The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Pathological Skepticism Options
jim
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:41:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 897
Points: 2,697
Would love some feedback on my latest blog post on pathological skepticism:

http://blog.theuniversesolved.com/2012/01/11/pathological-skepticism/

Thanks!
Techne
Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:04:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/2/2011
Posts: 53
Points: 180
Jim

Ok, some critique then my thoughts on the subject.

I like the way you right and bring your ideas into focus. This blog is a little easier to read for someone like myself. I have trouble with the articles that go deep into numbers. The blog is a good reminder about something that I would like to think most know, but for whatever reasons decide to forget when it comes to themselves and their ideas.

My opinion on what's happening, regarding people not excepting ideas that in their time seem to radical, but over time become truths or clues.

I think for as large as things are getting. It almost seems that if we see each human as a cell inside a large mass human growth. Then I think we can look for balance issues and saftey mechanizisms.

First off these people that find and develop these ideas. Do they not have to first break off and away from the mass and venture into the unknown to find these new concepts in the first place? I just feel there is something inherent to going outside the norm and then being rejected as a result. Even if you come back with new fruits. If we go to our hunter\gatherer buddies, it was totally unsafe to bring new things into the cave. I would imagine early on we had to develop some set rules and superstitions. At that early stage I would think every new object brought into the cave, would be be breaking a rule the first time it was brought in.

With that in mind, if the whole mass of humans jumped on whatever new idea some guy has, that could be silly and dangerous. Even though what we have naturally might seem slow and petty or inhibited by human politics right now. It might be the safest means in which to introduce new concepts. Imagine one of our cavemen bringing in some new mushrooms he discovered and throwing them in tribal stew. Best to let only a few try the new ingredients to the stew, rather then the whole clan.
ebb101
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:33:03 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/5/2010
Posts: 80
Points: 255
Skeptisicm has been re-defined not as healthy doubt, but as irrational defense of one's belief systems.
For example:
Among materialists...
Psi Skepticism=Good.
Climate Change Skepticism=Bad.
It all depends on your group. There is no such thing as skepticism among groups. It is merely another tool to control the beliefs of its members.

I think this quote works:

The materialist fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because they think they're rational! ...They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them.

Robert Anton Wilson
EKUMA1981
Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:25:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/3/2011
Posts: 348
Points: 907
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom
Superb post there, Jim. You're right about certain people fearing change and fearing the unknown. People's religions/beliefs can also interfere with progress.

I personally find it hard to believe that some scientists are still like this. With all this profound technology and weird discoveries being made (eg. dark matter, dark energy) and everything accelerating towards a possible singularity, it appears (to me anyway) that anything is possible.

The universe seems to be very hospitable towards us humans. It's as if there is a law in the universe that lets us imagine something and voila, it becomes a reality (as long as we put in the hard work). Could be Biocentrism...







jim
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:34:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 897
Points: 2,697
Techne wrote:
With that in mind, if the whole mass of humans jumped on whatever new idea some guy has, that could be silly and dangerous. Even though what we have naturally might seem slow and petty or inhibited by human politics right now. It might be the safest means in which to introduce new concepts. Imagine one of our cavemen bringing in some new mushrooms he discovered and throwing them in tribal stew. Best to let only a few try the new ingredients to the stew, rather then the whole clan.


You're absolutely right, Techne. We can't accept every new idea that comes along. But, one would think that simply applying the scientific method should allow the unfounded ideas to get weeded out pretty quickly.

ebb101 wrote:
It all depends on your group. There is no such thing as skepticism among groups. It is merely another tool to control the beliefs of its members.


ebb101, your comment totally resonates with me. The selection of what is "acceptable" to question seems to be driven by fear. Isn't it odd how much actual evidence there is for psi and how little there is for string theory (0) and yet it is the latter that is an acceptable field of study.

EKUMA1981 wrote:
Superb post there, Jim. You're right about certain people fearing change and fearing the unknown. People's religions/beliefs can also interfere with progress.

I personally find it hard to believe that some scientists are still like this. With all this profound technology and weird discoveries being made (eg. dark matter, dark energy) and everything accelerating towards a possible singularity, it appears (to me anyway) that anything is possible.

The universe seems to be very hospitable towards us humans. It's as if there is a law in the universe that lets us imagine something and voila, it becomes a reality (as long as we put in the hard work). Could be Biocentrism...


Thanks so much for the kind words, EKUMA1981. I agree with you on several fronts: The very people that we most need to be open-minded are sometimes the least so. I have also recently come to the conclusion that very little of what we think we know lasts "forever" without modification. Maybe nothing?

Re. Biocentrism - yes, it certainly seems like that. One small example - Hollywood comes out with Minority Report. The idea of pre-cognition as a real skill seems very far fetched ("ridiculous" in the scientific world). That year Daryl Bern begins his precognition studies. Eight years later, he releases a scientific paper showing that it is a very real effect.
Techne
Posted: Saturday, January 14, 2012 12:49:59 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 9/2/2011
Posts: 53
Points: 180


You're absolutely right, Techne. We can't accept every new idea that comes along. But, one would think that simply applying the scientific method should allow the unfounded ideas to get weeded out pretty quickly.


You make it sound like some of the more fringe ideas are easily tested by the scientific method. It seems to me when you start getting into some of the more wild stuff, you need to spend more money to test it. Like the hadron collider. With it one would hope that science could prove theories with tech. But something like precogs, while it might be cheaper to test money wise. Now your getting into hard to reproduce results.

Think about psycodelics, they very well may have been with us from the start. May have inspired religions, civilizations, art, music, ect..... At times in history they may have been the main focus of civilizations. And yet, if you ask someone today to try one out, more often then not you end up with someone that is 'scared' and has any number of bullshit reasons why they can't try one. Hell, a lot of the pioneer scientist through out time will even admit to using psycodelics as well as the experience itself being of the most meaningful of their lives. I'm talking about the very superstar guys that young scientist look up to now, but yet most won't even touch the subject. People want to talk about how open they are, but are they really?

On a side note, is there something specific you feel is being neglected by main stream science?
Tracy
Posted: Saturday, January 14, 2012 2:56:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 448
Points: 1,347
Location: N.Lewisburg,OH,US
I got to the part about Pastuer and was already thinking, "They laughed at Fleischmann and Pons, now cold fusion is an anomaly of science." Think
Tracy
Posted: Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:01:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2009
Posts: 448
Points: 1,347
Location: N.Lewisburg,OH,US
It also reminded me of that bit from history,
Philipp von Jolly, "You don't want to study physics Max, there's nothing else to learn."
Golly, was he ever wrong. d'oh!
jim
Posted: Sunday, January 15, 2012 9:15:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 897
Points: 2,697
Great quote, Tracy. I'll have to remember that one!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v2.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.