1
   

*new* mind is more than brain (???)

 
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 05:25 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78335 wrote:
How about the religion indu$try?


Yes.

Quote:
where am I being inaccurate
Roughly 15 percent in both surveys claimed to be agnostic or to have ''no definite belief'' ....

... while about 42 percent in 1916 and about 45 percent today said they did not believe in a God as specified in the questionnaire, although whether they believed in some other definition of a deity or an almighty being was not addressed.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 09:35 am
@richrf,
richrf;78353 wrote:
Roughly 15 percent in both surveys claimed to be agnostic or to have ''no definite belief'' ....

... while about 42 percent in 1916 and about 45 percent today said they did not believe in a God as specified in the questionnaire, although whether they believed in some other definition of a deity or an almighty being was not addressed.


So let's just assume they were all Godbots then.

I'll bet a lot of them were deists or something, e.g., believers in Spinoza's God:

Also you can get different numbers depending on which segment you address. Speaking of members of the National Academy of Science alone, who are the elites in America:

Leading Scientists Still Reject God
[INDENT]Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).[/INDENT]lolol

What I'd like to see would be an international survey. Irreligiosity is widespread all over Western Europe and Japan, so what do their scientists believe?
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 01:37 pm
@odenskrigare,
It seems like the issue is not just the variance in viewpoints, but how legitimate the detractors from the genetics viewpoint were; you certainly would not take the word of the man on the street over the guy who has spent his life researching something by the same token that you wouldn't let a garbage man fix your car over a licensed mechanic.

You can't just read internet sources, you have to be able to discriminate, because 90% of the material on the net is bogus or a joke. Plus, from what I can tell, it seems like you gloss over things so much that you often miss the point or totally misread it.
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:11 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;78460 wrote:
You can't just read internet sources, you have to be able to discriminate,


OK. What do you think of these two statements:

Quote:
Schizophrenia, however, is somewhat largely due to genetical error


Quote:
Let's look at your numbers:[INDENT].... about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer.'' Roughly 15 percent in both surveys claimed to be agnostic or to have ''no definite belief'' regarding the question, while about 42 percent in 1916 and about 45 percent today said they did not believe in a God as specified in the questionnaire, although whether they believed in some other definition of a deity or an almighty being was not addressed.[/INDENT]40% - Godbots
60% - not Godbots


Please take as much time as you wish to evaluate these two quotes, based upon the references that I provided on the related threads or any other references that you would like to use.

Rich
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:20 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78463 wrote:
OK. What do you think of these two statements:





Please take as much time as you wish to evaluate these two quotes, based upon the references that I provided on the related threads or any other references that you would like to use.

Rich

Evaluate what about them? They have nothing to do with the point I made and nothing to do with each other aside from the fact that they came from the same source. The first one was a one line statement. The second one was kind of tongue and cheek. That is my evaluation.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:21 pm
@odenskrigare,
The problem with your survey, rich, is that it's too vague

You certainly can't use it to claim that 85% of scientists believe in God

Also it's too US-centric
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:28 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;78464 wrote:
Evaluate what about them? They have nothing to do with the point I made and nothing to do with each other aside from the fact that they came from the same source. The first one was a one line statement. The second one was kind of tongue and cheek. That is my evaluation.


Not bad. Rather hasty, but not bad.

Rich

---------- Post added 07-20-2009 at 03:29 PM ----------

odenskrigare;78465 wrote:
The problem with your survey, rich, is that it's too vague

You certainly can't use it to claim that 85% of scientists believe in God

Also it's too US-centric


I wasn't asking about a critique of the study. I was asking for any evaluation about your interpretation of the conclusions of the study. Two different things.

Rich
0 Replies
 
gregulus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:39 pm
@odenskrigare,
Quote:
But some are marvelously on target! I love quoting the creators of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Not the interpreters mind you. The CREATORS. Bless their souls.
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:50 pm
@gregulus,
gregulus;78468 wrote:


Thanks for the comments. If you have any interesting quotes from the scientists you mentioned, I would be very interested in hearing them.

Here are a couple from Heisenberg that I like, and they pertain to the topic of this thread:

Natural science, does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves.

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.


And Schrondinger:

A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement.

For a solitary animal egoism is a virtue that tends to preserve and improve the species: in any kind of community it becomes a destructive vice.


Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe.


Good stuff. Thanks!

Also, I hope that this thread can stay on topic, which began as a discussion of Sheldrake's morphic resonance theory. Thanks.

