Scientists or non-scientists?

E.G.: <<...you, scientific thinking humans can't understand humans with other abilities then you are used too??? Or are you all afraid of humans with these 'powers'???..>>

This unattributed quote -- the identity of its author is irrelevent to this discussion -- bespeaks a pervasive distrust of empirically-minded persons.

Why is empirical science so loved for its contributions to public health, safety, communication, and understanding of Nature and yet so hated for demonstrating the Earth is not the center of the Universe, that proof of the supernatural is still missing, or that faith is not the same thing as knowing?

Why is there the fear that "the worlds Scientists, biologists and geneticist will want to take samples of you and put you in jars...placed into pickling vats,"...>>

Mary Shelley created Frankenstein's monster. What was her motivationn for doing that?

Throughout history, Popes have killed thousands/millions. Tribal Chieftains have, too. Governments have. Criminals have. Husbands and wives have, too.

So, why aren't each of those groups as universally generalized as evil & distrustful as are "scientists"?

Why are Intellectuals & non-believers always the first to die in revolutions?

Who's afraid of whom?

The believers are always afraid of the Non-believers....

But isn't belief supposed to embue the believer with emotional fortitude?

Why, then, the believer's fear of non-believers?

Is belief and faith-based thinking really so delicate a facade?

in science we owe a great deal to non-believers.they have time and again proved believers to be wrong and changed the way world goes.

It is interesting to consider that, when sick or seriously injured, people want the best doctor to administer aid -- those with the best medical science education.

But they also abhor medical scientists for their habitual disections of alien visitors.

Being human obviously has its advantages. ;)

Science is hard, faith is easy.

Maybe the non-believers are afaird that science will destroy all the mystery in their lives. They do not realize that science <b>is</b> the greatest mystery. Maybe it is the "Tall Poppy" syndrome. Maybe they are jealous of the knowledge that science has so have to invent their own science in mockery.

[Shrug] I don't know. :-)

Now there's a great game that also plays on the mad, evil, dumb, unsafe scientist characatures.

Now who is to say that the ways the Half-Life aliens behave is not just they ways they are, ways that are deserving of respect and preservation?

Are we not also unfairly stereotyping those tough-loving aliens?

:)

Scientists are cool. Shamans are also cool.
But whichever belief system one subscribes to, it simply does not hold a final answer. There are physical rules, but these rules are not universal.
Phenomena is local and subjective to the beholder.

Most non-materialists have been materialists at one point. Very seldom the opposite. Why is this?

Advanced technology gives new vantage points. New vocabulary and comprehensible ways of illustrating excistential ideas. But technology and science is just as prone to trends as everything else. Discoveries lead towards new frontiers but the excistential answers are still as distant as ever.

It is a matter of double exposure. Physical and spiritual co-excist simultaneously and aren´t in conflict.

If you see a conflict there, the problem lies within you :)

Originally posted by Boris2
Science is hard, faith is easy.


Hi Boris2,
science was easy.
getting faith in me about something like god was the hardest thing mom has ever tried untill the idea of this being a virtual world hit me and drove me crazy about itself.
bye!.

Many of the greatest discoveries in science were forged despite resounding doubt and ridicule. An airplane! Whoever heard of an airplane!¿ This was a victory of faith and science (and probably a little stupidity and bravery as well). My point is simply to state that we must temper every process we consider, we cannot rule out the possibility of a "spirit realm" just as we cannot demonstrate or explain all instances in nature through science. While many scientists have a form of "faith" in entertaining as an explaination for life the evolution theory there are those that feel strongly about certain things which they cannot prove through scientific procedure. Apparantly both of these vehicles are needed...

Part of the problem with science is, I reckon, a misplaced inferiority complex on the part of the masses. Try explaining, for example, time dilation to someone. If their eyes don't glaze over, offer to take them through the math. Doesn't matter if you insist that there's nothing more complex involved that Pythagoras' theorem; they'll recoil in horror.

Like everything else, science requires effort. The average person in the street could, if they were determined, have a pretty complete understanding of any subject in six months. However, none of us wants to put that much effort into a subject we consider to be of peripheral interest.


Why do people have such antipathy towards doctors? I'm not sure, but I suspect the answer can be found in their attitudes to alternative medicine (it took all my willpower n
ot to put that in quotes, but now is not the time to be snide). People trust their homeopaths, and their feng shui consultants. They even trust their fucking astrologers. All these are as esoteric as any science, so my answer above doesn't really explain anything. So I'd better shut up. Sorry for wasting your time.

