Ahnimus, I'm all for real skepticism. I am for something not being considered scientifically proven until it meets the approval of scientific methods within the science community. To meet this standard, there is not room for mockery, and public humiliation. I'm not a fan of parading out the old social ostracization in the guise of skepticism. I prefer real skepticism. Social ostracization methods are unacceptable, imo because they give science--which is not to be confused as scientism--a bad name. People can disbelieve what they want, but when they try to trump another's belief with their own belief, using underhanded methods, I take issue.
Mr. Emoto is not under any pressure to do anything within the parameters of the scientific community, anymore than I am. Or anymore than you are held to the tenets of the Catholic religion. He can choose to do whatever he wants. If that bothers you and you think an appropriate response is to react with scientism, ostracization, public shaming, and maybe a red letter of shame pinned to him, due to your own feelings, that is not about Mr. Emoto. Just know that your scientism cannot trump pseudo-science.
I'm only into reality, if that's what scientism is, than I'll embrace it. You can say you can control the subatomic world as much as you have breath. But you can't do it, you can't prove it. Throughout human history many people have tried to alter reality with their minds, all they got was dementia.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm only into reality, if that's what scientism is, than I'll embrace it. You can say you can control the subatomic world as much as you have breath. But you can't do it, you can't prove it. Throughout human history many people have tried to alter reality with their minds, all they got was dementia.
It sounds like you have misunderstood: the quantum physics community agrees on wave particle duality within it's context. I agree with the philosophical ramifications of this concept that have been written about for the past 30 years by philosophers I am familiar with (maybe longer), based on the principle of complementarity.
If you want to stand behind scientism, be my guest.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It sounds like you have misunderstood: the quantum physics community agrees on wave particle duality within it's context. I agree with the philosophical ramifications of this concept that have been written about for the past 30 years by philosophers I am familiar with (maybe longer), based on the principle of complementarity.
If you want to stand behind scientism, be my guest.
Umm, the scientific community is still divided on the philosophical implications of quantum physics, and most modern physicists I've actually heard speak, disagree with your interpretation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Umm, the scientific community is still divided on the philosophical implications of quantum physics, and most modern physicists I've actually heard speak, disagree with your interpretation.
Science does not decide philosophical issues any more than it decides spiritual issues. I leave those disciplines for philosophy and the spiritual disciplines. It is only scientism that believes it can understand what it is not equipped to understand.
If a scientist does not choose my particular philosophical view or my beliefs, fair enough. They are entitled to their own beliefs.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Science does not decide philosophical issues any more than it decides spiritual issues. I leave those disciplines for philosophy and the spiritual disciplines. It is only scientism that believes it can understand what it is not equipped to understand.
If a scientist does not choose my particular philosophical view or my beliefs, fair enough. They are entitled to their own beliefs.
Ok.. but you are discussing the philosophical implications of a complex theory of physics. It would seem to me that it would take a physicist to properly predict what is going on in the world of quantum physics.
Science is not the realm of philosophy either. Philosophy is only concerned with issue that cannot, or do not seem to have been proven or disproven scientifically. Once a philosophical concept becomes testable, then it's science.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok.. but you are discussing the philosophical implications of a complex theory of physics. It would seem to me that it would take a physicist to properly predict what is going on in the world of quantum physics.
Science is not the realm of philosophy either. Philosophy is only concerned with issue that cannot, or do not seem to have been proven or disproven scientifically. Once a philosophical concept becomes testable, then it's science.
I am not talking about the realm of phsyics. I am talking about the philosophical concept of complementarity. When I use the term "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" I am not talking about a baby and bathwater. I am using the baby/bathwater-concept to depict metaphorically, a principle that is philosophical and physically invisible. This way, people can get a metaphorical image of what I am talking about so they can understand better.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I am not talking about the realm of phsyics. I am talking about the philosophical concept of complementarity. When I use the term "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" I am not talking about a baby and bathwater. I am using the baby/bathwater-concept to depict metaphorically, a principle that is philosophical and physically invisible. This way, people can get a metaphorical image of what I am talking about so they can understand better.