Rich
gregulus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:58 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78470 wrote:
Thanks for the comments. If you have any interesting quotes from the scientists you mentioned, I would be very interested in hearing them.

Here are a couple from Heisenberg that I like, and they pertain to the topic of this thread:

Natural science, does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves.

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.


And Schrondinger:

A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement.

For a solitary animal egoism is a virtue that tends to preserve and improve the species: in any kind of community it becomes a destructive vice.


Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe.


Good stuff. Thanks!

Also, I hope that this thread can stay on topic, which began as a discussion of Sheldrake's morphic resonance theory. Thanks.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:02 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78470 wrote:
Also, I hope that this thread can stay on topic, which began as a discussion of Sheldrake's morphic resonance theory.


It's pseudoscientific twaddle whose predictions haven't been verified successfully by anyone other than Sheldrake

Also please read about quantum physics and relativity before quoting involved scientists out of context. I mean, admittedly, I know dick about both of these fields but I'm not going to act as though I do.
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:08 pm
@gregulus,
gregulus;78471 wrote:


Yes, there are many, many interpretations of quantum physics. However, many of these interpretations do acknowledge the entanglement between the subject and the object. A key issue when it comes to the nature of the mind. Which of the many interpretations of quantum physics (I don't believe there is one true interpretation) do you embrace? Why do you embrace this interpretation and in what respect do you think it applies to this thread? How do you feel about it, that there are so many different interpretations of what it means?

Thanks. I am trying the best I can to stay on topic.

Rich

---------- Post added 07-20-2009 at 04:13 PM ----------

odenskrigare;78472 wrote:
It's pseudoscientific twaddle whose predictions haven't been verified successfully by anyone other than Sheldrake


Thanks. I appreciate it that you are attempting to stay on topic, and your views about this very well known scientist. I do want to underscore his credentials as a scientist and the way you described him:

Quote:
Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 75 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize. He then studied philosophy at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge University, where he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells. At Clare College he was also Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology.


From 1968 to 1969, based in the Botany Department of the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, he studied rain forest plants. From 1974 to 1985 he worked at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India, where he was Principal Plant Physiologist. While in India, he also lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book, A New Science of Life. He is the current Perrott-Warrick Scholar and Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project. He is also a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, near San Francisco, and an Academic Director and Visiting Professor at the Graduate Institute in Connecticut. He lives in London with his wife Jill Purce www.healingvoice.com and two sons.


Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:21 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78476 wrote:
Thanks. I appreciate it that you are attempting to stay on topic, and your views about this very well known scientist. I do want to underscore his credentials as a scientist and the way you described him:


Maybe his research on cell aging and tropical plants is absolutely brilliant

But that doesn't mean "morphic resonance" is anything other than twaddle
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:23 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78479 wrote:
Maybe his research on cell aging and tropical plants is absolutely brilliant

But that doesn't mean "morphic resonance" is anything other than twaddle


Maybe, maybe not (you would have to define twaddle for me, since I have not come across this word yet). Maybe is more brilliant than you?

A good place to start maybe would be for you to relate to me what have you read of his on this subject? Maybe we can discuss where you diverge from him?

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:40 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78480 wrote:
Maybe, maybe not (you would have to define twaddle for me, since I have not come across this word yet). Maybe is more brilliant than you?

A good place to start maybe would be for you to relate to me what have you read of his on this subject? Maybe we can discuss where you diverge from him?

Rich


Here is something I have read about MR. I'm not terribly impressed:

Rupert's Resonance: Scientific American[INDENT]Third, in 2000 John Colwell of Middlesex University in London conducted a formal test using Sheldrake's experimental protocol. Twelve volunteers participated in 12 sequences of 20 stare or no-stare trials each and received accuracy feedback for the final nine sessions. Results: subjects could detect being stared at only when accuracy feedback was provided, which Colwell attributed to the subjects learning what was, in fact, a nonrandom presentation of the trials. When University of Hertfordshire psychologist Richard Wiseman also attempted to replicate Sheldrake's research, he found that subjects detected stares at rates no better than chance.
[/INDENT](Although I did post this back on page 2.)
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:55 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78481 wrote:
Here is something I have read about MR. I'm not terribly impressed:

Rupert's Resonance: Scientific American[INDENT]Third, in 2000 John Colwell of Middlesex University in London conducted a formal test using Sheldrake's experimental protocol. Twelve volunteers participated in 12 sequences of 20 stare or no-stare trials each and received accuracy feedback for the final nine sessions. Results: subjects could detect being stared at only when accuracy feedback was provided, which Colwell attributed to the subjects learning what was, in fact, a nonrandom presentation of the trials. When University of Hertfordshire psychologist Richard Wiseman also attempted to replicate Sheldrake's research, he found that subjects detected stares at rates no better than chance.
[/INDENT](Although I did post this back on page 2.)


