Why mainstream science contradicts itself

[benzyme]

no, y'all are wrong.

science is part of the grand conspiracy to suppress spirituality.

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

science is part of the grand conspiracy to suppress spirituality.

exactly! see the illuminati was influenced by alchemy, but they knew the spiritual truths contained therein were too great for the ordinary man, so they devised a plot to separate the spirituality out of alchemy, into what is now known as "science"

i even have a conspiracy pyramid chart and everything (its like a food pyramid, only instead of telling you what to eat and how much, it tells you what secret societies to hate, and how much you should hate them.)

Spoiler

DISCLAIMER:
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

 

[Citta]

You are correct, I did not choose my words carefully. Totally wrong is an exaggeration. The point I was inferring, and which I did not expand upon, is that what we think of as true today may not necessarily be so tomorrow. Paradigms shift all the time, and saying the world is a certain way today does not mean we will have the same understanding tomorrow.

Then I understand you, and agree completely with the fact that our theories and perspectives on the world changes. This is the provisional nature of science, which is one of its greatest virtues.

One can make that argument easily. Just because their worldview is not the same as the western variety does not mean it lacks validity or truth. I am sure they have their own version of the story as to how life evolved, how the earth was made, how the planets came into being, etc. Questions that have not been answered beyond a doubt by science.

No, but it doesn't mean they are right either. I wouldn't put my money on their alternative stories of how life evolved, how the earth was made and how the planets came into being. They have myths, religious/shamanic beliefs without any foundation except for their metaphysical systems build upon their hallucinogenic and shamanic experiences. This hardly counts for verifiable and real knowledge. They will with all likelihood talk about hidden, spiritual forces in Nature, Gods and spirits and similar things. These are fairy tales anyone can cough up with, and western society left much of that behind during the Age of Enlightenment.

There are certain questions you pose that are in contradiction even among scientists. How the sun works for example, how the earth was made, how life evolved...

There is some agreement in a lot of these questions. Evolution is how life evolved, confirmed to a great extent, and the majority of scientists agree this is the case. Sure, we miss details, we will always miss some details, but we have a general picture and can explain a hell of a lot with this. Our understanding of how the solar system and specifically earth was made might be limited, but progress is made by cycling through the scientific process of hypothesis, prediction, measurement, theory, and hypothesis... We understand more everyday, and there are great models and ideas that are consistent with data, consistent with laws and prior understanding. We know a lot, yet we know little. When it comes to the sun we have a great general picture of how it works, but we are missing details here as well.

Now, let's not dwell too much into that, but remember the fact that I wrote "Many of these questions however, can't be answered by shamans accurately and to the extent modern society and scientists can". I did not say all of these questions can be answered, and I also highlighted that shamans can't answer many of them accurately the way we can, and (I should have written or) to the extent we can. Now, if these shamans have such a good understanding of how the universe works, they surely should have some say in these questions, perhaps even more than we can in certain of them. Moreover, I wrote that even we don't understand that much - again highlighting our ignorance in many questions - but that we sure as hell have come further than Amazonian shamans in many areas.

They cure diseases all the time, stories abound how cancer has been cured, depression, mental disorders...Modern medicine has learned an enormous amount from shamans, and given them none of the credit. The internet, landing people on the moon, launching satellites, how big the earth is, how much it weighs, how far it is to the sun, etc, all seem to be irrelevant questions from an indiginous perspective.

But there are also many diseases they don't have a chance to cure, but that we can cure. If they have such a good understanding of how the universe works and how to cure disease, how come life expectancy is so short in Amazonian tribes far out into the jungle? How come they have so bad teeth? Their average life expectancy at birth doesn't even reach 50 in many areas, and many of them die young because of infections and parasitic disease that we fight off easily because of our understanding of how the universe works and consequently our good understanding of said infections and disease. Average life expectancy within tribal settings in general tends to be low, typically less than thirty years of age, primarily due to high levels of infant and child mortality. Their health and life expectancy is similar to what we had more than 150 years ago, when modern medicine and modern science were in its early phases.

And yes, there are stories of how cancer is cured, but stories are just stories and should not be taken at face value unless reproduced. And what is this enormous amount that modern medicine has learned from shamans? If we learned that much from shamans, isn't it strange they don't manage to cure a variety of infections and disease that we actually can? Or are you going to argue that this is irrelevant for them?

As for the questions you said seems unimportant to them, this is too simple of an answer. You can't bypass the fact that they don't really have such a good understanding of how the universe works simply by hand-wavering it away with "it is not so important for them to know such and such".