Right, but you recognize that metaphors are only good two dimensionally and only clarify a very basic structure of what you intend to say.
Don't thow out the baby with the bathwater. Don't throw out the babies bath toys either and if you are trying to throw it out your window, make sure you don't soak someone in the ally below.
I'm sure you can come up with some kind of rationalization to try and tie the rest of the analogy into a real life situation. But ultimately the metaphor does break-down. I view metaphors as an interesting way of explaining the two-dimensional structure of a value or fact, but they are certainly not facts themselves and stand as poor arguments.
I would suggest that in-fact what you are doing is throwing out the baby and not the bathwater. Because you don't seem to value science, rather you continiously suggest that science is "flawed" and "bias". You won't invest any belief in Ben Libet's discovery of a 500 ms delay to consciousness, discovered 22 years ago and has been repeated in controlled environments since. However, you do choose to believe in an experiment performed by a non-scientist Dr. Emoto, that was not a controlled environment and cannot be reproduced by real scientists.
So you may say that my view is biased, you can say that Ben Libet was biased. But you certainly don't have any right to suggest that you are not. You require no burden of proof from sources of information for which you choose to believe. Meanwhile, information with significant proof and support from the scientific community is to you considered to just be "flawed" in it's method.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
However, you do choose to believe in an experiment performed by a non-scientist Dr. Emoto, that was not a controlled environment and cannot be reproduced by real scientists.
Oh I get it. This is kind of like non-scientist Al Gore.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Ahnimus, "What the bleep" was never pushed as hard science. The makers of the movies intended to integrate truths, so they brought together experts from numerous disciplines ranging, as you know, from a psychics/medium, to physicists. They are clear in their disclaimer that each individual portrayed was portraying their own view based on their own discipline, and not necessarily supporting the assertions of the movie as a whole or those of the other participants. Therefore the movie does not fall short of a scientific view. They didn't purport to be one from the beginning.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Oh I get it. This is kind of like non-scientist Al Gore.
You don't have to be a scientists to show facts. You have to be a scientist to discover facts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ahnimus, "What the bleep" was never pushed as hard science. The makers of the movies intended to integrate truths, so they brought together experts from numerous disciplines ranging, as you know, from a psychics/medium, to physicists. They are clear in their disclaimer that each individual portrayed was portraying their own view based on their own discipline, and not necessarily supporting the assertions of the movie as a whole or those of the other participants. Therefore the movie does not fall short of a scientific view. They didn't purport to be one from the beginning.
Certainly they did. This doesn't rationalize your obvious bias to mysticism over science though. It doesn't change the fact that you believe in something you can't actually prove.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Right, but you recognize that metaphors are only good two dimensionally and only clarify a very basic structure of what you intend to say.
Of course. This isn't rocket-science. However when a metaphor informs my actions, and what I create in reality, the metaphor contributes to what I create--such as lasting healing from mental health in terms of real brain chemistry. To me, that's as valid, if not more than brain science, in that neuroscience could not offer me that healing at this time, much less 5 or ten years ago. Your ideas also create your choices and your reality for you.
I'm sure you can come up with some kind of rationalization to try and tie the rest of the analogy into a real life situation. But ultimately the metaphor does break-down. I view metaphors as an interesting way of explaining the two-dimensional structure of a value or fact, but they are certainly not facts themselves and stand as poor arguments.
Ideas are not held to being facts--they are merely held to being "ideas". I determine the value of my ideas by how much they serve my life. And by how well they hold up when challenged for logic. It's called philosophy, not science.
I would suggest that in-fact what you are doing is throwing out the baby and not the bathwater. Because you don't seem to value science, rather you continiously suggest that science is "flawed" and "bias".
