2012 debunked extensively

[Saidin]

Science is by nature humble: it admits its errors and builds other models. Religion is arrogant: it admits no errors and creates unproveable and unchallengeable propositions and stagnates in its own foetid mess.

To put it even more bluntly, science is an instrument of long-term profound change and progression by virtue of its tenets' disprove-ability and its admission of fallibilty, whereas religion is for short term immediate change and, frankly, the status quo - being institutions that are unwavering in their exclusion of new ideas and the notion of evolution and change.

This would be true if we lived in a perfect world, in which we do not. Science by nature is humble, but you forget science is practiced by human beings, which may or may not be humble. Burnt is an excellent example of science not being humble, but instead being arrogant.

Science is slow to admit errors, though over time erroneous beliefs will be righted through continued evidence and experimentation. There is a status quo in science as well which is reluctant to change. Again because we are working with human beings, no one likes to see their life's work destroyed in an instant by some new discovery. I can understand it, but I do not condone it. The guardians of the status quo oftgen exclude anything that is too far out from the mainstream, even if there is good evidence for such...they stick to paradigms even when there is substantial observational evidence which calls those paradigms into question.

Some religions are as you describe, but not all of them.

 

[jbark]

Saidan - knew youd show up here sooner or later!

I need you to be more specific - are you refering to the belief in the tibetan book of the dead that death mAy be averted by making a small effigy of oneself, poking holes in it and filling them with bits of your own skin hair and blood and defecating on it before burying it near a stream?

Or perhaps the pan-buddhist assertion in the cycle of life, reincarnation and the ultimate attainment after death of buddahood/enlightenment? If this has been verifiable by objective repeatable means, please, educate me!

Or provide specific examples with attendant proofs that i can accept or refute. And please no empirical "ginseng proofs" : i.e. Millions of chinese for thousands of years can't be wrong. If that were the case the issue of gods existence would have been settled eons ago.

JBArk

 

[Saidin]

Would you ask a scientist or a religious man the following questions: "Why is there volcanic eruptions?". Or perhaps "What is the genetic code?", or "What basic elements is life composed of?" etc. And beliefs are not the same as facts for christ sakes..

Would you ask a scientist or a religious man the following questions: "What are morals?" "What are values whether economic, aesthetic or moral?" "What is the meaning of life or its purpose?"

There is not one route to everything, and science and religion are not incompatible, they just answer different questions.

 

[Citta]

Would you ask a scientist or a religious man the following questions: "Why is there volcanic eruptions?". Or perhaps "What is the genetic code?", or "What basic elements is life composed of?" etc. And beliefs are not the same as facts for christ sakes..

Would you ask a scientist or a religious man the following questions: "What are morals?" "What are values whether economic, aesthetic or moral?" "What is the meaning of life or its purpose?"

There is not one route to everything, and science and religion are not incompatible, they just answer different questions.

And this is exactly the point I was trying to make, saying that science and religion is NOT the same thing, and that religion is not concerned with answering the same questions as science is and vice versa (or so it ought to be). Read my post again.

 

[Citta]

Well then, if we follow your logic nothing exists as facts until experienced by yourself... Nice one. That is for me just plainly stupid. Can you see the implications of following that logic? "Nah, Hitlers existence is not a fact because I didn't experience him."

Examples of the definition of a "fact":

"Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact."

"A truth verifiable from experience or observation"

"An event or thing known to have happened or existed"

 

[jbark]

Ya - looks unfortunately that i was the one that hit a nerve. You clearly havent considered my points fully. I have elaborated, made concessions and even arrived at a defintion i thought would be acceptable for all.

And i a met with sarcasm, which we all know is the last refuge of... But youre better than that ya.. But youre clearly taking this personally so ill take my ball and go home.

Too bad. I respect you and your beliefs even if you dont respect mine enough not to resort to sarcasm.And how are you different fron burnt, exactly, ya?

And dont lump me in with burnt. I always give consideration to everyones point of view an never resort to insults or the basest sarcasm.

Thought this was a discussion, a healthy debate...

