONG by pointing out that "B.C" is a religious concept used by scientists.


*Then Mel tries to defend her by claiming B.C. DOES NOT or MAY NOT stand for "Before Christ".
When asked what DOES it stands for....she started stuttering and trying to change the conversation like a child trying to hide their mischief....lol.




Del, you say note this well?

Ofcourse I've noted what Mel said....BECAUSE SHE'S QUOTING MY VERY OWN STATEMENT!


She's quoting ME where I said:

"
I USED TO believe the knowledge was just information and facts.
But found out that unless that information and facts comes with a proper understanding then it's still not knowing."


https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/4876-comprehension-is-intimately-intertwined-with-knowledge/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-24562

 

I've made it crystal clear that one needs FACTS PLUS UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE FACTS in order to be knowledgable.

Now contrast that....with what CYNIQUE SAID in the very same thread:


"
A person can be knowledgeable about a subject because he has been supplied with the facts and the information.......Comprehension doesn't figure into this equation. "


" because when you give them facts you are making them knowledgeable about the subject which the facts refer to; whether they comprehend what the facts indicate is not a given. "


"Knowledge is synonymous with information and facts, but it is not synonymous with comprehension. "

 

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/4876-comprehension-is-intimately-intertwined-with-knowledge/

 


CYNIQUE IS THE ONE WHO SAYS MERE FACTS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING OR COMPREHENSION IS THE SAME AS KNOWLEDGE!

Now I wonder what Mel has to say about Cynique's belief that facts without comprehension is the same as knowledge.
Or will she just pretend to overlook it and try to change the subject again.....lol.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 


Lol, I bet I can not only SAY it better but SHOW AND PROVE them both to be frauds.
 


*First Cynique makes an ERRONEOUS statement by saying religion is NEVER espoused to science.
And I proved her WRONG by pointing out that "B.C" is a religious concept used by scientists.


*Then Mel tries to defend her by claiming B.C. DOES NOT or MAY NOT stand for "Before Christ".
When asked what DOES it stands for....she started stuttering and trying to change the conversation like a child trying to hide their mischief....lol.




Del, you say note this well?

Ofcourse I've noted what Mel said....BECAUSE SHE'S QUOTING MY VERY OWN STATEMENT!


She's quoting ME where I said:

"
I USED TO believe the knowledge was just information and facts.
But found out that unless that information and facts comes with a proper understanding then it's still not knowing."


https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/4876-comprehension-is-intimately-intertwined-with-knowledge/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-24562

 

I've made it crystal clear that one needs FACTS PLUS UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE FACTS in order to be knowledgable.

Now contrast that....with what CYNIQUE SAID in the very same thread:


"
A person can be knowledgeable about a subject because he has been supplied with the facts and the information.......Comprehension doesn't figure into this equation. "


" because when you give them facts you are making them knowledgeable about the subject which the facts refer to; whether they comprehend what the facts indicate is not a given. "


"Knowledge is synonymous with information and facts, but it is not synonymous with comprehension. "

 

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/4876-comprehension-is-intimately-intertwined-with-knowledge/

 


CYNIQUE IS THE ONE WHO SAYS MERE FACTS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING OR COMPREHENSION IS THE SAME AS KNOWLEDGE!

Now I wonder what Mel has to say about Cynique's belief that facts without comprehension is the same as knowledge.
Or will she just pretend to overlook it and try to change the subject again.....lol.


 

So you have noted it well. Show and prove. @Pioneer1

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 Your patchwork quilt rant, reeking with your ego-maniacal bull shit, drenched with the foul piss of your irrelevant rebuttals and the putrid pus oozing from the festering wound of your being a sore loser, was yet another indication of your inability to even  consider the idea that you are anything but right about everything.  Doing this would so deflate your overblown self-esteem that your sanity would be threatened.  Have you ever in your life done any soul searching to try and figure out why you are so possessed by a need to aggrandize yourself?  Is it a substitute for Viagra?    You make it so easy for me to disagree with all of the half-truths and drivel you just drooled in the process of putting your spin on things,  especially you giving your interpretation to  my conclusion about knowledge, saying it contradicted Mel's, when it didn't!  SMH.  

 

2 hours ago, Delano said:

Pioneer, you have noted it well. Show and prove.

