Aya

[LMNO]

This whole thing about whether the physical universe exists or not is pissing me off.

It comes down to one thing: replication.  If I do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If Roger does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Nigel does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Hoopla does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If you do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If one proposes that everything on the opposite side of our eyeballs is an illusion, then it turns out that proposed illusion has demonstrable rules, and those rules are true for everyone.  And those rules have an effect on our bodies, and those effects are the same on every body.  So the proposed illusion has exactly the same characteristics as an objective external universe. 

So, to call that an Illusion is inserting a meaningless term into our understanding of these effects. It can be easily removed without changing the nature of the effects, nor the observed rules.

Unless, unless... your claim is that the proposed Illusion is mutable, and is open to subjective change.  IS that what you're saying?

No, I am not claiming that. But that's not the only unless. I refer you to Descartes' evil demon. The chicken, after all, is convinced all it's life that the benevolent master is there to supply it with food and shelter... until the day it stops believing things altogether.

The other thing that occurred to me is that as in fact the doer is unavoidably a part of the context of an action, it is in fact not possible for two different people to do X in context Y. Contexts get sorted and narrowed for relevancy (unavoidably, really, ungroomed contexts are just too large).

The implications of what you just said is that you believe that f=ma has varying values of truth, and is subjective.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I found an imaged copy of The New Inquisition on Scribd.  I had forgotten what the main thrust of the book is, to wit:

The Scientific Method is flawed and unreliable, and people who rely on it at the exclusion of all else are Idolators.

He then goes on to speak of perception psychology, General Semantics, and poor interpretations of Quantum.

Oh, and he uses the word SUMBUNALL. 

Found the Sheldrake part.  It seems that the problem here, as we have well discussed, is that RAW was speaking, first and foremost, not about Science being flawed, but that scientists were being overly dogmatic and dismissve of new ideas.

And RAW's conclusion was that the case for Darwinism is strong, but not airtight, because Weird Shit happens; and that Sheldrake has a lot to prove before his ideas can be considered true, but still: Weird Shit happens.

It doesn't take much for an Acolyte to treat a Guru's Pure Agnosticism as Proven Truth.

Oh dear.

I'm not a big fan of RAW and find most of  his writing rather tedious, but I agree with him that old, established scientists tend to be overly dogmatic and dismissive of new ideas. Further, they tend to be deeply entrenched in their own disciplines and rarely look out from inside them, which leads to all kinds of fascinating crossed wires when one discipline "discovers" a phenomenon that has been well-described and researched in another discipline for decades (economics in particular comes to mind; they seem to love to re-invent the wheel).

The stereotype of science being dominated by old white men has a very solid foundation in truth, but the funny thing is that it isn't renegades, outsiders, or fringe elements that butt up against this issue most fiercely; it's new scientists just beginning their careers, who don't yet have reputations, seats, or grants to protect and can afford to take risks in their research. It is particularly new researchers who come from "nontraditional" backgrounds, ie. low income, older students, women and people of color who butt up against the rigidity of the old school.

I am fond of a rather famous saying by the great scientist Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If the scientific method was perfect it wouldn't be science, it would be a law, such as gravity. The practitioners of science are constantly missing or overshooting their goals, adjusting, and trying again. Often it's the mistakes and the failures, not the successes, that lead to the most interesting or important discoveries. Science is self-correcting, but it takes time and repetition. The irony of Holist arguing with me about the dogmatism present in science is that he's not the one who has to hammer away at it simply in order to run experiments or write research papers that tenured researchers can't see the value in: I am. Yet he is convinced that because he watched a couple of TEDx talks, read a book or two, and took ayahuasca and saw fairies that he's an enlightened forward-thinker, fighting the good fight to free science from its chains of dogma, and that because I'm part of the monolithic Scientific Establishment as a student, that my eyes are blinkered and I can only think within my academic box.

He's wrong. But he'll never see it, because that's not how his world works. And people like him are how we end up with measles epidemics and babies dying of pertussis in fucking 2014.

Holist isn't ignoring all of my posts, but he is ignoring this post in particular. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This whole thing about whether the physical universe exists or not is pissing me off.