Bye

JBArk the exasperated

 

[Godspark]

And please no empirical "ginseng proofs" : i.e. Millions of chinese for thousands of years can't be wrong.

"facts" that we believe because we or others can attest to their veracity and have subjected them to rigorous proofs.

Isn't this the same trap?

ever been to africa? India? mexico? If not how do you know they exist? Is the existence of africa a fact only if you have been there? And only if you have scrutinized every square inch of the continent?

No, I rely on many others to tell me they exist. Just as the buddist monks tell us Nirvana exists. I haven't been there either.

 

[Saidin]

Saidan - knew youd show up here sooner or later!

I need you to be more specific

Or perhaps the pan-buddhist assertion in the cycle of life, reincarnation and the ultimate attainment after death of buddahood/enlightenment? If this has been verifiable by objective repeatable means, please, educate me!

Hey, went to bed last night with no new discussion on this topic, to wake up this morning to find two whole new pages...had to catch up!

I am refering to thought experiments such as the transient nature of our own existence, impermanance (ie life cycle/reincarnation). Where a rigid set of steps (methodology) are taken in order to provide the framework for contemplation, and having the results of these experiments/experiences repeated by skillful meditators over thousands of years. A carefully constructed experiment repeatable by anyone who has attained the skill through learning and practice.

A practice that takes as much time and experience to cultivate as it takes a physicist to learn and understand mathmatics so that they can repeat and verify the work of those who came before.

I didn't say it could be verified by repeatable objective means. They can be verified subjectively, by using methodoligoes that have been refined objectively.

 

[jbark]

Godspark- if you honestly cant ditinguish between your examples then there really is no point in continuing the discussionn with you.I respectfully agree to disagree with you.

JBArk

 

[Godspark]

Godspark- if you honestly cant ditinguish between your examples then there really is no point in continuing the discussionn with you.I respectfully agree to disagree with you.

JBArk

But I just started!

 

[Saidin]

And this is exactly the point I was trying to make, saying that science and religion is NOT the same thing, and that religion is not concerned with answering the same questions as science is and vice versa (or so it ought to be). Read my post again.

Then I am agreeing with you. They are not asking the same questions. There are certain questions science cannot answer, so they shouldn't try to answer them...as in what are values, morals, etc.

Same with religion, there are certain questions that they cannot answer and shouldn't try to...as in why does a volcano erupt? What is the process of plate techtonics, etc.

We need both, as they each seek to answer different and incompatible questions about the nature of existence. It is not science or religion, it is science and religion. Though I would personally use the word spirituality rather than religion, as religions often try to answer questions outside their purvue.

 

[burnt]

To Ya:

There is a difference between believing things based on faith and believing things based on evidence. I believe in things based on evidence and sometimes that thing called 'common sense' which can be wrong of course. There is also something humbling about being able to question your own experiences and learn from them in a rational manner.

To Saidin:

The reason I get annoyed about things like: alternative medicine and physics being misused to promote pseudoscience is that its a major problem going on between the public and science community these days. Scientific illiteracy is rampant and its a shame. I don't expect people to spend their whole day thinking about science or understand everything scientists spew out.

What I try to encourage is a critical attitude to some of the prevailing myths dominating not just the psychedelic drug culture but modern society in general. Its because science is my career and my passion and I wish people would pay more attention to the good science and stop supporting the BS which is expanding exponentially due to the internet. Scientists need to help restore the public trust in science and the public needs to pay more attention to what scientists are really trying to convey. This distrust directly affects me and I've have encounters with members of the pseudoscience field and they were worse then I thought. They are creating serious problems in my field of study. I am not going to get into details its too personal.

I really just want to help people think and learn. That's why I get pissed off. But to be honest I've learned a lot from you all and that's why I keep coming back even after I storm off because of conscious rocks or whatever. Understand for me this isn't just some internet debate its part of the debate I have to face often in my profession. I am totally to blame when I freak out and I admit sometimes I take out my frustrations here and its immature but I am trying to stop doing that.

 

[jbark]

Godspark- if you honestly cant ditinguish between your examples then there really is no point in continuing the discussionn with you.I respectfully agree to disagree with you.