These people have a much better understanding about how we are all connected, how life works symbiotically, how we are connected to nature and each other. A much greater understanding about consciousness, which is the fundamental property of the universe from a primacy of consciousness perspective. Some cultures knew about the center of the galaxy before science even knew that we were in a galaxy!

I already said that they might have perspectives and principles that are far healthier than what many of us here in a modern society has, and I mentioned the connection and care for nature and the importance of family etc. But just understanding or having a perspective of how we are connected to nature in ways many people here don't think doesn't mean they have a good understanding of how the universe works. A hippie can preach all he wants about how everything is connected to everything else, but ask him about something concrete about how the universe functions and he is probably going completely blue. The same goes for many shamans (for example in questions I raised in the last post, which are direct and concrete questions about how the universe works).

Furthermore, endlessness asked you how come there are many indigenous people wanting to get western education and knowledge? If they have such a good understanding, surely they wouldn't need this education at all. These people are primitive in so many ways, Saidin, and yes, you seem to be idealizing them. They have a bunch of irrational beliefs without any foundation, they make animal sacrifices and so on. They simply got left behind when much of the rest of the world made significant progress in philosophy, secular values, ethics, politics, science and knowledge about the universe. In many areas, these people are where modern society was hundreds, even thousands of years ago.

Also, what do you mean they have a "much greater understanding" of consciousness? Do they really? I doubt it. And this center of the galaxy thing, what culture, what did they know? I can also start talking about how the ancient Greeks "knew" that the earth was not flat, or that the sun was the center of our solar system and not us, but our modern society and modern science still knows a lot more than what these people did ages ago.

Now, I agree with you that indigenous people may have healthier perspectives on some things, they may have more effective therapautical techniques to cure a sick mind in many instances and so on. I am also glad you have not said they know more than us, but claiming they have a pretty good understanding of how the universe works is a pretty long shot, and they clearly don't.

 

[endlessness]

And how comes some shamans are completely opposed to another and have opposing views of how the universe works and what is 'right' or 'wrong', which one is right?

Sounds like you're idealizing shamans. Not to say we can't learn from them some things (like related to sustainability or social organization), but to say they know more about the universe is a wild claim, and the burden of proof is on you to show in what way.

Just as scientists are completely opposed to one another and have opposing views of how the universe works. For example: Big Bang vs Electric Universe or any of the other contradicting cosmological theories that are out there.

I never said they know MORE about the universe. I said they have a pretty good idea, one that has likely been passed down generation to generation for thousands of years. More consistent and less likely to change than our own. Just because their theories or explanations are different than modern interpretations (all ranging from wild to educated guesses) does not mean they are invalid or wrong.

I don't idealize shamans, but when one has experienced inexplicable, dare I say miraculous things they have facilitated one would naturally give a bit of credence to what they have to say about who we are and why we are here...

Saying scientists are completely opposed is false. "Electric universe" ? Are you serious? Show me peer reviewed publications from good journals about it. Did you google "electric universe debunked" ?

That's pseudoscience, not science. Also it's the evidence that matters, scientific knowledge has to adapt to evidence, not the other way around. Sure in some manners there are different theories and ways to interpret, but that is far from being 'completely opposed'. In fact, so that scientists disagree, they do it in an informed manner and they have a lot of previous knowledge they agree on, before they can suggest alternative models based on the evidence.

As for Shamans knowledge being reliable, im still waiting for examples. You're just being generic and not presenting much of an argument. You say they are "less likely to change", how is that a positive argument? The church ideas are also less likely to change and they've been there for long, and that doesn't mean they are right. That's appeal to tradition fallacy.

 

[Citta]

I never said they know MORE about the universe. I said they have a pretty good idea, one that has likely been passed down generation to generation for thousands of years. More consistent and less likely to change than our own. Just because their theories or explanations are different than modern interpretations (all ranging from wild to educated guesses) does not mean they are invalid or wrong.

Apart from what endlessness commented on in this post, I would like to add to the excerpt here. You say shamans have a pretty good idea, one that has likely been passed down generation to generation for thousands of years. Sure, I don't dispute that ideas were passed down through generations. But the fact that it has been passed down generation to generation, more consistent and less likely to change than our own shows its weakness. Their "knowledge" is dogmatic, not subject to change and new evidence if this is indeed the case. Our knowledge and our science is subject to great change. We constantly figure new things out, falsify hypotheses, refine theories, make new and better hypotheses, make new and better observations and get better and better theories and models. This is the provisional nature of our science and understanding - it is open minded, it is not dogmatic, it is subject to change and revision and it goes where the evidence is.

