Science Trips Over Its Own Feet

After being invited to speak at a conference, Nobel Prize winning physicist was dis-invited from speaking at, and even attending, the conference based on his interest in para-normal research.-From Josephson-Why so scared-My question is, why do you think mainstream science is so scared of paranormal research that they would shut out a Nobel Prize winner from attending a conference? And, do you think this is a case of science tripping over its own feet, or as the saying goes, cutting off its nose to spite its face?

Post reply

4819 views

After being invited to speak at a conference, Nobel Prize winning physicist was dis-invited from speaking at, and even attending, the conference based on his interest in para-normal research.
> 
> From Josephson
> 
> Why so scared
> 
> My question is, why do you think mainstream science is so scared of paranormal research that they would shut out a Nobel Prize winner from attending a conference? And, do you think this is a case of science tripping over its own feet, or as the saying goes, cutting off its nose to spite its face?-The scientific method relies upon naturalism which makes an assertion "At best natural phenomenon cannot be discerned from supernatural phenomenon." While this can be interpreted in many ways, I see it as science sticking to what it is good at doing. (Science cannot work without an assumption of materialism.) -In terms to why he was barred, I can't agree with that decision. Who cares? It's not like he's rewriting quantum theory--reading the paper you referenced, he makes some claims that are impossible to test at this stage, but are mathematically valid. (For the parts I can understand, about half the paper.) -First, his assertion that he could solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time is is essentially true; but it is already predicted by how quantum computing works in the first place. There is no need to refer to this guy's theorems for that. (I'm working on my Master's in Computer Science right now, if you wonder about my qualifications.) -As for "instant communications" the Chinese did it this year, NOT using the techniques he outlined in his paper. -http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2016687,00.html

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

4806 views

I have no problem with science sticking with what it is good at. I do, however, have a problem with science is the only answer, or that any other answer is rubbish simply because it does not fit within their materialistic paradigm.

Post reply

4792 views

I have no problem with science sticking with what it is good at. I do, however, have a problem with science is the only answer, or that any other answer is rubbish simply because it does not fit within their materialistic paradigm.-The dis-invitations of highly qualified scientists reported in the first message here is surely a case of the organisers of the conference shooting themselves in the feet. They are stupid as well as blinkered. But this sort of thing happens I'm sure in other fields than science. -What science is good at is solving problems by the application of reason and experiment. Science is the method not the answer. What does it mean to say that science has a "materialistic paradigm"? There are a lot of "immaterial" (i.e. massless) concepts accepted in current science, like probabilities. If telepathy is possible it can surely be scientifically studied. The problem is that hitherto no reliable data, other than mere anecdote, has been verified.

--
GPJ

Post reply

4825 views

I.E. Science scoffs at anything that can not be measured by some means. Because they can not measure the spiritual, it is not a possibility, or it is an absurdity. (I have been told as much numerous times)-Just look at the numerous publications stating things like, God can not exist because (insert statement about how science makes God unnecessary or there is no proof, Dawkins, Hawking, etc).-They said the flood could not have happened, new evidence(linked in another thread) shows that it could.-They said that man kind could not have decended from Noah and his family a few thousand years ago, yet Rhodes and his group have modeled at between 6000-13000BC. -They have said that the Hindu/Buddhist beliefs are a load of rubbish, yet even a die hard skeptic would be hard pressed to deny the many numerous benefits of yoga or the numerous reports of spiritual phenomena attributed to it. -They avoid these things because of a number of reasons, primarily, because to have to admit that there was something that they simply can not understand with measurements and statistics is anethema to them, and because they would have to say they were wrong. And of course, to be fair, various Churches need to step up and admit that their literal interpretation of things is wrong as well. -Humility, open-mindedness, and a willingness to learn would benefit both parties tremendously. I have learned so much from both science and religion/spiritualism, both about my world, my self, and those around me, that I find it incredible that they are so blinded by their arrogance. I suppose I have let it anger me, and in a sense, that has put blinders on me as well. But, we all have failings and strive to overcome them and grow. I just wish they could put asside their petty differences and work together instead of struggling against each other.