JBArk

But I just started!

Did you read the rest of the thread? I thought i had addressed these points ad nauseum. if i have done so ineffectually i humbly submit my apologies for communicating them badly. But i am too exhausted/exasperated to revisit and rephrase them!

cheers,

JBArk

 

[Godspark]

Godspark- if you honestly cant ditinguish between your examples then there really is no point in continuing the discussionn with you.I respectfully agree to disagree with you.

JBArk

But I just started!

Did you read the rest of the thread? I thought i had addressed these points ad nauseum. if i have done so ineffectually i humbly submit my apologies for communicating them badly. But i am too exhausted/exasperated to revisit and rephrase them!

cheers,

JBArk

Yes and I actually agree with most of your logic. However, my point in quoting your two contrasting examples was to highlight your example against empirical buddist belief based on third party opinion as being the same as as you having concluded from simplicities' sake that other peoples opinions based off of their rigorous proof testing as 'fact' seperates the CNS subjectivity.

I have never been to Africa so if a professor shows me a picture of it, how will I know that that really is Africa? His and his colleagues credentials? I sound ignorant don't I? If a buddist monk told me he has been enlightened and has seen Nirvana, and tells me his ancestors of thousands of years have seen it aswell, how can I trust that he is telling me the truth any more than the professor? This all comes down to picking and choosing who to believe more. Question everything, however we should be careful not to discredit that which we do not know.

 

[Saidin]

To Saidin:

The reason I get annoyed about things like: alternative medicine and physics being misused to promote pseudoscience is that its a major problem going on between the public and science community these days. Scientific illiteracy is rampant and its a shame. I don't expect people to spend their whole day thinking about science or understand everything scientists spew out.

What I try to encourage is a critical attitude to some of the prevailing myths dominating not just the psychedelic drug culture but modern society in general. Its because science is my career and my passion and I wish people would pay more attention to the good science and stop supporting the BS which is expanding exponentially due to the internet. Scientists need to help restore the public trust in science and the public needs to pay more attention to what scientists are really trying to convey. This distrust directly affects me and I've have encounters with members of the pseudoscience field and they were worse then I thought. They are creating serious problems in my field of study. I am not going to get into details its too personal.

I really just want to help people think and learn. That's why I get pissed off. But to be honest I've learned a lot from you all and that's why I keep coming back even after I storm off because of conscious rocks or whatever. Understand for me this isn't just some internet debate its part of the debate I have to face often in my profession. I am totally to blame when I freak out and I admit sometimes I take out my frustrations here and its immature but I am trying to stop doing that.

Thank you. I now have a far better understanding of where you are coming from, and agree with your reasoning. Obviously this is your passion, and you are following it with your whole being...who in life can ask for more than that? :d I have always said I value your contributions to discussions very much, even though we often do not agree. You help me understand things from a perspective and an educational/experiential knowledge base I do not have. This in turn help me learn and grow. I have never had issue with your ideas, it is more the way they are presented.

One question I have though. Is it psuedoscience (or paradigms that are not commonly accepted by the mainstream, as some of their theories are based on solid scientific evidence) that is to blame, or is it the educational system?

And if it is the educational system, who and/or what is trying to keep our youth in a state of confusion or ignorance? Hint: the answer is not religion...accept in Texas, but we've known they've been fucked up forever!

 

[endlessness]

Saidin, I agree education is where it's at, both in terms of problems and in terms of solutions. What I dont agree though (if thats what you're implying) that there is a centralized control over education made to keep us dumb. I think there might be some of that but there is also just plain inertia, misinformed good intentions with bad consequences, lack of funding, vices and reflection of the established system, etc. Also it varies a lot in different countries....

Actually I think Im gonna start a thread on education


oh and burnt: nice honest self-aware post! We all have our issues, but its important you self-reflect Your contributions to the forum are very much welcome and when you bring scientific knowledge it greatly helps those on the path that dont have the possibilities and can learn from that and use it productively. I know im certainly learning in this forum all the time

 

[burnt]

Its partially education, its partially mass media, and its partially the scientists themselves.