@Delyou are perfectly  right in pointing out that all Pioneer did was unload a barrage of subterfuge, saying everybody but him was wrong.  In his skewed mind, saying it, makes it so. He's incorrigible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Cynique said:

@Pioneer1 Your patchwork quilt rant, reeking with your ego-maniacal bull shit, drenched with the foul piss of your irrelevant rebuttals and the putrid pus oozing from the festering wound of your being a sore loser, was yet another indication of your inability to even  consider the idea that you are anything but right about everything.  Doing this would so deflate your overblown self-esteem that your sanity would be threatened.  Have you ever in your life done any soul searching to try and figure out why you are so possessed by a need to aggrandize yourself?  Is it a substitute for Viagra?    You make it so easy for me to disagree with all of the half-truths and drivel you just drooled in the process of putting your spin on things,  especially you giving your interpretation to  my conclusion about knowledge, saying it contradicted Mel's, when it didn't!  SMH.  

 

@Delyou are perfectly  right in pointing out that all Pioneer did was unload a barrage of subterfuge, saying everybody but him was wrong.  In his skewed mind, saying it, makes it so. He's incorrigible.  

 

Like Del said, no need to have an emotional reaction.
 

If you think I'm wrong about something.....cut out all the insults and just prove it.

Show us EXACTLY what I said that was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i concede that my statement about science never espousing religion was an opinion.  Conventional wisdom in regard to this question indicates that the lines are blurred; a moot situation.  It just depends. Nuclear science doesn't espouse religion.  The science of aerodynamics doesn't espouse religion. Mechanical physics doesn't espouse religion. Psychiatry doesn't espouse religion.  And nowhere, as Mel explained, is the delineation between BC and AD cited as an example of science espousing religion.  Except according to that well-known authority on nothing.  And that would be you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DelI find what Mel said more on point. 

 

On 2/23/2018 at 8:05 PM, Mel Hopkins said:

Saying AD/BC is used in science is about as bright as saying  English is a scientific language because the universal language is for  scientific studies is English.    None of it has anything to do with Christianity - it's a damn standard!  The only way scientists can keep tract of their discoveries is by using  standards.  


Is the demarcation of the Gregorian calendar determined by the birth of jesus - KINDA -but only the ignorant would stop there.  Is science governed by christianity -I guess if you're one of four people  who believes the sun revolves around the earth.    

 

There's a difference between acknowledging the existence of religion and incorporating it into the scientific field of study.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cynique said:

 

There's a difference between acknowledging the existence of religion and incorporating it into your field of study.

 

Most of the colleges in the United States that started over 300 years ago were Bible-proclaiming schools originally. Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.

Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”

In the United Kingdom, the earliest university-type establishment was probably the College, established by the Celtic preacher St. Illtyd in about AD 500. Oxford University was established by various religious orders. Likewise, Cambridge University was established in 1209 by Christian leaders. Saint Andrews, Scotland’s oldest university, was founded principally for the teaching and study of theology. The commitment of these religious founders might be suspect, but many of the later colleges were founded by Bible-believing Christians. The University of Edinburgh had a thoroughly evangelical beginning, being founded under Presbyterian auspices.

Even my alma mater, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC), had Christian roots when it was founded in 1869. Our school motto was Deo Volente, which is Latin for “God willing.” By the time I attended SIUC in the 1990s, there was almost no vestige of that Christian heritage left. In fact, the university emphatically teaches evolution over millions of years and blatantly rejects the possibility of biblical authority (that the Bible is true—authoritative—and that we need to adjust our beliefs and actions to its teaching).

So what happened to cause so many schools to abandon their Christian roots?

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The foundling fathers of this country did not intend for  it to be a theocracy,  and kept "God" out of the constitution.  All references such  as  "Under God" and "In God We Trust" were adopted later.  God, put in context as a  personification of the Big Bang, can be separated from religion, which was created by Man.     

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are numbers discovered or created?

No one will get this one right.

9 hours ago, Troy said:

School abandoning Christian Roots?!  When did they ever have them? All of them were racist, classist, sexists institutions.  One could easily argue that they still are.  

 

Is this an example of incorporating Christian values.

 

@Troy you may want to read the first sentence. Or you could look it up. Christian roots and principles are not synonymous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Troy said:

Aw come on Del, Christian roots, principles, or whatever you wanna call it -- it had nothing to do with Christianity.

 

Most of the colleges in the United States that started over 300 years ago were Bible-proclaiming schools originally. Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.

Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These hallowed elitist  institutions of higher learning were Christians in name only.  Founded during slavery, they were not examples of people who practiced what Christianity preached when it came to the golden rule. They were hypocrites.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The were Christian in Origin. The religion not the principal. Religion (belief )has been linked to Science. 