Can this be said about shamanic beliefs when they are passed down generation after generation, with little change? Nope. These shamans don't have a pretty good understanding of how the universe works, do they? I think their unfounded beliefs just resonates with your own (no offense intended).

 

[endlessness]

I understand when people feel opposed to a bleak, depressive, mechanical view of the universe, when people are critical of powers that be, when people criticise some scientists' attitude, when people feel there is more to living than just rationality, etc. I agree with these sentiments.

But you see, this is NOT science. Science doesn't say 'if it isnt proven, it doesnt exist', science neither says 'any subjective experience that isn't explained directly by current scientific knowledge is not valid/worthy'. Once again: science is a method, a systematic process to gather a certain kind of knowledge, pure and simple.

I wonder if you'd trust a shaman to be the engineer and make the revision for the airplanes you travel with. I wouldn't.

For being a sitter/facilitator during an ayahuasca trip, maybe I would trust one, as I have before, but even than, not just because they are indigenous I would idealize them, it woud depend who I would trust. Some are good some are bad, some may not care about you or ask if you're taking medications while some would, some would add datura while others not, some may be charlatans, some may honestly believe what they do and yet be harmful in their actions or be very off in their ideas etc etc.

Also it's important to have critical thinking, which seems some people end up forgetting. It's like going from one extreme to another, as soon as you think the current paradigm doesn't resonate with what you think, then anything else is ok, the wildest speculations and crackpot theories, as long as you believe in them and they arent against your ideas, it's justified. And all because "science doesn't know everything', which is the famous 'god of the gaps'.

Existance can still be a mistery and a miracle even if you explain and understand the patterns and how it happens through scientific knowledge. Even if I know exactly how a tree photosynthesizes, I still think that is a miracle. The fact that anything exists at all is amazing! Maybe you need a levitating shaman and disagreing scientists to think it's a miracle?

 

[Saidin]

Saying scientists are completely opposed is false. "Electric universe" ? Are you serious? Show me peer reviewed publications from good journals about it. Did you google "electric universe debunked" ?

That's pseudoscience, not science. Also it's the evidence that matters, scientific knowledge has to adapt to evidence, not the other way around. Sure in some manners there are different theories and ways to interpret, but that is far from being 'completely opposed'. In fact, so that scientists disagree, they do it in an informed manner and they have a lot of previous knowledge they agree on, before they can suggest alternative models based on the evidence.

As for Shamans knowledge being reliable, im still waiting for examples. You're just being generic and not presenting much of an argument. You say they are "less likely to change", how is that a positive argument? The church ideas are also less likely to change and they've been there for long, and that doesn't mean they are right. That's appeal to tradition fallacy.

Yes, I am serious about Electric Universe Theory. I infer by your response that the depth of your research into the theory is your above mentioned google search. Funny, I did a google search on Big Bang Debunked and got 188,000 results. Funny how that is don't you think? Psuedoscience? Hardly. It explains the evidence much much better than Big Bang Cosmology.

Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology can explain 90-95% of the universe based on current observations without magical and unproven components like inflation, dark energy and dark matter (Big Bang Theory can explain 4-5% of what we have observed). It also offers an explanation of redshift that matches observations rather than ignoring data that contradicts current models. For example two galaxies that are physically connected but have such varying redshifts that one should be billions of light years away from its companion. Or some galaxies that are so far redshifted they would have to be traveling away from us faster than the speed of light.

Peer reviewed articles are meaningless, though I'm sure there are some out there. One can write all the papers they want about a paradigm that is incorrect and all they will do is corroborate an inaccurate model of the universe. You can reference all the peer reviewed articles you want that say that 2+2=5, it does not make it so. Not to mention that the number of peer reviewed articles that are being retracted has never been higher in the history of science. It appears that an ever increasing number of modern scientists like to fabricate data in order to get themselves published and advance their careers...

I agree that critical thinking is important. Unfortunately there are many who get trapped by the blinders of a paradigm they assume to be correct and then lose their own ability to think critically. Of course when a current paradigm doesn't resonate with what someone KNOWS, or what the evidence suggests, then one begins searching for theories or ideas that better explain what the evidence shows. Just because the theories are different than what we have been TOLD and CONDITIONED to believe, does not make them crackpot or invalid.

As for Shamans knowledge being reliable, im still waiting for examples. You're just being generic and not presenting much of an argument. You say they are "less likely to change", how is that a positive argument? The church ideas are also less likely to change and they've been there for long, and that doesn't mean they are right. That's appeal to tradition fallacy.