Education is the most important issue. Science education is continually getting worse all across the board. I don't know how much is the teachers, student or school boards fault I am sure each case is slightly different.

Mass media is just insane. Just watch national geographic channel half of their programs are pure pseudoscience these days. It was not always that way. Science journalism is more sensationalist then accurate and honest.

The scientists often hide in their "ivory tower" and don't care that the public is confused until it bites them in the ass. This also needs to change and I think slowly it is.

 

[Saidin]

Saidin, I agree education is where it's at, both in terms of problems and in terms of solutions. What I dont agree though (if thats what you're implying) that there is a centralized control over education made to keep us dumb. I think there might be some of that but there is also just plain inertia, misinformed good intentions with bad consequences, lack of funding, vices and reflection of the established system, etc. Also it varies a lot in different countries....

I didn't mean to imply there was a conspiracy...am I even allowed to say that word even in denying that is what is going on? Tough in my opinion, only governments that have something to hide from the common populace would engage in something so self destructive in the long term, intentional or not. And we all know that the government (at least in the US) is not what controls the agenda, but rather the corporations...and that can lead down all sorts of rabbit holes.

My main point was that religion wasn't the problem...

We all rely on our children, and their children to move us forward as a society. I am appaled that educaton is the first thing that government cuts when there is a lack of money. I am of the opinion that education should be the number one funding priority of any nation or culture, as they are the future of that society. An uneducated populace only spells stagnation and decay. I mean, the US has spent 1 trillion dollars on Irag and Afganistan in the last few years (Thank you for all those who have made the choice to serve in the military!)..money which instead could have been spent to send every single solitary child to four years of university for the next 50 years, at least. It is a matter of priorities.

There are a multitude of factors that go into it. I at one time was a teacher (of Engligh literature) and to see how the funding is misappropiated, and cut, and the burecracy that goes into school systems saddened me. Even pay to play(learn) colleges and universities have their own forms of control in the "publish or perish" system. You have to publish to teach, but you can only publish that which is comfortable by mainstrem ideas, therefore there is even a lack of diversity in that which is taught in universities.

 

[Saidin]

Its partially education, its partially mass media, and its partially the scientists themselves.

Education is the most important issue. Science education is continually getting worse all across the board. I don't know how much is the teachers, student or school boards fault I am sure each case is slightly different.

Mass media is just insane. Just watch national geographic channel half of their programs are pure pseudoscience these days. It was not always that way. Science journalism is more sensationalist then accurate and honest.

The scientists often hide in their "ivory tower" and don't care that the public is confused until it bites them in the ass. This also needs to change and I think slowly it is.

I agree. The media is insane. I in fact got rid of my televison a couple weeks ago, I just could not stand it anymore the nonsense and programming used to distract and sell worthless crap. You can find anything you want on the internet anyway nowadays...at first there were withdrawls, but not I'm feeling pretty good!

In universities I would contend it is the publish requirement. Monies coming from government or private corporations who have their own agendas which may or may not coincide with good sound education. If an energy company is providing the majority of sourcing for a university, they are not going to be interested in any inventions which will make thier business obsolete. And that gets filtered into the educational system. If it is not deliberate, it is implied and trickles down...

Things are happening so fast it is hard to keep up...our technology is progressing faster than our ability to understand just what we are creating...and with lack of knowledge comes danger.

 

[Saidin]

I haven't read this whole thread, nor have I really bothered reading from any of the other 2012 threads, but isn't 2012 just the Mayan version of Y2K? Its the same hype machine isn't it? "Oooooh look out. All the computers in the world are going to fail simultaniously, it'll be chaos!" And we all saw how that one turned out. Planes dropping from the sky, ATM's belching stacks of cash rendering currency worthless, massive power outages world wide, famine, disease...oh wait a second...that's not right...I remember now...NOTHING HAPPENED...

No. It is not the same.

In fact they are nothing alike. I suggest you read the thread and/or do some research as to the true meaning of 2012 which is a metaphor, not an actual date. It has nothing do to with main stream media/end of the world nonsense.