Rupert Sheldrake has made the case that Science acts more like religion. Hence censorship not debate. They feel debate is below their lofty ideals. I say that is the approach of the he arrogant elite.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Del science and religion have nothing to do with each other -- nothing.  Cynique raises some good points to counter the assertion.

 

Scientists and science are open to change indeed dramatic revision when someone proves a previous belief is wrong.  Everyone accepts the new information and everyone moves on. 

 

Scientists debate all the time were they are discussing somethings for each there is no proof.  Religions are not open for debate blind faith is what you must have. 

 

Of course you can start your own religion which happens all the time. Mormonism, NOI, Jehovah Witness, Scientology, Branch Davidian, etc.  Saying science is like a religion is just plain silly.

 

I need to listen the the whole Sheldrake lecture to better understand where you (and perhaps Sheldrake) are coming from.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Del

Excellent point about so many of the universities in the United States being founded as religious institutions!!!



 

 

Cynique

 

What god does science worship? What science does religion preach?


Western science is DRENCHED in ancient Greek religion and religious philosophy:

Doctors in the science of medicine take the oath of HIPPOCRATES....an ancient Greek deity.

The science of GEOLOGY gets it's name "geo" from Gaia a Greek deity.

If you look at the science of astronomy, many of the planets (Mars and Jupiter) and many of the space craft (Apollo) are named after ancient Greek deities.

These are glaring examples of religion and mythology mixed with science.

Cynique, do the right thing and admit that you were WRONG about science never being espoused to religion....lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 I make a distinction between "God" and "gods"; between "religion" and "myth", between "Christianity" and "Paganism".  Apparently you can't bring yourself to fine-tune your view on this subject.

 

i was who first  used the word "espouse." and this is what i had in mind when i said science never espouses religion.   

 

Definition of espouse: adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life): This definition does not describe science's  position on religion. BC/AD is a single isolated convenience, not a  doctrine. 

 

And your giving your blessing to Del's observation about America's universities doesn't negate the extenuating circumstances  which were pointed out by Troy and me. Christian is, as Christian does. 

 

This is a subject which has many aspects.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Del I reject your last statement about my arguing from ignorance.  I was expressing what I knew about a subject and was merely informing you that I could not speak to Sheldrake's opinion, because I know nothing about him and have not watched the video. 

 

Obviously you have integrated his beliefs into yours, so I figured I need to at least watch the video to better understand where you are coming from.

 

@Pioneer1, the naming of things have nothing to do with how science is practiced.  If you look at the names of some of the heavy elements;  Americium, Berkelium, or Californium does this mean science worships the western United States? 

 

You, like Del, are reaching to to make a flawed argument that science is like a religion, because you two, for different reasons, have an axe to grind against science.  I suspect Del dislikes science because it dismisses his strongly held belief in astrology and you because you've somehow associated science with white racism.

 

But, Pioneer if you want to conflate modern science and greek mythology go right ahead I don't want to confuse you with reality.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Peer Review in the Sciences [nothing that follows are my words. i have copied and pasted all items you read below and researched all quotes.]


Richard Horton, then editor of The Lancet, contributed a guest editorial for the Medical Journal of Australia (Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion and crack-up; MJA 2000; 172: 148-149) in which he wrote:

 

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Today Science is up on a pedestal. A new god has appeared; his high priests conduct the rituals, with nuclear reactors, moon-probing rocket ships, cathode tubes and laser beams. And their territory is sacrosanct; laymen are denied entry.  – Bruce Cathie

In truth, the systemic failure of peer review is one of science’s major, embarrassing open secrets.
As Dr David Kaplan tells us, “[P]eer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.”
Australian physicist Brian Martin elaborates in his excellent article Strategies for Dissenting Scientists:
Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked.

Electric universe researcher and Big Bang critic Wal Thornhill (a REAL scientist) stated plainly in our GFM Media interview that the peer review system amounts to censorship. Fellow independent scientist Gary Novak agrees scathingly:

 

“Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts…There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process.”

Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in May 2000, Canadian-based researcher, David Sackett, said that he would “never again lecture, write, or referee anything to do with evidence based clinical practice,” over his concern that “experts” are stifling new ideas. He wants the retirement of experts to be made compulsory and I think it’s a brilliant proposition.

 

Sackett says that “…progress towards the truth is impaired in the presence of an expert.”

Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell is the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine, where she spent twenty years poring over scientific papers, saturated in the dubious practices that pervade the world of medical research. She states bluntly:

 

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

David Kaplan, a professor of pathology at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, has stated that,

 

“Peer review is broken. It needs to be overhauled, not just tinkered with. The incentives should be changed so that: authors are more satisfied and more likely to produce better work, the reviewing is more transparent and honest, and journals do not have to manage an unwieldy and corrupt system that produces disaffection and misses out on innovation.”

Dr. Marc Girard, a mathematician and physician who serves on the editorial board of Medicine Veritas (The Journal of Medical Truth), has written,

 

“The reason for this disaster is too clear: the power of money. In academic institutions, the current dynamics of research is more favourable to the ability of getting grants — collecting money and spending it — than to scientific imagination or creativity.”

In general, peer reviewers — generally not time-rich — don’t try to replicate experiments and rarely even request the raw data supporting a paper’s conclusions. Who has the time for all that? Thus, peer review is, according to Richard Smith writing in Peer Review in Health Sciences,

 

“thought to be slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, prone to bias, easily abused, poor at detecting gross defects, and almost useless for detecting fraud.”

—

What about fake peer review? This is where the corrupt and abysmal becomes the theatre of the absurd. For example, Berlin-based Springer Nature, who publishes the aforementioned Nature journal announced the retraction of 64 articles in 10 journals in an August 18th statement in 2015. This followed an internal investigation which found fabricated peer-review write-ups linked to the articles.

 

The purge followed

 

“similar discoveries of “fake peer review” by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing “reviews from fabricated reviewers”.

 

Yes, that means reviewers that don’t exist — recommended as “reviewers” by the people submitting their work for review. Imagine writing a paper and being able to nominate a non-existent person to review your work, and the contact email supplied to the publisher for this purpose is actually one you made up, which routes the paper back to you (unbeknownst to the publisher), so that you can then secretly carry out a (favourable) review of your own work under a pseudonym!

Recently two scientists performed a brilliant Sokal-style hoax on the journal Cogent Social Sciences. Under the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay wrote a deliberately absurd paper loosely composed in the style of “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” — what exactly that is they made no attempt to find out.

 

The authors tell us:

 

“The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions…We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.”

 

And they did. After completing the paper, and being unable to identify what it was actually about, it was deemed a success and ready for submission, which went ahead in April 2017. It was published the next month after some editorial feedback and additional tweaking. To illustrate how deliberately absurd the paper is, a quote is in order:

 

“We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations… and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.”

 

In plain English, they (seemingly) argued here that a penis is not a male sexual organ but a social construct; the “conceptual penis” is problematic for “gender (and reproductive) identity,” as well as being the “conceptual” driver of climate change. No, really. How this ever got published is something to ponder. The paper is filled with meaningless jargon, arrant nonsense, and references to fake papers and authors.

 

As part of the hoax, none of the sources that were cited were even read by the hoaxers. As Boghossian and Lindsay point out, it never should have been published. No one — not even Boghossian and Lindsay — knows what it is actually saying.

Almost a third of the sources cited in the original version of the paper point to fake sources, such as created by Postmodern Generator, making mock of how absurdly easy it is to execute this kind of hoax, especially, the authors add, in “‘academic’ fields corrupted by postmodernism.”

In April 2010, Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, used a computer program called SCIgen to create 102 fake papers under the pseudonym of Ike Antkare. SCIgen was created in 2005 by researchers at MIT in Cambridge in order to demonstrate that conferences would accept such nonsense…as well as to amuse themselves.

 

Labbé added the bogus papers to the Google Scholar database, which boosted Ike Antkare’s h-index, a measure of published output, to 94 — at the time, making Antkare the world’s 21st most highly cited scientist.

 

So a non-existent scientist has achieved the distinction of being one of the world’s most highly cited authors — while “authoring” papers consisting of utter gibberish. Congratulations are certainly in order. In February 2014 it was reported that Springer and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), were removing over 120 such bogus papers from their subscription services after Labbe identified them using his own software.

 

Going back at least as far as 1996 journalists and researchers have been getting spoof papers published in conferences or journals to deliberately expose weaknesses in academic quality controls. “Physicist Alan Sokal (of the famous Sokal Affair) succeeded in the journal Social Text in 1996,” while Harvard science journalist John Bohannon revealed in a 2013 issue of Science that he had duped over 150 open-access journals into publishing “a deliberately flawed study.” Bohannon organized submission of the flawed study (technically, many different but very similar variations of the study) to 304 open access journals worldwide over a period of 10 months. 255 went through the whole editing process to the point of either acceptance or rejection.