I'm not personally a shaman, so I wouldn't dare to speculate. It is true, I am being generic. Arguing more against scientific dogmaticism and the materialist worldview than for a paradigm I am not familiar enough with to list concrete examples. Less likely to change is a positive argument if the paradigm is true. Why change or alter a theory if it is the best current explanation? A paradigm developed through thousands of years of consciousness expansion and verified generation after generation. As for the church, can you say with 100% certainty that their paradigm is false? It doesn't mean they are right, but it doesn't mean they are wrong either...

 

[The Traveler]

I did a google search on Big Bang Debunked and got 188,000 results.

Did you actually look into those claims? You might find some surprising results when you do. Or are you only cherry picking the things that agree with you?

And many people here seem to think that the Big Bang theory is a theory about how the universe started, and they are wrong. The Big Bang theory is about what happened right AFTER it started. Some things in the theory still have question marks but it has a lot of evidence that keeps growing seemingly every day.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[Saidin]

I did a google search on Big Bang Debunked and got 188,000 results.

Did you actually look into those claims? You might find some surprising results when you do. Or are you only cherry picking the things that agree with you?

And many people here seem to think that the Big Bang theory is a theory about how the universe started, and they are wrong. The Big Bang theory is about what happened right AFTER it started. Some things in the theory still have question marks but it has a lot of evidence that keeps growing seemingly every day.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

No, I didn't look into those claims. Didn't need to as I was just highlighting how useless it is to claim a generalized google search as evidence to prove a point. And if I were using it to make an argument, of course I would cherry pick the points that support my argument...isn't that what everyone does when trying to prove a point? You highlight that which supports your point and leave out that which contradicts it, otherwise you are just arguing with yourself. :?:

Just as Big Bang Theorists ignore or leave out the evidence that contradicts their point of view...such as the obvious discrepencies in red shift evidence, or that the three main factors in their theory are theoretical and have no direct observational evidence: inflation, dark energy, dark matter. Or that gravatational models don't take spin into account at all, nor can it adequately explain how the sun operates. There was even an article recently stating that computer models cannot replicate supernovae. No matter how hard they try, they can't get a computer model to get a star to blow up....hmmm. This is a process that Electric Universe theory explains.

The fact is, whether you agree with it or not, that Electric Universe theory does a much better job of describing how the currently observed universe actually works without having to come up with invisible and yet to be proven stuff to make their equations work. Is it right? I do not know, I just know that a 90+% explanation of the observed universe is much better than 5%.

 

[Солярис]

thoughtsunthought

 

[Citta]

Saidin;

Have you actually read the (very good) criticism of Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology, or have you just been reading about it at these dodgy, pro Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe internet sites that is pretty packed full with appeal to the "lonely guys opposing the mainstream" stuff, without that much concrete in it? It doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny as far as I can tell from browsing a little bit around, and is actually wrong in several instances (for example this Electric Sun stuff).

I might have looked in the wrong places, so perhaps you can be as kind as to give me some good references where I can see how it really is a viable alternative to standard Big Bang Cosmology? Also, do you have a sound understanding of standard Big Bang cosmology and how much it actually explains? You see, it is quite easy to get caught into these dodgy internet sites and dodgy hypotheses when you're not actually a physicist (assuming you don't have a degree in physics). Of course there is problems with Big Bang Cosmology, but these are well acknowledged and worked on everyday, but in order for this stuff you are proposing to be viable it must offer good solutions to these problems, as well as explain everything else the standard models already do. So far I have not really seen anything concrete and promising. I would like to see some of the real stuff, without the appeal to "few brave pioneers fighting the oppression of the mainstream dogma" all over the place.

 

[endlessness]

Saidin.

I had come across this Electric Universe story in the past, I've researched a bit around and discussed with a physicist who showed me the arguments of why it was wrong. Searching for ¨ debunk X" or "criticism X" is something very important to do IMO when you're trying to inform yourself of a subject.

The validity of an argument is not based on how many times it appears on google search but what the argument is and how it stands against scrutiny. I just clicked the big bang debunked search results. Some are based on religious arguments and not scientific ones, some are completely not referenced and impossible to check the validity of claims, some are based on talking about M-Brane theory (which is not necessarily opposed to Big Bang but rather just extending that big bang is not The Beginning of Everything but just what happened after possible brane collisions), some other pseudo-science criticisms have been debunked themselves already ("big bank debunked" debunked), etc. As Citta said, sure there are still questions to be answered and pieces of the puzzle missing, but at the same time there's a lot of evidence towards it (higgs boson anyone?). And if evidence shows otherwise in the future, that's great, then the model must be changed and adapted, it's not a problem, it's how it works.