I have great respect for science. The physical level of reality is a crucial aspect of integrated understanding. Because I hold scientists to practice science and to let go of bias and ego is a different issue.
You won't invest any belief in Ben Libet's discovery of a 500 ms delay to consciousness, discovered 22 years ago and has been repeated in controlled environments since.
Where are you getting this from? Because I choose different sources than you? Are you talking about the thread where I mentioned how Young Driver's driver training supports the delay idea? I also went to high school and was on the same school bus with the New York Times author Malcolm Gladwell whose bestsellig book "Blink" talks about how we act before we know why we are acting. To me consciousness has three parts: subconsciousness, consciousness and superconsciousness--hence the fact that they all share the word consciousness.
However, you do choose to believe in an experiment performed by a non-scientist Dr. Emoto, that was not a controlled environment and cannot be reproduced by real scientists.
Show me where I said I believe this? I provided the link when the other poster mentioned it. What I took issue with what your counter source which did not prove anything. I said Mr. Emoto's assertion stood until proven otherwise. If you want to know, I think it's awesome that such possibilities are becoming more mainstream in general thought. It awakens people's minds about what is possible, which can give them more mind-power. I have no idea if Mr. Emoto's experiments are scientifically accurate. Until proven otherwise, I have no reason to believe otherwise. I pointed out that if you choose one view or another, you are proving the philosophical view of complementarity--you are proving PJPOWER's point: the science view can be just as biased in the absense of proof. Don't forget I am a very logical person and while I'm willing to try things out for myself I don't jump to conclusions.
So you may say that my view is biased, you can say that Ben Libet was biased. But you certainly don't have any right to suggest that you are not. You require no burden of proof from sources of information for which you choose to believe. Meanwhile, information with significant proof and support from the scientific community is to you considered to just be "flawed" in it's method.
You said you choose scientism. If that's the case, more power to you. If you choose scientism, you are acknowledge you are using science to support your opinion, under the guise as science. In the end, just like my views and opinions, it'll be just that--your views and opinions. All I've ever done is express that my views have worked for me. I recognize there are many valid ways for people to choose and I accept that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Of course. This isn't rocket-science. However when a metaphor informs my actions, and what I create in reality, the metaphor contributes to what I create--such as lasting healing from mental health in terms of real brain chemistry. To me, that's as valid, if not more than brain science, in that neuroscience could not offer me that healing at this time, much less 5 or ten years ago. Your ideas also create your choices and your reality for you.
Ideas are not held to being facts--they are merely held to being "ideas". I determine the value of my ideas by how much they serve my life. And by how well they hold up when challenged for logic. It's called philosophy, not science.
I have great respect for science. The physical level of reality is a crucial aspect of integrated understanding. Because I hold scientists to practice science and to let go of bias and ego is a different issue.
Where are you getting this from? Because I choose different sources than you? Are you talking about the thread where I mentioned how Young Driver's driver training supports the delay idea? I also went to high school and was on the same school bus with the New York Times author Malcolm Gladwell whose bestsellig book "Blink" talks about how we act before we know why we are acting. To me consciousness has three parts: subconsciousness, consciousness and superconsciousness--hence the fact that they all share the word consciousness.
Show me where I said I believe this? I provided the link when the other poster mentioned it. What I took issue with what your counter source which did not prove anything. I said Mr. Emoto's assertion stood until proven otherwise. If you want to know, I think it's awesome that such possibilities are becoming more mainstream in general thought. It awakens people's minds about what is possible, which can give them more mind-power. I have no idea if Mr. Emoto's experiments are scientifically accurate. Until proven otherwise, I have no reason to believe otherwise. I pointed out that if you choose one view or another, you are proving the philosophical view of complementarity--you are proving PJPOWER's point: the science view can be just as biased in the absense of proof. Don't forget I am a very logical person and while I'm willing to try things out for myself I don't jump to conclusions.