 

He wrote:

 

“Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.”

 

The hoax paper was accepted by a whopping 157 of the journals and rejected by only 98. Of the 106 journals that did conduct “peer review,” fully 70% accepted the paper.

 

If peer review was a transparent and accountable process, according to Gary Novak,

 

“there might be a small chance of correcting some of the corruptions through truth and criticism; but the process is cloaked in the darkness of anonymity…Due to the exploitive and corrupt process, nearly everything in science has official errors within it…[A] culture of protecting and exploiting the errors creates an official reality which cannot be opposed.”

 

Returning specifically to the arena of (mainstream) medicine, a quote in PLoS Medicine, states:

 

“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way”…Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians, and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry”.

 

In the words of John Ionnidis, “Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.”

If most studies are wrong, and most scientists are more interested in their own careers and funding than getting at the truth — while journals daily allow bogus and flawed pharmaceutical research to be published and promoted — then why would anyone in their right mind believe the claims made by doctors about the efficacy of products based upon “peer review” or pharmaceutical “studies”? What does a term like “safe and effective” even mean in this world of deception and subterfuge?

— 

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. — Richard Horton, Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 11 April 2015, thelancet.com (Horton is editor of The Lancet)

 

All the above items, as stated, I had nothing to do with writing. I merely copied and pasted all the above items and researched the validity of the quotes. Below are links to some additional items I found, for your edification.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/04/fake_peer_review_scientific_journals_publish_fraudulent_plagiarized_or_nonsense.html 


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798  (good read)

 

A line from the NCBI piece: “People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/science/science-journal-pulls-60-papers-in-peer-review-fraud.html 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/nov/08/fraud-revolution-scientific-publishing-peer-review 


http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dozens-scientific-papers-withdrawn-probably-more-come 


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

 

ADDED (Center for Accountability in Science article): https://www.accountablescience.com/peer-review-process-scientific-publications-trouble-paradise 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting reading.  Yet, when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, i've always been rather puzzled by all of their dire warnings in regard to the side effects of taking  certain medications.  Especially on TV commercials.  I'm  left thinking "the cure is worst than the disease", after the voice-over has recited a litany of dangerous possibilities when taking the drug being advertised. Consumers are not exactly in the dark about "Big Pharm". 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Troy said:

m sorry Del I reject your last statement about my arguing from ignorance.  I was expressing what I knew about a subject and was merely informing you that I could not speak to Sheldrake's opinion, because I know nothing about him and have not watched the video. 

You can reject my statement but you are wrong on addition to being ignorant. You admit not watching it so you have no first hand knowledge of what he said. That's is the definition of ignorance @Troy.

2 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

@zaji  reading some of these comments about peer review reminds me of my original comment about religion. that it requires obedience.   It's like scientists are being shunned for not obeying.  Even if they find evidence the  alleged constant is in question.  

Look up the history of the Steady State Scientist and how the Big Bang Theory got its name.

@zaji I will read this later. People assume that scientist stop having beliefs and opinions when practising science. 

Michelle Simmons emigrated to Australian because she felt the scientific community was more open than the United States or England. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 okay @Delano tell me what I'm "wrong" about.

 

Repeating and copying what write entirely  unnecessary. For example, I already know I have not seen the video, telling me the definition of ignorant is just condescending, and less than what i'd expect from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎28‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 2:11 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Del

Excellent point about so many of the universities in the United States being founded as religious institutions!!!



 

 

Cynique

 

What god does science worship? What science does religion preach?


Western science is DRENCHED in ancient Greek religion and religious philosophy:

Doctors in the science of medicine take the oath of HIPPOCRATES....an ancient Greek deity.

The science of GEOLOGY gets it's name "geo" from Gaia a Greek deity.

If you look at the science of astronomy, many of the planets (Mars and Jupiter) and many of the space craft (Apollo) are named after ancient Greek deities.

These are glaring examples of religion and mythology mixed with science.

Cynique, do the right thing and admit that you were WRONG about science never being espoused to religion....lol.

Very good points Pioneer. The days of the week and even the calendar are a product of keeping religious rituals.

John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609) was an English mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occult philosopher,[5] and advisor to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination, and Hermetic philosophy. He was also an advocate of England's imperial expansion into a "British Empire", a term he is generally credited with coining.[6]

Dee straddled the worlds of modern science and magic just as the former was emerging. One of the most learned men of his age, he had been invited to lecture on the geometry of Euclid at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. Dee was an ardent promoter of mathematics and a respected astronomer, as well as a leading expert in navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England's voyages of discovery.