The electric universe criticism, on the other hand, leaves several very important and well founded questions, from my layman perspective. But I really dont care about it, you're the one mentioning it. Maybe you like alternative theories because you're against anything coming from mainstream science? But you see, to me it doesn't matter if it's mainstream or not, once again, SCIENCE IS A METHOD, if the electric universe (or any other) theory is right, the FACTS will talk, regardless of whether it is generally accepted or not, and eventually it HAS to be accepted if it's right and a reliable model. That's the beauty of science.

You can't use science just when it suits you, for exmaple 'science doesn't know everything, shamans can make miracles', but at the same time 'scientific data shows electric universe is right'. I mean come on, don't you see the obvious contradiction and cherry picking of arguments just because it fits your beliefs? (and yes arguing with oneself is a must IMO). So you believe shamans make miracles, but at the same time you want to believe that scientifically, the big bang is wrong or that the electric universe is right, so science is part of your argument at some moment but not in another... If the use of science is so arbitrary, why dont you instead say that everything that lacks in the big bang theory is a miracle just like with the shamans, and believe that its all true? Or why dont you scrutinize your ideas about shamanism with science like you apparently seem to want to do with the electric universe and big bang?

Before talkign about others being dogmatic, maybe reflect a bit on your own position?

By the way, regarding scientific peer review, it is a great model, not perfect but definitely the most reliable there is. Instead of criticising, why dont you propose an alternative model? Should we just trust whatever someone says, or "ask ayahuasca if its right"? Have you ever published a paper before? It's an interesting process and makes you have to be way more careful with what you post. The published papers mention the method used with the research so fabricated data can be found out by simply repeating the method. Specially if it was some groundbreaking conclusion/results, you can bet your ass it would get repeated and debunked if it was a lie, so your argument doesn't really stand. Also when you say "more papers than ever are being retracted", first of all, source? Second of all, are you talking percentage or absolute values, because more papers than ever are being published. Third, a paper being retracted is actually an argument in favor of the system, its a great sign of how the system works because any lie or inacuracy eventually gets retracted even if it has passed unnoticed by the editors/reviewers at first.

Lastly, regarding the shamans, what evidence do you have that shamans have had the same models for thousands of years? Indigenous shamanism is very adaptative, which you can see clearly when going to the amazon, they learn and incorporate things from other tribes and even from the western world in their own model. As for the church being wrong, so now you're gonna argue that the dinosaurs didnt exist and that the earth is 5000 years old? LOL alright thats enough, have fun going against science when it suits you

 

[polytrip]

Saidin.

I had come across this Electric Universe story in the past, I've researched a bit around and discussed with a physicist who showed me the arguments of why it was wrong. Searching for ¨ debunk X" or "criticism X" is something very important to do IMO when you're trying to inform yourself of a subject.

The validity of an argument is not based on how many times it appears on google search but what the argument is and how it stands against scrutiny. I just clicked the big bang debunked search results. Some are based on religious arguments and not scientific ones, some are completely not referenced and impossible to check the validity of claims, some are based on talking about M-Brane theory (which is not necessarily opposed to Big Bang but rather just extending that big bang is not The Beginning of Everything but just what happened after possible brane collisions), some other pseudo-science criticisms have been debunked themselves already ("big bank debunked" debunked), etc. As Citta said, sure there are still questions to be answered and pieces of the puzzle missing, but at the same time there's a lot of evidence towards it (higgs boson anyone?). And if evidence shows otherwise in the future, that's great, then the model must be changed and adapted, it's not a problem, it's how it works.

The electric universe criticism, on the other hand, leaves several very important and well founded questions, from my layman perspective. But I really dont care about it, you're the one mentioning it. Maybe you like alternative theories because you're against anything coming from mainstream science? But you see, to me it doesn't matter if it's mainstream or not, once again, SCIENCE IS A METHOD, if the electric universe (or any other) theory is right, the FACTS will talk, regardless of whether it is generally accepted or not, and eventually it HAS to be accepted if it's right and a reliable model. That's the beauty of science.

You can't use science just when it suits you, for exmaple 'science doesn't know everything, shamans can make miracles', but at the same time 'scientific data shows electric universe is right'. I mean come on, don't you see the obvious contradiction and cherry picking of arguments just because it fits your beliefs? (and yes arguing with oneself is a must IMO). So you believe shamans make miracles, but at the same time you want to believe that scientifically, the big bang is wrong or that the electric universe is right, so science is part of your argument at some moment but not in another... If the use of science is so arbitrary, why dont you instead say that everything that lacks in the big bang theory is a miracle just like with the shamans, and believe that its all true? Or why dont you scrutinize your ideas about shamanism with science like you apparently seem to want to do with the electric universe and big bang?