Post reply

4892 views

I.E. Science scoffs at anything that can not be measured by some means. Because they can not measure the spiritual, it is not a possibility, or it is an absurdity. (I have been told as much numerous times)
> 
> Just look at the numerous publications stating things like, God can not exist because (insert statement about how science makes God unnecessary or there is no proof, Dawkins, Hawking, etc).
> 
> They said the flood could not have happened, new evidence(linked in another thread) shows that it could.
> -I hope you read my detailed analysis on why it could not have happened--as well as the fact that the article you cited directly stated that the water they found was trapped inside rock itself. (Google 'hydrous minerals' sometime.) -I'm more than willing to have a detailed scientific discussion about why a global flood can't happen. -> They said that man kind could not have decended from Noah and his family a few thousand years ago, yet Rhodes and his group have modeled at between 6000-13000BC. 
> -That doesn't provide any solid evidence of a world flood event; we'll play with that after you find a way to defeat my argument dealing with how much water would be needed.-> They have said that the Hindu/Buddhist beliefs are a load of rubbish, yet even a die hard skeptic would be hard pressed to deny the many numerous benefits of yoga or the numerous reports of spiritual phenomena attributed to it. 
> -I spent a greater part of my adult life practicing Buddhism; though you mistake (in the case of Buddhism) their deeper beliefs that essentially deny "spiritualism" in our typical context. The Zen religions of east asia are essentially atheistic. Tibetan Buddhism still contains gods, but this is considered an aberration by many prominent Buddhist thinkers such as Dogen or Thich Nhat Hanh. -
> They avoid these things because of a number of reasons, primarily, because to have to admit that there was something that they simply can not understand with measurements and statistics is anethema to them, and because they would have to say they were wrong. And of course, to be fair, various Churches need to step up and admit that their literal interpretation of things is wrong as well. 
> -Well, in my case I haven't avoided them, I've directly challenged them. Your turn!-> Humility, open-mindedness, and a willingness to learn would benefit both parties tremendously. I have learned so much from both science and religion/spiritualism, both about my world, my self, and those around me, that I find it incredible that they are so blinded by their arrogance. I suppose I have let it anger me, and in a sense, that has put blinders on me as well. But, we all have failings and strive to overcome them and grow. I just wish they could put asside their petty differences and work together instead of struggling against each other.-The reason that will never happen is because the epistemologies are completely different. Myself, I'm trying to find ways to expand my epistemology, if it makes sense. (I'm reading a book directly assaulting materialism.) Yet, there is no explanation yet of how the scientific method can work without an assumption (even an implicit assumption) of materialism. Science can't work without naturalism, and naturalism can't work without materialism.

Post reply

4801 views

I have no problem with science sticking with what it is good at. I do, however, have a problem with science is the only answer, or that any other answer is rubbish simply because it does not fit within their materialistic paradigm.-It comes from a different kind of epistemology, it values these things:-1. Reliability. If we can't reliable reach identical conclusions, than we don't have knowledge, but opinion.-2. Repeatability. If we can't repeatedly reach identical conclusions, then we don't have knowledge, but opinion. -Things that are not considered material simply cannot fit into this paradigm. I don't think this is wrong, because I think it is reasonable. So yeah, even though I disagree with them barring him from the conference, scientifically, if he can't perform 1 or 2 on his paranormal ideas, he's not practicing science; Science asserts materialism. -Having previously come from an atheist perspective, I'm still enough of a materialist that when it comes to subjects that can't meet 1 or 2; I just keep my mouth shut, because it means they cannot actually be studied.

Post reply

4841 views

The pendulum of my life has seen both sides and came to rest firmly in the middle. I grew up very religious, and swung to the far opposite side of atheism, and then came back to rest at agnosticism. One thing I have learned is that to far in either direction is no good. Materialism can not explain everything, neither can spiritualism. The are not two separate and distinct worlds, but two sides of the same coin, life. I do not think, and yes, this is my opinion, that science will ever reach a completely unified theory that explains everything. Nor do I think that blind religion is the way to live. Their must be a balance between faith and rational thought. Rational thought explains your world and allows you to work and live within the constraints of the material existence, while faith and spiritualism allows a person to contemplate things that they know but can't explain away with science. If the two could work together, such as whats been done somewhat with Buddhism, I think they would be a quite unstoppable force for the betterment of humanity.

Post reply

4774 views

The pendulum of my life has seen both sides and came to rest firmly in the middle. I grew up very religious, and swung to the far opposite side of atheism, and then came back to rest at agnosticism. One thing I have learned is that to far in either direction is no good. Materialism can not explain everything, neither can spiritualism. The are not two separate and distinct worlds, but two sides of the same coin, life. I do not think, and yes, this is my opinion, that science will ever reach a completely unified theory that explains everything. Nor do I think that blind religion is the way to live. Their must be a balance between faith and rational thought. Rational thought explains your world and allows you to work and live within the constraints of the material existence, while faith and spiritualism allows a person to contemplate things that they know but can't explain away with science. If the two could work together, such as whats been done somewhat with Buddhism, I think they would be a quite unstoppable force for the betterment of humanity.-I agree wholeheartedly . I'm probably more boring than some because in terms of of how I tend to stay away from non-material (or subjective) explanations of things. I realize that mind by itself is nonmaterial--even if it turns out to emerge from matter, the ability to reason about things that aren't there (going back to Aristotle) itself is a non-concrete thing. -You don't have the time to go back in these forums, but I derive a great deal of a connection with the old Norse religion of my ancestors. There's a definite feeling I get when reading the old tales that lets me feel a connection to a long-lost people. To me, the place for religion isn't to explain the universe; that job is the job for science. Religion is to fill the void of meaning in the universe. One thing Graham Dunstan Martin is correct about, is that man at nature processes things in terms of meaning, rather than syntax. -One of the reasons I'm a fan of Nietzsche is that he has alot of writing centered around changing the meaning of things. A novel I started writing some time ago centers on the Christian devil as the protagonist; however the premise is based on the question, "What would happen if the Devil just decided he'd had enough and said 'I quit?'" It started out as a joke, but after deeper contemplation I thought it was a great idea.

Post reply

4863 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Science Trips Over Its Own Feet (Politics)