Noble Realms — Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

Re: Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

2004-12-30T18:38:56Z

One of the things I experienced in my graduate school days was the the isolation of each of the fields of inquiry. I remember one time some professors were hosting a big conference on American politics, and there were all these 'big names' in political science visiting. One of them, had written an 'important' book on the Congress, and he was all excited about this new discovery he had made: Europe. How fascinting it was to look at European governments and compare with the US. My jaw just about fell to the floor and I almost walked out. This guy was in the twilight of his career and it had JUST occurred to him to examine someplace other than the US!!! AND it seemed it still hadn't occurred to him to look further at say India, which is only the world's largest "democracy". Everyone else, however, was duly, or maybe dutifully, impressed.

I was also reprimanded for wanting to take a class on archeology to try to see if there were any interesting answers in that field. No, you may not think outside the box! No! No! No! (especially if you don't have tenure )

I've wanted to go back to 'intellectual' circles from time to time, but I really don't fit in anymore, if I ever did.

Kathy

Re: Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

2004-12-30T00:22:46Z

P.S. the reason I put up this post is because I briefly joined a forum that was run by a Star trek writer who happened to be a scientist as well. Sounded interesting. Boy was I wrong. It was a science forum. I put up what I thought was a harmless post about Lazar & if he had come forward with any people to corroborate his past. Just a question it was. I got pounded by the scientists. bunch of closed minded idiots I thought.

Re: Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

2004-12-29T21:02:33Z

The water testing of the sphynx which revealed it was 10.000 yrs old, not 4-5 thousand yrs is a classic example of the blockheadedness of scientists. They did what Montalk above describes. Attack the new data & defend the retarded old data.

Re: Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

2004-12-29T19:24:13Z

I recently stumbled across this site:

http://skepdic.com

As you can tell from the URL, it's a "skeptical" site set on debunking pretty much every topic that Noble Realmers hold dear, with science being the basis for the debunking. I admit, I found myself frowning and getting mad as I perused the site, to the point where I finally clicked off of it and mentally was like Screw you! What do you know! Fool!!! haha

I tend to be more on the rational, logical, left brained side myself, and used to be an Athiest for three years, so I do understand this mindset found at skepdic.com, even if I don't agree with it at this point. I see both sides, and both sides have their place. There is a place for science, if applied correctly, and there is a place for the "woo woo weird beliefs"....if applied correctly as well. Each one has their polar extremes that should be avoided, such as trying to debunk everything and anything under the sun to the point of ridiculousness, and believing in the most nutty "woo woo" things to the point of having one's head in the clouds and losing a grip on reality. There should be a common middle ground. It shouldn't have to be a "choice between two evils." But that's what we're always given.....two polar opposite extreme choices to fight over. Either it's hardcore skeptical Godless science, or woo woo New Agers. There is a middle ground 3rd option which takes the best of both worlds, and that's the one we should be aiming for.........

Re: Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

2004-12-29T18:51:40Z

Science explores only what it already believes is possible.

Re: Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

2004-12-29T14:37:40Z

feritciva wrote:

As I've written before, that doesn't mean science is worthless. No, science means a lot - but to some degree. It is the airport shuttle to bring us to the airport. If we want to fly, we have to get to the plane. Can't wait in the shuttle if you want to go other places.

Nice analogy Ferit!

Re: Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

2004-12-29T13:27:49Z

I was thinking to start a thread just like this and ask following questions;

When did we begin to "believe" we have to trust science %100 to understand the reality that surrounds us?

When did we accept some aspects of reality as "science-fiction" or "myths" ?

When did we forget our multi-dimensional personality and strictly limitted ourselves here?

When did we begin to use/believe words as "impossible", "can't" etc?

As I've written before, that doesn't mean science is worthless. No, science means a lot - but to some degree. It is the airport shuttle to bring us to the airport. If we want to fly, we have to get to the plane. Can't wait in the shuttle if you want to go other places.

Re: Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

2004-12-29T09:40:25Z

Yeah, after spending a several years studying physics and engineering I got a good idea of what academia is all about, which made me think twice about subjecting myself to graduate school. My physics professor and boss was a friendly, religious, unconventional, and creative guy. But creative as he was, he couldn't do much with it because any wrong move would mean an end to funding, and thus an end to his career. So academia consists of those who uphold the status quo and those who cannot risk going against it. It's a self-contained system of ignorance. Now these professors I knew were very intellectual and intelligent, but I gagged at the ridiculously unproductive research they were involved in. Talk about spending five to ten years and a couple hundred thousand dollars on one specific problem most people never heard about and which, if solved, does nothing significant to help anyone. It's mostly about appearances and a paycheck these days.

But what makes me shake my head the most is how many scientists today ignore the scientific method when it comes to stuff that could really advance their understanding. Here is the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

And here is what "scientism" does instead:

1. Rejection of observations that challenge standard theory.
2. Rationalizing away any hypotheses that challenge standard theory, without investigating or testing them.
3. Supporting the rationalization with old data, thus illogically defending the standard theory against new data.
4. Performance of only those experimental tests that confirm the old theory, and scoffing at proposals for tests that would undermine standard theory.

In other words, rather than building a hypothesis from observation, they throw out the observation because the hypothesis is "bunk" according to the status quo. So much for science. The only progress that happens in orthodox science happens by accident.

Alushe wrote:

I stumped her with the following: "Who the hell is pushing the keys then? Who writes the beautiful music that the piano produces?"

That's the one thing they can't answer because math and science is limited to the domain of effects rather than cause. The ultimate cause is always a mystery, and they would rather attribute it to incalculable randomness or quantum chaos than admit the existence of consciousness. There is more to knowledge than can be gained by cold reason. Oh well, they'll find out sooner or later just how short their shortcomings are.

Re: Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

2004-12-29T08:30:44Z

The scientists can live in their cold cell for all eternity as far as I care. It's like this: These people are trumped up by the media circus as "superior intellects" when in reality they could make up whatever rubbish they want, hide it behind some unintelligible jargon and the masses lap it up. The majority of scientists, and people studying the various sciences, that I have met have been cold lifeless husks, many I have met have revealed to me their own doubts of their theories, their own doubts on the "godless" nature of the universe, blah blah blah.

I worked with a biological psychologist for a long time and she put it like this:
"The mind is like a piano, certain keys are pushed and you get certain notes (thoughts)".
I stumped her with the following: "Who the hell is pushing the keys then? Who writes the beautiful music that the piano produces?"

Limited thinking of scientists & negative demeanor of

2004-12-29T06:46:27Z

It has been stated by scientists that life cannot exist on Venus & other planets because of atmospheric conditions. My thought was, who's to say that the inhabitants would have oxgen based bodies? This is one example of the limited thinking & condescending manner I have noticed about some scientists. The very same people who said the sound barrier could not be broken. I have given thought to the "Why"underlying this behaviour. I think for one they like to be right & are very afraid being being proved wrong by someone who does not have a degree. An inner insecurity so to speak.When a person looks down his nose at thers around him, he usually does this to make himself feel superior. They also like to have the world inside a safe & secure box that can be measured & weighed.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are many things we have no undersatnding of yet. & the job of a scientist is to explore the unknown. & yet they poo poo ufo's anti gravity, perpetual motion, abductions etc. Any thoughts?