Before talkign about others being dogmatic, maybe reflect a bit on your own position?

By the way, regarding scientific peer review, it is a great model, not perfect but definitely the most reliable there is. Instead of criticising, why dont you propose an alternative model? Should we just trust whatever someone says, or "ask ayahuasca if its right"? Have you ever published a paper before? It's an interesting process and makes you have to be way more careful with what you post. The published papers mention the method used with the research so fabricated data can be found out by simply repeating the method. Specially if it was some groundbreaking conclusion/results, you can bet your ass it would get repeated and debunked if it was a lie, so your argument doesn't really stand. Also when you say "more papers than ever are being retracted", first of all, source? Second of all, are you talking percentage or absolute values, because more papers than ever are being published. Third, a paper being retracted is actually an argument in favor of the system, its a great sign of how the system works because any lie or inacuracy eventually gets retracted even if it has passed unnoticed by the editors/reviewers at first.

Lastly, regarding the shamans, what evidence do you have that shamans have had the same models for thousands of years? Indigenous shamanism is very adaptative, which you can see clearly when going to the amazon, they learn and incorporate things from other tribes and even from the western world in their own model. As for the church being wrong, so now you're gonna argue that the dinosaurs didnt exist and that the earth is 5000 years old? LOL alright thats enough, have fun going against science when it suits you

As you may expect, i completely agree with endlessness here.

Some form of criticism towards science is even purely hypocritical and narcissistic. To think that YOU can have all the answers and insights into the nature of the universe, just by hanging around, doing nothing, smoking some pot or taking a psychedelic and getting visions, is on itself already a way too easy way of looking at the world. But then to critisize science because it sometimes debunks much of what´s seen in those visions. In other words: to say that the scientist is a fascist or a left-brain imperialist or something of that order, a person with a lower counsciousness, simply because a scientist works for years on to solve a problem.

If a scientist finds a flaw in one of his own arguments, he has to go back to where he started and start all over again. To think that a shaman or you, can know better than someone who works hard and systematically over a long period of time at solving a problem, simply by taking some drugs, hanging on the couch a bit and having some visions....how would that not be very narcissistic?

Sure, laying on your back, taking some drugs, many great questions may seem easy. In that sense your answers, or the shamans answers will always be superior to the scientists answers, as the scientist needs to come-up with some evidence, he needs to check his arguments for even minor inconsistency´s. And when his answer fails the test, it won´t pass.

Sure. It´s easy to call the need for proof or evidence, shortsighted. You or the shaman just 'know' it. But if a scientist would think that he has found a cure for cancer, wouldn´t you want him to wait with going public with this new finding, until he would be absolutely sure?

I´ve heard people saying that a scientific study on an alternative, herbal medicine was shortsighted because it showed the herbal medicine to be ineffective. The fact that statistically, the herb did not do any better than a placebo was easily being dismissed by these alternative-medicine guys with the words 'what does statistics mean anyway?'

So these people where even so lazy, intellectually, that they didn´t even managed to think about it for a second. Because if they hád, they would have realised that if indeed their herbal medicine would be effective, like they claimed, that should show up in the statistics: If a medicine realy does work better than a placebo, than if you treat over 100 people with it, you may expect it to cure more people than the placebo does.

A lot of this anti-left brain mob, may seem like people who´re nicely naive in an innocent sort of way. But hanging on the couch, smoking some pot all day, and then doing nothing but fiercely critisizing everybody who does actually do something with his life, is just being decadent.

 

[Citta]

Saidin;

Also, perhaps you should read more about dark matter and dark energy, to understand why we think it is there, as well as the convincing amount of (indirect) evidence we have for its presence. The following articles might also be good for you to read, essentially talking about some very serious evidence for dark matter;

The Daily Galaxy --Great Discoveries Channel

Great Discoveries Channel

www.dailygalaxy.com

1st dark matter bridge between galaxy clusters discovered

It is understood that matter in the cosmos forms a web, with galaxies and clusters linked by filaments across mostly empty space.

www.dnaindia.com

At any rate, you subscribing to Plasma Cosmology on the basis of the horrible state you think our standard models of cosmology are in is completely misplaced, because they are not severely threatened just yet - in fact, they keep getting confirmed by our most advanced experiments. Perhaps you should learn some real physics before jumping on all kinds of stuff that sounds cool and rebellious. At least then you can take a more informed position (again assuming you have no degree in physics).