You said you choose scientism. If that's the case, more power to you. If you choose scientism, you are acknowledge you are using science to support your opinion, under the guise as science. In the end, just like my views and opinions, it'll be just that--your views and opinions. All I've ever done is express that my views have worked for me. I recognize there are many valid ways for people to choose and I accept that.
Show me evidence of a super-consciousness.
Emoto's work cannot be proven wrong, first it must be proven right.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh man, Ahnimus, is that like saying "come up to my apartment and I'll show you my etchings"??
Uhh, lol. I don't know.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, when I go to London to visit you, I'll be wary of the old "want to see my lab?" line.
Since when are you coming to visit me?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Is that what the Europeans told Columbus after he returned?
"Hey Columbus, you're not a scientist! The world's still flat moron!"
Of course, I guess that does make the first half of your statement correct.
It wasn't scientists that insisted the world was flat. It was religious scholars that took the bible too literally.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh, you don't want people to know???? ......oh, I get it......ssssshhhhhhhhh.....
Haha, no I don't care if anyone knows. I'd just like to make sure that I can accomodate your visit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It wasn't scientists that insisted the world was flat. It was religious scholars that took the bible too literally.
lol Then who is Anaximander? Speaking of scientist and astrology, the Sumerians certainly didn't conjure up a flat Earth from the Bible. lol Just shut up.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Haha, no I don't care if anyone knows. I'd just like to make sure that I can accomodate your visit.
Don't worry, I'd let you know far in advance if I'm planning on coming to the neighbourhood. You'd have a say in the matter, too. We could even accomodate the visit at the nearest Tim Horton's. I have nothing in particular in mind at this time, so you can relax.........and start preparing your "lab".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
lol Then who is Anaximander? Speaking of scientist and astrology, the Sumerians certainly didn't conjure up a flat Earth from the Bible. lol Just shut up.
The sumerians weren't exactly scientists either.
Anaximander was the first to conceive a mechanical model of the world. In his model, the Earth floats very still in the centre of the infinite, not supported by anything. It remains "in the same place because of its indifference", a point of view that Aristotle considered ingenious, but false, in On the Heavens (II, 13). Its curious shape is that of a cylinder[8] of which its height is a third of its diameter. The flat top forms the inhabited world, which is surrounded by a circular oceanic mass
Doesn't sound like the tradition flat-earth theory. But I'm not suggesting that no scientist ever thought the earth might be flat. We are going back to a time in history when science was poorly structured. What was the point of this argument?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
I'm only into reality, if that's what scientism is, than I'll embrace it. You can say you can control the subatomic world as much as you have breath. But you can't do it, you can't prove it. Throughout human history many people have tried to alter reality with their minds, all they got was dementia.
If you want to stand behind scientism, be my guest.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Umm, the scientific community is still divided on the philosophical implications of quantum physics, and most modern physicists I've actually heard speak, disagree with your interpretation.
If a scientist does not choose my particular philosophical view or my beliefs, fair enough. They are entitled to their own beliefs.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok.. but you are discussing the philosophical implications of a complex theory of physics. It would seem to me that it would take a physicist to properly predict what is going on in the world of quantum physics.
Science is not the realm of philosophy either. Philosophy is only concerned with issue that cannot, or do not seem to have been proven or disproven scientifically. Once a philosophical concept becomes testable, then it's science.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Right, but you recognize that metaphors are only good two dimensionally and only clarify a very basic structure of what you intend to say.
Don't thow out the baby with the bathwater. Don't throw out the babies bath toys either and if you are trying to throw it out your window, make sure you don't soak someone in the ally below.
I'm sure you can come up with some kind of rationalization to try and tie the rest of the analogy into a real life situation. But ultimately the metaphor does break-down. I view metaphors as an interesting way of explaining the two-dimensional structure of a value or fact, but they are certainly not facts themselves and stand as poor arguments.
