Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Jackalope]

Do you understand why I would be frustrated that the bolded portion of my quote is not answered by the bolded portion of yours in any meaningful way that furthers discusssion.

Unless, of course, you're willing to qualify and quantify *precisely* what about "those sciences" convinced you of the truth of the neutral monist position? So far I haven't seen it, perhaps I missed it.

I respect that and I don't think I have the time to do it right now.

At the risk of sounding flippant, if you don't have the time to explain that, why should anyone give your speculations any more mind cycles than they would if I speculated that monkeys might fly out of my butt?

I would refer you back to what you seemed to get regarding QP and say that the results of those experiments sway me toward neutral monism.

So we've gone from "those sciences" to "those experiments" swaying you towards neutral monism, and yet we're no closer to understanding -what about them- swayed you.

Also gene expression studies and psychoneuroimmunology studies make me think that assuming mind and matter are seperate is not going to lead us to a comprehensive understanding of either.

Here we go with more of the same.

Again, at the risk of sounding flippant, this is about as substantial as me speculating that the increase in the cost of living is possibly linked to the monkeys that might, or might not fly out of my butt.

You're going to have to connect the dots to have any hope of being taken seriously.

[JesusHChrist]

You're going to have to connect the dots to have any hope of being taken seriously.

Call me a pessimist, but I gave up on sswatheverhellluv a long time ago.

[Cyberman]

Connect the dots, then colour it in with crayons.

[Jackalope]

You're going to have to connect the dots to have any hope of being taken seriously.

Call me a pessimist, but I gave up on sswatheverhellluv a long time ago.

I dunno, she's shown that she's capable of taking on new information when it's presented to her - my only frustration is in her unwillingness so far to connect the dots from A to Z and present a coherent case. It remains to be seen if that happens.

[Chas]

There, he argues, is where "goddidit" ends up becoming the fall back answer, even for the most respected of minds.

He argues that 'goddidit' is the fallback of believers. And only believers.

You are mischaracterizing what Tyson has said; that's awfully close to lying.

I thought that point was clear in the context of my answer. I did not mean to imply that Tyson was saying nonbelievers are saying "goddidit". That would be quite contradictory.

Your wording certainly implied that he said that brilliant scientists in general went with 'goddidit' when faced with unknowns.
You said:
"There, he argues, is where "goddidit" ends up becoming the fall back answer, even for the most respected of minds. "

You seem to want to assume that I'm trying to intentionally get over on people by being dishonest. I assure you, that is not at all my motive. If I've misrepresented based on misunderstanding, that's one thing... In this case, however, it seems it was you who misunderstood and misrepresented me.

No, I am going by what you say. However, if I am wrong I apologize.

[sswhateverlove]

No, I am going by what you say. However, if I am wrong I apologize

Ok, let's rewind...This was the context in which I was responding that the few "brilliant minds" referred to are falling back to "goddidit"...

Quote:
"according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of god, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”

What is fascinating is that these are supposed to be the people who are in "the know", the most brilliant scientific minds on the planet. Why do you think those numbers are not 100% for all?

Is it more clear now? What I said about "goddidit" fall-back was pertaining to the 13%, 12%, and 10% of whom that poster and I were both referring.

It's easy to get lost and misunderstand. I hope my clarification helped to assure you I was not trying to misrepresent Tyson.

Can we move on now?

Cthulu- You seemed to take it from my response that I will not be attempting to connect the dots for you. When I said I don't have time, it's because I currently don't have the time to commit to thoroughly giving this the thought and exploration it deserves. I anticipate I will sometime tonight or tomorrow. I hope that is acceptable.

[Jackalope]

Cthulu- You seemed to take it from my response that I will not be attempting to connect the dots for you. When I said I don't have time, it's because I currently don't have the time to commit to thoroughly giving this the thought and exploration it deserves. I anticipate I will sometime tonight or tomorrow. I hope that is acceptable.

Not at all. Just observing you haven't so far. The future remains to be seen. I'll still be here if/when it happens.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why don't you let Rhythm respond for himself? The "we" is misused in this statement. Unless you and Rhythm share a mind? Now that would be interesting...

We are the Borg. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

As convenient as such a reading may be, I'm afraid that other posters have already bled the stone for all it's worth.

[Mister Agenda]

Please give an example of something that science once said was impossible is now possible.

"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -Albert Einstein

The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible

Meteorites: The French Academy of Sciences famously stated that "rocks don't fall from the sky". Reports of fireballs and stones crashing to the ground were dismissed as hearsay and folklore, and the stones were sometimes explained away as "thunderstones" - the result of lightning strikes.

Warm superconductors. Thought to be impossible.

Black holes,1st mooted in the 18th century

Entangled particles that behave as if they are linked together no matter how wide the distance between them

Yeah, that was not a well-thought-out challenge.

---

And i'd have it no other way. Point is, what evidence currently unknown to us will change what we currently think of as impossible?

That is, to deny something with current evidence prevents science making progress.

To affirm something current evidence doesn't justify impedes science just as much. The null hypothesis is one of the most powerful scientific tools. It's what spares us from the likes of phrenology and homeopathy.

---

Ok, so double slit experiments? Also psuedoscience?

WTF are talking about now. I never said anything about the double slit experiment. I said the mind-matter interface example.

Um... The "observer effect" via wave function collapse as a result of observation is a concept resulting from evidence from the double slit experiments. These concepts informed mind-matter interface experiments.

I'm just curious how deep youre going with regard to the concepts being pseudoscience?

You know the 'observer effect' applies with any kind of detection device, right? No consciousness required.

[The Grand Nudger]

One of those got me wondering - why on earth would anyone say "heavier than air flight is impossible"? Had they never held a bird? I don't think that science or any given experiment would have actually been capable of making the statement "heavier than air flight is impossible", even if a scientist -would be-. Could probably approach every example from that angle. So, meh.

There -is- a difference between science and the people engaged in it. I don't think that anyone is claiming that -those people- cannot make mistakes. That's kind of the reason we do science to begin with. So that we aren't anchored to the (often horridly misconceived) opinions of any given person - no matter how clever we imagine them to be.