Thanks. I have read much more than you about the theory. Are you in a position to discuss the theory?

BTW, this is an interesting way to describe a scientist's work. And if your ideas were described as such on this forum? BTW, I would ask you to remove that image.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:02 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78483 wrote:
Thanks. I have read much more than you about the theory. Are you in a position to discuss the theory?


So, did you not figure that MR fails the basic scientific test of falsifiability?[INDENT]Sheldrake responds that skeptics dampen the morphic field, whereas believers enhance it. Of Wiseman, he remarked: "Perhaps his negative expectations consciously or unconsciously influenced the way he looked at the subjects." [/INDENT](Not falsifiable)

richrf;78483 wrote:
BTW, this is an interesting way to describe a scientist's work.


You're making it increasingly clear that you don't understand science.

Not everything that comes out of a distinguished scientist's mouth is to be taken for gospel.

That's the job of religion.

And besides, for this one guy who chooses to be a fringe whackjob in favoring your particular pet viewpoint, there are plenty of distinguished scientists who think he's full of it. Do Sheldrake's opinions carry more weight than theirs?

richrf;78483 wrote:
And if your ideas were described as such on this forum?


I'm pretty secure in my beliefs; I really wouldn't care.

richrf;78483 wrote:
BTW, I would ask you to remove that image.


No thanks.

At no point in this thread did I insult you.

I'm just calling a spade a spade, rich.
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:20 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78486 wrote:
You're making it increasingly clear that you don't understand science.


Well, I think we have demonstrated that even simple conclusions of a study concerning religious beliefs of scientists can be interpreted in multiple ways. I am comfortable with my interpretation vs. yours.

Quote:
Not everything that comes out of a distinguished scientist's mouth is to be taken for gospel.


I presume the same can be said of undistinguished ones also.

Quote:
That's the job of religion.


I guess religion is based upon faith, unlike science.

Quote:
And besides, for this one guy who chooses to be a fringe whackjob in favoring your particular pet viewpoint, there are plenty of distinguished scientists who think he's full of it. Do Sheldrake's opinions carry more weight than theirs?


You are certainly free to quote them and any studies that they may have performed that conclusively demonstrates that Sheldrake is a fringe whackjob as you describe him. BTW, is this conclusion based upon some study or are you acting on some faith?

Quote:
I'm pretty secure in my beliefs; I really wouldn't care.


Yes, that is what distinguishes a scientist from a religious believer.

Quote:
No thanks. no point in this thread did I insult you. I'm just calling a spade a spade, rich.


It is fine with me. But it is a helluva precedent for discussions especially from someone who presumes to support the scientific side of the issue.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:31 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78490 wrote:
Well, I think we have demonstrated that even simple conclusions of a study concerning religious beliefs of scientists can be interpreted in multiple ways.


Your statistics were vague and US-centric

But whether a claim is falsifiable or not is yes/no

(MR is not falsifiable)

richrf;78490 wrote:

I guess religion is based upon faith, unlike science.


No

richrf;78490 wrote:
You are certainly free to quote them and any studies that they may have performed that conclusively demonstrates that Sheldrake is a fringe whackjob as you describe him. BTW, is this conclusion based upon some study or are you acting on some faith?


I already linked you to an article, twice, about how no one can seem to replicate Sheldrake's research and how his "theory" is unfalsifiable twaddle. Did you not read it?

richrf;78490 wrote:
Yes, that is what distinguishes a scientist from a religious believer.


Here we go with "SCIENTISTS ARE CLOSE-MINDED" again

What are they good for in your view, besides out-of-context quote mining?

richrf;78490 wrote:
It is fine with me. But it is a helluva precedent for discussions especially from someone who presumes to support the scientific side of the issue.


Describing Sheldrake's bag of poop as unfalsifiable is "supporting the scientific side of the issue"
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 07:52 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78491 wrote:
Describing Sheldrake's bag of poop as unfalsifiable is "supporting the scientific side of the issue"
Well, I guess there is no more for us to discuss on the original subject of this thread, is there?

Rich
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 05:31:41