But I do think that examining attitudes to our charlatanous chums could be beneficial.

I've always thought that it was easier to draw your own conclusions based on what you couldn't explain (e.g religion), and it is generally harder to take a class for a half a year or read an eight hundred page book.

I think the shamans and the priests are afraid of the scientists, for fear that they'll destroy every last vestige of power the church has created.

Part of the problem...a misplaced inferiority complex on the part of the masses. ...science requires effort. ...People trust their homeopaths, and their feng shui consultants. They even trust their fucking astrologers.

easier to draw your own conclusions based on what you couldn't explain (e.g religion),...I think the shamans and the priests are afraid...they'll destroy every last vestige of power the church has created.

These tend toward my own general hypothesis: that science is irrationally villified to spare personal vanity further insult and social engineering further embarassment.

Who cares where it came from as long as progress was made in the right direction? If the cure for cancer is delivered to me by night in the form of a dream and it works where is the loss? Similarly, if science can heal the environment scientifically, let it...We'll always have devotees to both, if for nothing else than for the intrinsic ironic nature of existance and non-existance. And because of this no one should feel inferior because of his school of discipline, and "who's afraid of whom" is a mentality that should have been shrugged off in grade school by little scientists and little shamen alike...Read some Science Digest, watch some X-files, whatever...

Originally posted by Yogamojo
Who cares where it came from as long as progress was made in the right direction?

I'm pretty sure that you weren't intending to imply that "the ends justify the means". ;)

Read some Science Digest, watch some X-files, whatever...

Whatever? Hell, Osama did both. Look what that bought us. Just because you do both doesn't mean you're contributing to the common good -- the right direction.

When was the last time an army of radical, fundimentalist scientists, acting only on their own behalf in the furtherance of Science, produced the carnage of mass-murdering philosophers? (Nazi's were political, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were political, the crusades and the WTCs were religious.)

Just because you can imagine that something might be true does not necessarily make such musing in the interest of the common good.

Science is a more disciplined and, therefore, a less onerous way of thinking than most all other intentionally motivated thinking formulae.

Music is a close second.

Snoop Doggy Dog too?

A lot of SDD, yes. Not all, certainly.

I was thinking music as opposed to lyrics. ;)

Howsabout Leap Froggy Frog? His music is horrible!

No, Mr. G, I do not support Bin Laden tactics, nor do I look at it as positive progress, we both agree here, right? I do not intend to stray from our original subject: I only mean to say that whether help comes from a scientist or a sensitive it is good as long as it works. Warring of any kind goes against the rationale of any good thinker, one good rule of thumb is that 'if it causes death it probably can't be too good'. Science may be villified, but nearly all of us were brought into this world by its "benevolence; faith also backfires: remember Jim Jones and the cool-aid gang? No single system is perfect or all-encompassing...

Originally posted by Mr. G
....

When was the last time an army of radical, fundimentalist scientists, acting only on their own behalf in the furtherance of Science, produced the carnage of mass-murdering philosophers? (Nazi's were political, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were political, the crusades and the WTCs were religious.)
....

I seem to recall something about a couple of Atomic bombs.... can't quite remember what it was though ... :D

Again: positive progress, or progress in a beneficial direction. I belive I qualified my post by including this modifier, really none of those instances (Nazi's, the WTC, Nagasaki) involved a benefit for anyone, so they cannot be considered. This is not really a very complicated concept, all it involves is weighing benefit against detriment. And all of the instances cited in your reply were not only detrimental to masses of people, but they are some of the most blatant historical examples of mass death, so who did they help? Where was the progress? These instances (along with several others I can cite) do not warrant further consideration in the court of science or spiritualism since no progress was made along either vector.
I feel that my point is safe: I'm having surgery this weekend, but I'm not going to a faith-healer, I'm going to my surgeon, but who would sooth the souls of the world's housewives if there were no Yanni or Ms. Cleo? Yuk Yuk!
Good reply post by the way, Seeker, Thanks!

SeekerOfTruth: I seem to recall something about a couple of Atomic bombs.

But you don't compliment the thought with the understanding that the Manhattan Project was intitiated by a political decision, funded by political decision and executed by political decision. The scientists and the science were the tools of politics, not its master.