I would suggest that in-fact what you are doing is throwing out the baby and not the bathwater. Because you don't seem to value science, rather you continiously suggest that science is "flawed" and "bias". You won't invest any belief in Ben Libet's discovery of a 500 ms delay to consciousness, discovered 22 years ago and has been repeated in controlled environments since. However, you do choose to believe in an experiment performed by a non-scientist Dr. Emoto, that was not a controlled environment and cannot be reproduced by real scientists.
So you may say that my view is biased, you can say that Ben Libet was biased. But you certainly don't have any right to suggest that you are not. You require no burden of proof from sources of information for which you choose to believe. Meanwhile, information with significant proof and support from the scientific community is to you considered to just be "flawed" in it's method.
Oh I get it. This is kind of like non-scientist Al Gore.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You don't have to be a scientists to show facts. You have to be a scientist to discover facts.
Certainly they did. This doesn't rationalize your obvious bias to mysticism over science though. It doesn't change the fact that you believe in something you can't actually prove.
LOL What? That makes absolutely no sense.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Then, I'd suggest some brain exercises.
Ideas are not held to being facts--they are merely held to being "ideas". I determine the value of my ideas by how much they serve my life. And by how well they hold up when challenged for logic. It's called philosophy, not science.
I have great respect for science. The physical level of reality is a crucial aspect of integrated understanding. Because I hold scientists to practice science and to let go of bias and ego is a different issue.
Where are you getting this from? Because I choose different sources than you? Are you talking about the thread where I mentioned how Young Driver's driver training supports the delay idea? I also went to high school and was on the same school bus with the New York Times author Malcolm Gladwell whose bestsellig book "Blink" talks about how we act before we know why we are acting. To me consciousness has three parts: subconsciousness, consciousness and superconsciousness--hence the fact that they all share the word consciousness.
Show me where I said I believe this? I provided the link when the other poster mentioned it. What I took issue with what your counter source which did not prove anything. I said Mr. Emoto's assertion stood until proven otherwise. If you want to know, I think it's awesome that such possibilities are becoming more mainstream in general thought. It awakens people's minds about what is possible, which can give them more mind-power. I have no idea if Mr. Emoto's experiments are scientifically accurate. Until proven otherwise, I have no reason to believe otherwise. I pointed out that if you choose one view or another, you are proving the philosophical view of complementarity--you are proving PJPOWER's point: the science view can be just as biased in the absense of proof. Don't forget I am a very logical person and while I'm willing to try things out for myself I don't jump to conclusions.
You said you choose scientism. If that's the case, more power to you. If you choose scientism, you are acknowledge you are using science to support your opinion, under the guise as science. In the end, just like my views and opinions, it'll be just that--your views and opinions. All I've ever done is express that my views have worked for me. I recognize there are many valid ways for people to choose and I accept that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Show me evidence of a super-consciousness.
Emoto's work cannot be proven wrong, first it must be proven right.
I will when you show me evidence of an atom.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's got pretty pictures, big letters and layman terms
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/periodic_table/atom_structure_evidence.html
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Come to my lab and I will show you.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Uhh, lol. I don't know.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Since when are you coming to visit me?
Is that what the Europeans told Columbus after he returned?
"Hey Columbus, you're not a scientist! The world's still flat moron!"
Of course, I guess that does make the first half of your statement correct.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
It wasn't scientists that insisted the world was flat. It was religious scholars that took the bible too literally.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Haha, no I don't care if anyone knows. I'd just like to make sure that I can accomodate your visit.
lol Then who is Anaximander? Speaking of scientist and astrology, the Sumerians certainly didn't conjure up a flat Earth from the Bible. lol Just shut up.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The sumerians weren't exactly scientists either.
Doesn't sound like the tradition flat-earth theory. But I'm not suggesting that no scientist ever thought the earth might be flat. We are going back to a time in history when science was poorly structured. What was the point of this argument?