It comes down to one thing: replication.  If I do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If Roger does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Nigel does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If Hoopla does action X in context Y it results in Z.
If you do action X in context Y it results in Z.

If one proposes that everything on the opposite side of our eyeballs is an illusion, then it turns out that proposed illusion has demonstrable rules, and those rules are true for everyone.  And those rules have an effect on our bodies, and those effects are the same on every body.  So the proposed illusion has exactly the same characteristics as an objective external universe. 

So, to call that an Illusion is inserting a meaningless term into our understanding of these effects. It can be easily removed without changing the nature of the effects, nor the observed rules.

Unless, unless... your claim is that the proposed Illusion is mutable, and is open to subjective change.  IS that what you're saying?

No, I am not claiming that. But that's not the only unless. I refer you to Descartes' evil demon. The chicken, after all, is convinced all it's life that the benevolent master is there to supply it with food and shelter... until the day it stops believing things altogether.

The other thing that occurred to me is that as in fact the doer is unavoidably a part of the context of an action, it is in fact not possible for two different people to do X in context Y. Contexts get sorted and narrowed for relevancy (unavoidably, really, ungroomed contexts are just too large).

The implications of what you just said is that you believe that f=ma has varying values of truth, and is subjective.

He's also completely ignoring everything that anyone with informed opinions about science should know about scientific method and what we do about the messy fact that every time you run an experiment the conditions are a little bit different.

Which heavily implies one thing rather specifically.

[Doktor Howl]

I found an imaged copy of The New Inquisition on Scribd.  I had forgotten what the main thrust of the book is, to wit:

The Scientific Method is flawed and unreliable, and people who rely on it at the exclusion of all else are Idolators.

He then goes on to speak of perception psychology, General Semantics, and poor interpretations of Quantum.

Oh, and he uses the word SUMBUNALL. 

Found the Sheldrake part.  It seems that the problem here, as we have well discussed, is that RAW was speaking, first and foremost, not about Science being flawed, but that scientists were being overly dogmatic and dismissve of new ideas.

And RAW's conclusion was that the case for Darwinism is strong, but not airtight, because Weird Shit happens; and that Sheldrake has a lot to prove before his ideas can be considered true, but still: Weird Shit happens.

It doesn't take much for an Acolyte to treat a Guru's Pure Agnosticism as Proven Truth.

Oh dear.

I'm not a big fan of RAW and find most of  his writing rather tedious, but I agree with him that old, established scientists tend to be overly dogmatic and dismissive of new ideas. Further, they tend to be deeply entrenched in their own disciplines and rarely look out from inside them, which leads to all kinds of fascinating crossed wires when one discipline "discovers" a phenomenon that has been well-described and researched in another discipline for decades (economics in particular comes to mind; they seem to love to re-invent the wheel).

The stereotype of science being dominated by old white men has a very solid foundation in truth, but the funny thing is that it isn't renegades, outsiders, or fringe elements that butt up against this issue most fiercely; it's new scientists just beginning their careers, who don't yet have reputations, seats, or grants to protect and can afford to take risks in their research. It is particularly new researchers who come from "nontraditional" backgrounds, ie. low income, older students, women and people of color who butt up against the rigidity of the old school.

I am fond of a rather famous saying by the great scientist Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If the scientific method was perfect it wouldn't be science, it would be a law, such as gravity. The practitioners of science are constantly missing or overshooting their goals, adjusting, and trying again. Often it's the mistakes and the failures, not the successes, that lead to the most interesting or important discoveries. Science is self-correcting, but it takes time and repetition. The irony of Holist arguing with me about the dogmatism present in science is that he's not the one who has to hammer away at it simply in order to run experiments or write research papers that tenured researchers can't see the value in: I am. Yet he is convinced that because he watched a couple of TEDx talks, read a book or two, and took ayahuasca and saw fairies that he's an enlightened forward-thinker, fighting the good fight to free science from its chains of dogma, and that because I'm part of the monolithic Scientific Establishment as a student, that my eyes are blinkered and I can only think within my academic box.

He's wrong. But he'll never see it, because that's not how his world works. And people like him are how we end up with measles epidemics and babies dying of pertussis in fucking 2014.