 

 

In antiquity, Pythagoras was credited with many mathematical and scientific discoveries, including the Pythagorean theorem, Pythagorean tuning, the five regular solids, the Theory of Proportions, the sphericity of the Earth, and the identity of the morning and evening stars as the planet Venus. It was said that he was the first man to call himself a philosopher ("lover of wisdom")[Notes 2] and that he was the first to divide the globe into five climatic zones. Classical historians debate whether Pythagoras made these discoveries, and many of the accomplishments credited to him likely originated earlier or were made by his colleagues or successors. Some accounts mention that the philosophy associated with Pythagoras was related to mathematics and that numbers were important, but it is debated to what extent, if at all, he actually contributed to mathematics or natural philosophy.

Mystical teachings

Another belief attributed to Pythagoras was that of the "harmony of the spheres",[90] which maintained that the planets and stars move according to mathematical equations, which correspond to musical notes and thus produce an inaudible symphony.[90] According to Porphyry, Pythagoras taught that the seven Muses were actually the seven planets singing together.[91] In his philosophical dialogue Protrepticus, Aristotle has his literary double say:

When Pythagoras was asked [why humans exist], he said, "to observe the heavens," and he used to claim that he himself was an observer of nature, and it was for the sake of this that he had passed over into life.[92]

Isaac Newton's occult studies

English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton produced many works that would now be classified as occult studies. These works explored chronology, alchemy, and Biblical interpretation (especially of the Apocalypse). Newton's scientific work may have been of lesser personal importance to him, as he placed emphasis on rediscovering the occult wisdom of the ancients. In this sense, some[1] believe that any reference to a "Newtonian Worldview" as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate.

 

@Pioneer1

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Cynique said:

I make a distinction between "God" and "gods"; between "religion" and "myth", between "Christianity" and "Paganism".  Apparently you can't bring yourself to fine-tune your view on this subject.

 

i was who first  used the word "espouse." and this is what i had in mind when i said science never espouses religion.   

 

Definition of espouse: adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life): This definition does not describe science's  position on religion. BC/AD is a single isolated convenience, not a  doctrine. 

 

 @Del  You and Pioneer are standing on  shaky ground, depending on your smugness to support you, totally unaware of how transparent you are. LMAO

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Troy said:

 okay @Delano tell me what I'm "wrong" about.

 

Repeating and copying what write entirely  unnecessary. For example, I already know I have not seen the video, telling me the definition of ignorant is just condescending, and less than what i'd expect from you.

Do you have knowledge of the video. No you are ignorant. So you are arguing from an ignorant position. You can agree or disagree at this point.

https://thehumanist.com/magazine/may-june-2016/features/science-not-conflict-religion

 

My contention is that, ultimately, the existence of a deity is a question of science. Some may be surprised by this because they recognize that science is the systematic study of phenomena in the natural world while religious belief deals with the supernatural, or powers and entities outside the spectrum of what we would consider our natural reality. Yet this is not the case. All religions, particularly the “big three” Abrahamic religions, make claims about the natural world that clearly fall under the purview of one or more fields of science

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go repeating the same info... 

 

@Delano, surely you understand that video is not the only or definitive source of information on this subject? 

 

As far as your last statement the existence of God this is certainly not a question for the adherents of a given religion. 

 

What scientist, in their right mind, would try to prove the existence of Zeus, or any other diety, or even think that is a good idea? 

 

Is this an idea you got from the video? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/02/2018 at 10:55 AM, Troy said:

 

I need to listen the the whole Sheldrake lecture to better understand where you (and perhaps Sheldrake) are coming from.

That would behelpful in the discussion.

 

9 hours ago, Cynique said:

 @Del  You and Pioneer are standing on  shaky ground, depending on your smugness to support you, totally unaware of how transparent you are. LMAO

I have no idea what you  are referring to Cynique. Can you provide a quote to give some context.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Deli don't remember.  i'm sure i had a good reason.  Probably something to do with the "high-fives" between you and Pioneer  in your attempt to alternate religion with mythology in an effort to prove that science idolizes Greek and Romans gods.  Don't bother with a response because i'm sure  no minds will be changed on this subject.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Del I astonished that you would yet again repeat what I wrote.

 

If your only contribution to this conversation is continuing to ignore direct questions, parroting what I previously wrote, and telling me watch a video, that TED did not see fit to keep published, then I guess we are at an impasse. 

 

 

 

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...