 

[The Traveler]

No, I didn't look into those claims. Didn't need to as I was just highlighting how useless it is to claim a generalized google search as evidence to prove a point. And if I were using it to make an argument, of course I would cherry pick the points that support my argument...isn't that what everyone does when trying to prove a point? You highlight that which supports your point and leave out that which contradicts it, otherwise you are just arguing with yourself. :?:

So what you are saying is, is that for you it is more important to 'win the argument' than to find the truth? I mean, you would just cherry pick what supports your argument and click away the evidence that shows that your argument is wrong.

IMHO, That is a very unhealthy way to develop your ideas. You will stay stuck in your own world with ideas that are very likely wrong and you will never accept that there is more out there than only the ideas you agree on.

Redeveloping your ideas, checking them from the ground up and see if they are correct or not is one of the most fantastic things a human can do. Every new discovery is like a small moment of enlightenment where you get new insights. To me it seems so pointless to only stick to your cherry picked ideas to just 'win an argument'.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[Saidin]

LOL. You people are funny. You read into my comments your own projections while completely ignoring or glossing over what I actually said. You are all quite obviously defensive of your chosen paradigm...It has nothing to do with being a rebel, or going against the "man". Good attempt trying to ostracize and segregate me because I choose to disagree with the current set of belief blinders everyone seems so willing to wear. It truly is amazing the self regulating conformity apparatus at work in society.

Polytrip, you first: Your post is meaningless and irrelevant because of your ad hominem attack. Not once, nor twice, but three times you infer that I have nothing better to do with my life than sit on a couch smoking pot, along with other insults...perhaps you might be projecting just a tiny little bit? Come back and comment when you pull your own head out of your ass. :thumb_dow

As for the others. I have read many articles and watched many programs about current theories of how the universe is constructed. I understand the ideas behind dark energy and dark matter, probably as well as any of you. I just don't buy it. There are too many holes, any one of which is enough to seriously call into question the entire theory. In fact when a hole appears, they just come up with some new invisible, undetectable construct to keep their failing theory propped up. Now that's good science! Instead of throwing out the old FAILED model and looking for something new that better fits the OBSERVED evidence, they just patch up the existing one with fairy dust. :?

Dark Matter fairy dust was fabricated because existing gravitational models don't fit observations of galaxies. Therefore there much be some invisible stuff out there which we can't detect, and actually a shitload of it, because if it isn't then our models would be wrong.

Or for instance, if red shift doesn't work the way that they think it does, or there are exceptions that cannot be explained, then the idea of a rapidly expanding universe due to dark energy comes into serious question. There are such examples as I noted in a previous post...

The only reason I subscribe to Plasma Cosmology is because it better explains the universe we live in. Period.

Traveler:

No, it is not more important to win an argument, what is most important is to learn from it. So far no one has taught me anything, only belittled my positions while providing nothing but stock status quo answers to the relevant contradictions I have highlighted. I do read contradicting information about everything I research, weigh it all and make a choice based upon the current information available to me. But I'm not going to sit here either and him and haw about my position, supporting it in one sentence and contradicting it in another on a public message board. That's just intellectual masturbation and doesn't serve me, nor the community any good. It is not my responsibility in a discussion to contradict or provide alternative ideas/evidence to my own statements.

I'm tired, will possibly comment more tomorrow. Been a long day sitting on the couch smoking pot and taking drugs with nothing better to do than criticize everybody who actually does something with their life...

 

[Shamasi Wiz]

I know this will probably be tossed aside as mystical hogwash, but I love "what if"s, so I'm going to throw one out there. What if, as some scientists propose, we live in a multidimensional, probabilistic universe or multiverse? And what if, as some have expressed earlier in this thread, and some experiments can be interpreted as confirming...what if consciousness is a fundamental part of all matter in the universe?(Yes, Citta, even rocks and pre-molecular particles) Perhaps, then, figures like shamans have seen as deeply into one aspect of the universe as scientists have into other aspects.

Scientists use various tools to test/confirm their theories, and a good scientist can lend you their tools and show you evidence of whatever phenomena they may be trying to explain. That way, you don't have to just take their word for it. I believe the best shamans can do the same thing, using their years of training and psychedelic plants as tools. Maybe you can witness the beginning, or the Big Bang, but from a subjective/directly experienced perspective, rather than an objective/observed perspective. They don't have to contradict each other, as they're both pieces of the same puzzle. I'm sure many shamans would be thrilled to learn about all of the amazing discoveries that our scientists are making every day, and what scientist wouldn't love to see the world through the eyes of a masterful psychonaut? I wish psychedelics/shamanism could recruit the same numbers as the popular branches of scientific study. I think given the same amount of funding, training, and testing, the "results"(mystical experiences and other such magical ridiculousness) could be much more reproducible and applicable than they are now.

And one last what if: IF consciousness is a fundamental part of all matter, then that means our minds are interacting with and affecting the world around us, which could be taken further to say that we're all co-creators of the universe(not a new idea). If that's the case, and this is a multiverse, then maybe there are no absolute facts. Maybe the physical rules differ from person to person as much as they agree?

 

[polytrip]

LOL. You people are funny. You read into my comments your own projections while completely ignoring or glossing over what I actually said. You are all quite obviously defensive of your chosen paradigm...It has nothing to do with being a rebel, or going against the "man". Good attempt trying to ostracize and segregate me because I choose to disagree with the current set of belief blinders everyone seems so willing to wear. It truly is amazing the self regulating conformity apparatus at work in society.

Polytrip, you first: Your post is meaningless and irrelevant because of your ad hominem attack. Not once, nor twice, but three times you infer that I have nothing better to do with my life than sit on a couch smoking pot, along with other insults...perhaps you might be projecting just a tiny little bit? Come back and comment when you pull your own head out of your ass. :thumb_dow

I´m sorry if you feel that my comments where aimed at you personally. You may not believe this but i actually do like you, most of the times, as you seem to be unwilling to make compromises when it comes to things that realy matter to you. That is an indication that you have a property i like in people, wich is named 'spine'.

Luckily i can say that i´m not the type of person who likes to put things in his ass. I have never understood why some people seem to confuse the least attractive part of the human body for a sex organ. The fact that especially in catholic countries, a majority of people reports having had anal sex at least once in their lifes makes it seem as if declaring something a tabboo is the best way to make people want to do it. Something i don´t quite understand: can people not decide for themselves what they like? It doesn´t realy matter whether you do something because it´s tabboo or whether you don´t do something because it´s a tabboo: in both cases it´s the opinion of other people that rules your life and determines the choices you make.

Also, i think projecting becomes kind of hard, when you would indeed have managed to put your head into your ass. I cannot imagine what that would be like, except that having your head inside of your ass must be a realy horrible experience.

About smoking pot on the couch: yes, that was a little hard of me to say. But the point is ofcourse that some things in life are easier than others. The world as seen from the couch is not the same world as seen from other perspectives.

That does matter, because in this world, most of the time when people critisize eachother, it is from the perspective of the couch, the easy perspective. That certainly does apply to most criticisms towards science: the core of most of these criticisms is that you can just lay back or pray or whatever and you will simply 'know' that for instance the bible is true and evolution is not: god will just show you.

But to simply undergo an experience, and to have some feelings, etc, is ofcourse way easier than doing actual research.

So, when you don´t have to come-up with any evidence, when simply your faith is enough for an argument, i think the discussion is simply not fair. A scientist cannot simply say: 'you just have to belief', or 'i happen to feel about it that way'.

If you can simply dismiss something with 'i feel' or 'i belief', it´s not a fair discussion.

So therefore i use those mean words. Because i think that it´s very unfair to refute something from your own armchair or couch...it doesn´t realy matter whether it´s an ACTUAL armchair or couch: even homeless people who don´t even own armchairs or couches can be armchairphilosophers.

I have used some mean words because i think that 'armchair-arguments' are unfair. You can only dismiss a theory when you realy know what it´s about, when you have realy tried to understand it, when you have given it a 'fair chance'. So in my view, the 'i disagree because i feel...' is not just an intellectually weak answer, because that would not be so much of a problem. It is in my view also an immoral answer. Because it´s not fair.

 

[polytrip]

BTW, it is true ofcourse, that sometimes, scientist use armchair arguments as well. It happens that people refute herbal medicine or shamanism with the words that 'just some indian' claims it to be effective. It doesn´t matter who uses this type of argument, it is always wrong. Both intellectually and morally. If the reason to dismiss a claim that either a herb or a pill will cure a disease, simply is that it´s 'just some indian' or 'just a white man with a degree' who is saying that it will work, it´s in both cases short-sighted (and probably xenophobia-driven) and unfair. And also equally short-sighted and unfair.

I hope that people on both sides of the discussiun would agree with that.

 

[timothylearysdead]

Life's not fair