Holist isn't ignoring all of my posts, but he is ignoring this post in particular. 

You keep being Nigel. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I found an imaged copy of The New Inquisition on Scribd.  I had forgotten what the main thrust of the book is, to wit:

The Scientific Method is flawed and unreliable, and people who rely on it at the exclusion of all else are Idolators.

He then goes on to speak of perception psychology, General Semantics, and poor interpretations of Quantum.

Oh, and he uses the word SUMBUNALL. 

Found the Sheldrake part.  It seems that the problem here, as we have well discussed, is that RAW was speaking, first and foremost, not about Science being flawed, but that scientists were being overly dogmatic and dismissve of new ideas.

And RAW's conclusion was that the case for Darwinism is strong, but not airtight, because Weird Shit happens; and that Sheldrake has a lot to prove before his ideas can be considered true, but still: Weird Shit happens.

It doesn't take much for an Acolyte to treat a Guru's Pure Agnosticism as Proven Truth.

Oh dear.

I'm not a big fan of RAW and find most of  his writing rather tedious, but I agree with him that old, established scientists tend to be overly dogmatic and dismissive of new ideas. Further, they tend to be deeply entrenched in their own disciplines and rarely look out from inside them, which leads to all kinds of fascinating crossed wires when one discipline "discovers" a phenomenon that has been well-described and researched in another discipline for decades (economics in particular comes to mind; they seem to love to re-invent the wheel).

The stereotype of science being dominated by old white men has a very solid foundation in truth, but the funny thing is that it isn't renegades, outsiders, or fringe elements that butt up against this issue most fiercely; it's new scientists just beginning their careers, who don't yet have reputations, seats, or grants to protect and can afford to take risks in their research. It is particularly new researchers who come from "nontraditional" backgrounds, ie. low income, older students, women and people of color who butt up against the rigidity of the old school.

I am fond of a rather famous saying by the great scientist Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If the scientific method was perfect it wouldn't be science, it would be a law, such as gravity. The practitioners of science are constantly missing or overshooting their goals, adjusting, and trying again. Often it's the mistakes and the failures, not the successes, that lead to the most interesting or important discoveries. Science is self-correcting, but it takes time and repetition. The irony of Holist arguing with me about the dogmatism present in science is that he's not the one who has to hammer away at it simply in order to run experiments or write research papers that tenured researchers can't see the value in: I am. Yet he is convinced that because he watched a couple of TEDx talks, read a book or two, and took ayahuasca and saw fairies that he's an enlightened forward-thinker, fighting the good fight to free science from its chains of dogma, and that because I'm part of the monolithic Scientific Establishment as a student, that my eyes are blinkered and I can only think within my academic box.

He's wrong. But he'll never see it, because that's not how his world works. And people like him are how we end up with measles epidemics and babies dying of pertussis in fucking 2014.

Holist isn't ignoring all of my posts, but he is ignoring this post in particular. 

You keep being Nigel. 

I know, it's so hard. Maybe if I sniff enough glue he'll start seeming more on my level.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

[Demolition Squid]

I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

[Doktor Howl]

I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

I am off to find an emote for that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

I am off to find an emote for that.

EXCELLENT.

[Doktor Howl]

I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

I am off to find an emote for that.

Annnnnnd...DONE.   

[Nephew Twiddleton]

 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I can't quite figure out why Holist keeps coming back if he hates having his ideas challenged that much.

I presume it is because he thinks he's winning.

I am off to find an emote for that.

Annnnnnd...DONE.   

Oh god that's PERFECT! 

[Dildo Argentino]

I'm vaguely curious who he thinks enjoys his presence here as well.

I hope it isn't me.

Rest easy.

[Dildo Argentino]

A little background: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

He claims, among other things, that telepathy is real, that the speed of light is decreasing, and that species are not defined by their DNA but by a type of cosmic vibrations. I believe he is also a fan of the "water has memory" ideas that homeopathy is based on, and that there is a huge global science conspiracy to conceal evidence of all of these things.

He's about one step away from reptilian shapeshifter overlords.

And now I know where Holist gets his ideas.

This is what is called "ad hominem" argument. Don't get me started on Isaac Newton's bizarre views.