Yogamojo: Yuk Yuk! Good reply post by the way, Seeker, Thanks!

So, you missed the point, too?

Hey, it happens.

The scientists and the science were the tools of politics, not its master.

True, but the scientist 'tools' could opt. out, yet even R.Oppeheimer, for all
of his reservations, failed to do so.

Oh well.

So, why do you think some of the most brilliant minds on the planet thought the politicians were for once actually right?

Originally posted by Mr. G


But you don't compliment the thought with the understanding that the Manhattan Project was intitiated by a political decision, funded by political decision and executed by political decision. The scientists and the science were the tools of politics, not its master.



So, you missed the point, too?

Hey, it happens.

No, I didn't miss the point. I just don't buy the arguement that politics forced those scientists to create nuclear weapons. It was their own choice. They could have made the choice not to succeed and no one would have known differently for quite some time.

As to if the political decision to use those weapons was appropriate, yes, I believe it was. But the fact remains that if the scientists had not developed the weapons, they could never have been used. Therefor the scientists were just as guilty as the politicians who made the decisions to use them.

You don't sit on a fence, you hop right on over.

From: "The scientists and the science were the tools of politics, not its master."

To: "So, why do you think some of the most brilliant minds on the planet thought the politicians were for once actually right?"

From poor pawns to complicit brains?

Whatever it takes to win a point?

Oh well.

What baffles me is that I've been agreeing with this "point" except for 1 tiny aspect (from which it seems we've strayed into some political extra which should be saved for another post), and maybe the author of this thread should read again his first post. What have I overlooked? Please include a "point"...oh, and slow down a little for me...

I think that the point to be made, at least for me, is that in many
people's minds there is 'bad' science and 'good' science ... kind of
like there being 'black' majik and 'white' majik ... and that the 'bad'
science outweighs the 'good' science.

AFAIC, I chalk it up to our 'excellent' education system.

Just thoughts.

Take care.

Chagur,

RE: "The scientists and the science were the tools of politics, not its master."

RE: "So, why do you think some of the most brilliant minds on the planet thought the politicians were for once actually right?

You don't sit on a fence, you hop right on over.

Um, ah, um ... I plead temporary inanity. Yeah, that's the ticket: it really wasn't my fault. I've been hanging out in Subcultures way too much. Yeah, that's it.

There, here. Here, there. There, here. It gets so confusing. I'm so alone, and I just want to be liked...

:rolleyes:

Got me. :p

With a little help.

And the Germans killed the Jews and the Jews killed the Arabs and the Arabs killed the hostages and bad is the news...

You are a 'nutcase' Mr. G., but I like you any way.;)

I go along with Yogamojo...

You are a 'nutcase' Mr. G.

Now I've heard everything. Relativity is proven beyond any possible doubt. :D

I like you...

Hey, Babelina. Should I take this as Banshee publicly flirting with me??

I hope Chagur isn't the jealous type. :D

Not a jealous bone in my body - particularly when it comes to Bansee :D

Now Bebelina ... that's a different story. :D :D :D

Take care. ;)

Smitten by her giving good color?

You're a psychic!!!!!

Take care. :D

I knew you were going to say that.

Those who follow the scientific route never discount faith as an outlet. If it were not for someone's dream or view or hope or faith or whatever you want to call it, there would not have been a scientist out there to prove or disprove it. One ties in with the other no matter how you slice it.

:) :) :) :) :)

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

As I said: 'You are a 'nutcase', but I like you'.

Relatively...:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

Originally posted by SeekerOfTruth


No, I didn't miss the point. I just don't buy the arguement that politics forced those scientists to create nuclear weapons. It was their own choice. They could have made the choice not to succeed and no one would have known differently for quite some time.

As to if the political decision to use those weapons was appropriate, yes, I believe it was. But the fact remains that if the scientists had not developed the weapons, they could never have been used. Therefor the scientists were just as guilty as the politicians who made the decisions to use them.


scientists constructed deadly weapons because the natzis were doing it also. would prefer a world dominated by the natzis? Einstein even regret it after seeing the damage it brought and ended the rest of his days as a pacifist.

just don't blame science for the evil in some people.

The tendency of the dumb to blame the education system for their own inadequacies is rather humorous.

:rolleyes: